Volume 99 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

1. Rules of Civil Procedure 37 (NCI3d) — failure to produce requested documents — sanctions properly imposed The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions where it was clear that defendant was dilatory and disobeyed the order of the trial court to produce the documents requested, and at no time prior to imposition of sanctions did defendant formally object on the ground of confidentiality or seek a protective order from the court. Moreover, the sanction of striking defendant's answer and counterclaim, though<page_number>Page 31</page_number> severe, was nevertheless proper, since it was expressly authorized by statute, and plaintiff was prejudiced by the expense and delay caused by defendant's failure to produce requested documents. Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery 390-392. 2. Rules of Civil Procedure 37, 55.1 (NCI3d) — sanctions for failure to make discovery — entry of default — requested documents produced — no ground to set aside entry of default Where defendant failed to produce documents requested by plaintiff and ordered by the court, the court struck defendant's answer and counterclaim, and the trial court then entered default against defendant, defendant did not thereafter, by producing the required documents, show good cause to set aside the default. Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery 390-392. 3. Contracts 33 (NCI3d) — malicious interference with contract — plaintiff's employees hired by defendant — employee placed in same territory — interference with plaintiff's accounts In an action for malicious interference with contract, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant defendant's motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for directed verdict where plaintiff alleged that three of its salesmen, hired by defendant and placed in their former territories, did solicit plaintiff's customers, and that defendant further induced the salesmen to interfere with plaintiff's existing accounts. Am Jur 2d, Interference 39-41. 4. Contracts 36 (NCI3d) — malicious interference with contract — lost profits — evidence admissible In an action for malicious interference with contract and unfair trade practices where plaintiff alleged that defendant hired three of its employees and placed them in their former territories, plaintiff was entitled to show evidence of its lost profits by comparing its past history of profits with gross sales of plaintiff's former salesmen while working for defendant. Am Jur 2d, Interference 57, 58.<page_number>Page 32</page_number> 5. Unfair Competition 1 (NCI3d) — malicious interference with contract — unfair or deceptive trade practice Because defendant's acts in hiring three of plaintiff's salesmen and placing them in their former territories did amount to tortious interference with contract, the trial court did not err in finding an unfair or deceptive trade practice, trebling the jury verdict, awarding costs, and awarding attorney's fees. <block_quote> Am Jur 2d, Interference 31, 57, 58; Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, and Unfair Trade Practices 697, 735.</block_quote>