Laurance H. Davis, Jr., Mary Jane R. Pike, Eva Marie Reynolds, and Rhoda G. Rentz, individually and in their capacities as the Limited Partners of Parkview Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Appellants,
Parkview Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Apartment Investment and Management Company a/k/a AIMCO, Insignia Financial Group, Incorporated, AmReal Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a U.S. Shelter Corporation, ISTC Corporation, N. Barton Tuck, Jr., and John Doe, a generic designation for a party or parties whose true identity is unknown, Respondents. Laurance H. Davis, Jr., Marvin D. McCarthy, James W. Ivey and Erin E. Ivey, individually and in their capacities as the Limited Partners of Palmetto Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Appellants,
Palmetto Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Apartment Investment and Management Company a/k/a AIMCO, Insignia Financial Group, Incorporated, AmReal Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a U.S. Shelter Corporation, ISTC Corporation, N. Barton Tuck, Jr., and John Doe, a generic designation for a party or parties whose true identity is unknown, Respondents. Laurance H. Davis, Jr., Rhoda G. Rentz, Mortimer M. Weinberg, Jr., Hodge Land Company, Incorporated, and Anna Trotter, individually and in their capacities as the Limited Partners of Roosevelt Gardens, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Appellants,
Roosevelt Gardens, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Apartment Investments and Management Company a/k/a AIMCO, Insignia Financial Group, Incorporated, AmReal Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a U.S. Shelter Corporation, ISTC Corporation, N. Barton Tuck, Jr., and John Doe, a generic designation for a party or parties whose true identity is unknown, Respondents. Carolina Management Corporation of Beaufort, James B. Jackson, Whaley R. Hinnant, Jr., Mary Gasser Rawl, and Rhoda G. Rentz, individually and in their capacities as the Limited Partners of Pinewood Park Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Appellants,
Pinewood Park Apartments, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Apartment Investment and Management Company a/k/a AIMCO, Insignia Financial Group, Incorporated, AmReal Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a U.S. Shelter Corporation, ISTC Corporation, N. Barton Tuck, Jr., and John Doe, a generic designation for a party or parties whose true identity is unknown, Respondents. Rhoda G. Rentz, Mary Jane Pike, Eva Marie Reynolds, and Joanne O. Mercy, individually and in their capacities as the Limited Partners of Orleans Gardens, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Appellants,
Orleans Gardens, a South Carolina Limited Partnership, Apartment Investment and Management Company a/k/a AIMCO, Insignia Financial Group, Incorporated, AmReal Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a USS Corporation a/k/a and f/k/a U.S. Shelter Corporation, ISTC Corporation, N. Barton Tuck, Jr., and John Doe, a generic designation for a party or parties whose true identity is unknown, Respondents Appellate Case Nos. 2010-180666, 2010-180087, 2010-180086, 2010-180088, 2010-176826.
Heard November 13, 2012
As Amended September 11, 2014.
Appeals From Beaufort, Charleston and Orangeburg Counties. Doyet A. Early III, Circuit Court Judge.
Thomas A. Pendarvis, of Pendarvis Law Offices, P.C., of Beaufort, and Joel D. Bailey, of The Bailey Law Firm, P.A., of Beaufort, for Appellants.
Ellis M. Johnston II, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Greenville, and Calvin Theodore Vick, Jr., of Harper Lambert & Brown, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents.
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL. BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part in a separate opinion.
[409 S.C. 270] TOAL, CHIEF JUSTICE:
Appellants appeal the circuit court's decision dismissing these related cases and awarding sanctions against Appellants. We affirm.
Appellants are limited partners in five separate limited partnerships and have asserted legal claims in five separate actions against their general partners, Respondents. Each of the limited partnerships owned separate apartment complexes in one of the three counties--Beaufort, Orangeburg, and Charleston. On appeal, each of the cases involves a different [409 S.C. 271] grouping of limited partners, different properties, and different facts.
In essence, the limited partnerships were formed in the 1960s to construct and operate the properties at issue, affordable housing projects for low-income citizens in the three
counties. Respondents became general partners around 1975, and from that point forward, Appellants took no part in the management or business affairs of the complexes. In 1984, Respondents notified Appellants that they had contracted to sell the properties to Boston Financial Group (BFG). The terms of the sale called for a small amount to be paid upfront but the majority would be paid in 1999 in a " balloon" payment with accruing interest. However, BFG defaulted on the payment, and sold the properties without intervention from the partnerships. All of the claims stem from Respondents' roles in selling the properties and their actions in the aftermath of BFG's default.
On April 22, 2003, certain Appellants filed the complaint in Davis v. Parkview Apartments (the Parkview case). On July 7, 2003, Respondents filed various motions, including a motion to dismiss certain claims against certain Respondents and a motion to strike or make more specific allegations contained in Appellants' complaint. The circuit court denied the motions. Appellants filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2004, alleging causes of action at law for damages, including, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and causes of action for equitable relief. On April 9, 2004, Respondents filed an Answer, setting forth a general denial and affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, the statute of limitations. On April 13, 2004, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss and other related motions. By order dated February 11, 2005, the court dismissed one cause of action, styled " bad faith," but denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining causes of action.
