Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285980; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Bandstra, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Order dismissing plaintiff’s action for noneconomic losses due to her failure to post a $10,000 security bond.
The 16-year-old plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to her left spine for which she underwent multiple surgeries. In the process of investigating plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic losses, defendant asked plaintiff to identify people with whom she appeared in various photographs. After plaintiff responded that she either could not remember the names or was only able to supply first names, defendant asked the court to impose a security bond for costs, which the court granted. Upon plaintiff’s failure to pay the bond, the action was dismissed.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that under MCR 2.109(A), a court may impose a security bond if it finds a substantial reason for doing so. A substantial reason may exist if the plaintiff’s legal theory is tenuous or if there is reason to believe that a party’s allegations are groundless and unwarranted. In ordering the bond, the trial court failed to make any findings, but instead relied upon defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s failure to identify the people that appeared in the photos was obstructionist behavior which prejudiced defendants’ ability to defend its case. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that imposing a security bond is not an appropriate sanction to impose on a party for failure to cooperate with discovery requests. Instead, a party’s failure to cooperate with a discovery request is addressed in MCR 2.313, which provides for the appropriate sanctions. In this regard, the court stated:
“MCR 2.313 sets forth a procedure for handling evasive or incomplete answers, including appropriate sanctions. Defendants did not avail themselves of that process. In light of the procedure available under MCR 2.313, the purported evasiveness of plaintiff’s answers is not a ‘reasonable and proper’ basis and does not provide a ‘substantial reason’ for ordering a security bond pursuant to MCR 2.109(A). . . .
Because the standards applicable to ordering a security bond pursuant to MCR 2.109 were not met, the trial court’s decision to order plaintiff to post a $10,000 bond with surety was an abuse of discretion. In light of our decision, we need not address whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a waiver pursuant to MCR 2.109(B)(1).”
