THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS 
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Wanda Phillips, Respondent,

v.

Martin Bayless, Bryson Folks, Any Lengths Recovery, Inc., d/b/a Any Lengths Recovery Community and Paradise Properties, Inc., Defendants,

Of which Any Lengths Recovery, Inc., d/b/a Any Lengths Recovery Community is Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
 Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-379
Submitted October 1, 2006 – Filed November 21, 2006

AFFIRMED

Tressa T.H. Hayes, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Amanda Graham Steinmeyer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This is an appeal by Appellant Any Lengths Recovery, Inc. (Any Lengths) in an action where Respondent Wanda Phillips (Phillips) alleged premises liability and negligence against Any Lengths.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Phillips based on Any Lengths’ failure to respond to Phillips’ request for admissions.  We affirm.[1]

FACTS

In August of 2000, Phillips was a resident at Any Lengths Recovery, Inc., a rehabilitation treatment facility.  On August 13, 2000,  while playing a game of volleyball at the facility, Phillips was suddenly knocked to the ground by two dogs.[2]  As a result, she suffered injuries requiring reconstructive surgery on her knee. She continues on pain medications for symptoms resulting from the injuries.  Phillips alleged the common area where her injuries were sustained were under the control of Any Lengths. 

On July 7, 2004, Phillips sued Any Lengths alleging both premises liability and negligence.  In its Answer, Any Lengths denied liability for Phillips’ injuries.  On January 28, 2004, Phillips sent her first interrogatories and request to produce to Any Lengths.  On March 4, 2004, Phillips sent Any Lengths a letter asking for a response to her discovery requests.  Five months later, Phillips still had not received any response from Any Lengths.  Phillips, then, sent a second letter to Any Lengths in August of 2004 requesting Any Lengths to respond to her discovery requests, and threatening to file a motion to compel.   Because Any Lengths’ failed to respond, Phillips filed a motion to compel on August 18, 2004.  Notice of the hearing on the motion to compel was given to all parties.  In the meantime, Phillips served Any Lengths with a second interrogatory and request for production on September 1, 2004, and a third interrogatory and request for production on September 22, 2004, to which Any Lengths also did not respond. 

On January 4, 2005, the trial court heard Phillips’ motion to compel and noted that Any Lengths failed to appear at the hearing.  The trial court granted Phillips’ motion to compel and ordered Any Lengths to “comply with all outstanding discovery requested by Plaintiff without any objections whatsoever within ten days after entry of this order.”  The trial court further ordered that failure to comply with the order would result in “all appropriate remedies and sanctions available.”  A cover letter from the Clerk of Court states that on February 4, 2005, the trial court’s order to compel was mailed to counsel for Any Lengths.  Nevertheless, on January 10, 2005, Phillips served a second copy of the trial court’s ruling on Any Lengths by way of facsimile and regular mail.  Any Lengths did not respond to the discovery order within ten days as ordered. 

On January 27, 2005, Phillips mailed a request for admissions to Any Lengths’ counsel.  Any Lengths, however, did not respond to Phillips’ request with either written responses or objection to the request.  Counsel for Any Lengths claimed he did not receive the request.  However, the Record on Appeal shows a certificate of service was attached to the copy of the request for admissions mailed to Any Lengths.  On March 7, 2005, Phillips moved for summary judgment based upon Any Lengths’ failure to respond to discovery, including its failure to comply with the court’s order, and a failure to respond to the request for admissions.  Any Lengths was served with notice of the motion for summary judgment on the same date.  On April 4, 2005, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability against Any Lengths for failure to respond to the request for admissions, which under Rule 36 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, was deemed admitted. 

On April 5, 2005, Any Lengths moved for reconsideration of the summary judgment order, which the court subsequently denied.  This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, the appellate court applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002).  In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences, which can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.  Faile v. S.C. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 350 S.C. 315, 324, 566 S.E.2d 536, 540 (2002).  “If triable issues exist, those issues must go to the jury.”  Young v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 333 S.C. 714, 717, 511 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 1999).  “Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application of the law.”  Vermeer Carolina’s Inc. v. Wool/Chuck Chipper Corp., 336 S.C. 53, 59, 518 S.E.2d 301, 305 (Ct. App. 1999).

LAW/ANALYSIS

 As a primary matter, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment against Any Lengths based on Rule 220(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 220(c), SCRCP states: “The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.” The Record on Appeal indicates counsel for Any Lengths has repeatedly failed to respond to Phillips’ discovery requests since the commencement of this litigation, which had been nearly two years on the date of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment on April 4, 2005.

Any Lengths failed to respond to four sets of interrogatories and requests to produce.  Any Lengths also failed to respond to Phillips’ request for admissions or appear at the hearing on motion to compel.  Any Lengths even failed to respond to