On October 13, 2005, certain Appellants filed complaints in Davis v. Palmetto Apartments (the Palmetto case) and Carolina Management Corporation of Beaufort v. Pinewood Park [409 S.C. 272] Apartments (the Pinewood Park case), and on October 17, 2005, certain Appellants then filed complaints in Rentz v. Orleans Gardens (the Orleans Gardens case) and Laurance Davis v. Roosevelt Gardens (the Roosevelt Gardens case). In each of these cases, the groups of Appellants alleged causes of action at law for damages, including, inter alia, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and causes of action for equitable relief. Respondents answered on January 17, 2006, setting forth a general denial and affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations.
By administrative order dated March 7, 2006, all five of the cases were assigned to Circuit Judge Doyet A. Early III " to hear and decide all pre-trial motions and other matters pertaining to these cases, including the trial and post-trial motions." The purpose of assigning the cases to a single circuit court judge was to " promote the effective and expeditious disposition of this litigation by uniform rulings and [to] conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary." However, these cases have never been consolidated.
The Record in this case is voluminous, and illustrates the complex and, at times, contentious nature of these proceedings. The circuit judge presided over numerous motion hearings and issued numerous orders over the course of this litigation. However, this appeal concerns a final order, dated April 9, 2010, and entitled " Order Granting Defendants' Two Motions for Sanctions, Finding Plaintiffs in Contempt of Court, and Dismissing the Above-Captioned Actions as Sanctions for Plaintiffs' Contempt" (the Dismissal Order), in which the circuit judge dismissed all of the cases and awarded fees and costs to Respondents as sanctions for Appellants' continued refusal to comply with his previous discovery rulings. In addition, Appellants appeal the judge's failure to disqualify himself at the outset of this litigation and late refusal to recuse himself.
From the outset, the statute of limitations emerged as an important issue in this case. On January 17, 2006, Respondents moved for summary judgment in the Palmetto, Orleans Gardens, and Roosevelt Gardens cases based on the affirmative defense that Appellants' legal claims in these cases were barred by the statute of limitations. In support of the
motion [409 S.C. 273] for summary judgment, Respondents served Appellants with Requests for Admission in order to ascertain the point at which Appellants became aware of the alleged injuries that they claimed. On February 13, 2007, the court denied the motion, granting Respondents leave to raise the statute of limitations defense again after the commencement of discovery in the cases.
Respondents again moved for summary judgment with respect to the statute of limitations issue in the Palmetto, Orleans Gardens, and Roosevelt Gardens cases. The judge held a hearing on the motion on November 19, 2007. On June 17, 2008, the circuit court denied Respondents' motion because " a genuine issue exists as to material facts involving the statute of limitations." 
[409 S.C. 274] On August 28, 2008, Respondents served Appellants with supplemental discovery requests. After granting Appellants additional time to file their responses, on November 6, 2008, Respondents filed a motion to compel Appellants to respond to their discovery requests. Appellants served their initial discovery responses on November 14, 2008, but Respondents chose to proceed with their motion to compel, claiming Appellants failed to answer their discovery requests completely. Respondents specifically sought to compel Appellants to provide full and complete responses to Respondents' interrogatories and the production of all documents in Appellants' possession responsive to Respondents' requests for production. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 9, 2008.
On January 29, 2009, Appellants served their Supplemental Responses to the Discovery Requests, expressly providing that the responses were made only by Appellants in the Parkview action, and that Appellants in the other actions would supplement their responses " at a later date." Moreover, the Parkview Appellants only additionally produced the financial statements of Appellant Laurance Davis. Much of the remainder of the responses was identical to the previous responses.
By order dated March 3, 2009, entitled " Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel, dated November 6, 2008" (the Discovery Order), the circuit court granted Respondents' motion to compel, specifically finding that all of the Appellants were required to " provide full and complete responses" and " produce all documents in their possession, custody or control, which [were] responsive to" the discovery requests. The court took issue with Appellants' blanket method of objecting to the requests, " mak[ing] it impossible for [Respondents] to know if responsive information and/or documents [were] being withheld, and, if so, based on which specific grounds." In addition, the court specifically ordered Appellants to provide more information in their answers to interrogatories concerning Appellants' proposed expert witnesses and contents of their testimony. The
court also required Appellants to provide sufficient identifying information in their privilege log, so that [409 S.C. 275] Respondents could recognize which documents Appellants were withholding on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and assess the applicability of the privilege to those documents. Finally, the court mandated the disclosure of pertinent discovery responses in all five cases (not just the Parkview case), and by all of the Appellants, stating " [e]ach and every [Appellant] is required to provide all information reasonably available to him or her, which would be responsive to any of the Interrogatories," and " each and every [Appellant] is required to produce all documents in his or her possession, custody or control, which would be responsive to any of the Requests for Production."  The Discovery Order required Appellants' compliance within thirty days. To date, Appellants have not complied with the Discovery Order.
Simultaneous to the discovery response dispute, the parties also disagreed regarding what materials were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Approximately one month after the court denied Respondents' summary judgment motion, counsel for Respondents indicated to the court that Appellants failed to produce a complete privilege log. The court allowed Appellants thirty days to produce a complete privilege log. On July 28, 2008, Appellants produced a new privilege log (the 7/28/08 privilege log) containing 90 documents, created between 1998 and 2004, for the first time in the litigation. In their 7/28/08 privilege log, Appellants only included a description of the date, author, and recipient of each document, and the classification of each document, i.e. fax, letter, or memorandum. At the December 9, 2008, hearing, Respondents also argued for the production of certain documents contained in Appellants' privilege log. Likewise, Appellants took issue with Respondents' claims of privilege.
Therefore, on December 30, 2008, the court, with the consent of all of the parties, ordered Gary Clary to serve as special master for the purpose of conducting an in camera [409 S.C. 276] review of the so-called " privileged" documents at issue and to " make his ruling as to whether each such document is subject to discovery and production should be compelled."  The order required the special master to provide the circuit judge with a report setting forth his findings and conclusions. On December 31, 2008, Appellants provided a more descriptive privilege log (the 12/31/08 privilege log), which forms the basis of the current dispute over privilege.
Upon the special master's issuance of his reports on April 14 and 22, 2009, the circuit judge issued an order on June 2, 2009, adopting the special master's findings in toto, yet still permitting the parties to object to the findings and conclusions contained therein by the filing of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Both Appellants and Respondents filed timely Rule 59(e) motions on June 11, 2009, and June 15, 2009, respectively. On July 6, 2009, the circuit judge held a hearing on the motions.
By order dated July 28, 2009, entitled " Order Amending Court's Order Dated June 2, 2009" (the Privilege Order), the circuit judge denied the Rule 59(e) motions in part, granted the motions in part, and amended his order adopting the findings and conclusion of the special master. Specifically, the court ordered Appellants to disclose 96 documents identified in their privilege log. The court found 32 of the allegedly privileged documents were not privileged because they had been disclosed to third parties, and the privilege had been waived with respect to the remaining 64 documents because, by filing suit, Appellants had placed the statute of limitations at issue in this case. To date,
Appellants have still not complied with the court's order.
Due to Appellants' continued noncompliance with the court's discovery orders, Respondents filed a motion for sanctions on July 24, 2009, for failure to comply with the Discovery Order and on August 10, 2009, for failure to comply with the Privilege Order. The circuit court held a hearing on Respondents' motions on August 24, 2009. At the hearing, Appellants [409 S.C. 277] represented to the court that they were filing supplemental discovery responses that same day, and that their responses would be in compliance with the courts orders. The court admonished Appellants that their non-compliance, coupled with the looming January 2010 trial date in the Parkview case, could elicit the court's dismissal of the case: " It's [the Parkview case] going to be tried in January, whenever it's set for. If they don't get the discovery I'm going to throw the case out." In addition, the court noted that the materials were relevant to the statute of limitations issue and Appellants had not produced a legitimate reason for not complying with the Discovery Order. At the hearing, counsel for Appellants stated their clients were weighing their options as to whether to appeal the court's rulings. Despite stating that he was strongly leaning towards dismissing the cases, the circuit court decided to hold Respondents' motion in abeyance pending Appellants' decision to appeal, which provided Appellants with even more time to comply with the court's orders.
Upon receipt of Appellants' supplemental responses, Respondents filed another supplemental motion for sanctions on August 27, 2009, claiming that Appellants had still not complied with the Discovery Order. Due to Appellants' attempts to appeal the Privilege Order, the court did not hold a [409 S.C. 278] hearing on Respondents' supplemental motion to compel until January 14, 2010, at this point slightly over a week prior to the Parkview trial date. Appellants had still not provided Respondents with the discovery information concerning their experts' testimony. However, Appellants stated they were planning to provide the expert information on the day before trial. The court was not satisfied with this response: " This case has been going on for seven years, a long time. And don't hand me this about getting an expert on Friday. This is not an expert-to-be-given-on-Friday case." The court then addressed Appellants' continued noncompliance. One excuse Appellants gave for their failure to disclose the expert information is that they only had preliminary reports from the experts. Again, the court was not satisfied with this answer: " How can you not have a final opinion? . . . . [I]f you wanted to know what my expert's opinion was in a particular case, I would have to tell you. You would expect me to tell you. I expect you to tell them. I've ordered you to tell them, and you refuse to do so."
On January 25, 2010, after the trial date in the Parkview case, Appellants served Respondents with their Third Supplemental Responses,
which again only addressed the Parkview case. Respondents again took issue with the adequacy of Appellants responses, especially as to the responses dealing with the substance of the expert testimony.
On February 22, 2010, Appellants filed a motion for protective order. Under the protective order, Appellants sought to submit the requested discovery under seal, conditioned upon the court allowing them to redact portions Appellants argued were privileged.
Around that time, Appellants began to question their lawyers concerning the judge's impartiality based on disclosures he made throughout the case concerning his social relationships with counsel of record for Respondents and their family members. To substantiate these claims, Appellants sought additional discovery concerning financial information from the [409 S.C. 279] judge and records from a resort on Fripp Island, where the judge officiated in the wedding of Ann Ross ...