J. Andrew Rice and Kathryn W. Rice appeal pro se from the order of the trial court dismissing their pro se complaint against Ronald L. Cannon pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 d on the basis that they both wilfully failed to appear on more than one occasion at their depositions. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1. In enumeration of errors two and three, the Rices contend that the trial court erred for various reasons in granting Cannon’s motion to dismiss their complaint as a sanction for failure to appear at their depositions. Under OCGA § 9-11-37 d, the trial court was authorized to immediately dismiss the Rices’ complaint, without the necessity of an order compelling discovery, as a sanction for their failure to attend their duly-noticed depositions. McConnell v. Wright , 280 Ga. App. 546, 547 634 SE2d 495 2006; Dyer v. Spectrum Engineering, Inc. , 245 Ga. App. 30, 31 537 SE2d 175 2000. Before imposing the sanction of dismissal, the trial court was first required to determine that the Rices acted wilfully. McConnell , 280 Ga. App. at 548.1 The record shows that, after notifying the parties and conducting a hearing on Cannon’s motion, the trial court imposed the sanction of dismissal after finding that both of the Rices wilfully failed to attend their duly-noticed depositions on at least two occasions. Trial courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery, including the imposition of sanctions, and this Court will not reverse the trial court’s decision in such cases absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. at 547. Although the Rices argue that the record shows the trial court abused its discretion, the court made its findings and dismissed the complaint based on a hearing, and no transcript of that hearing has been included in the appellate record. In the absence of a transcript of the hearing, this Court must assume that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion to impose the sanction of dismissal. Young v. Jones , 149 Ga. App. 819, 824-825 256 SE2d 58 1979.
The Rices contend the trial court erred by granting Cannon’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to attend their depositions because the court had not ruled on their pending motions seeking to compel Cannon to expand on answers he provided to their interrogatories, and seeking to compel three non-parties to provide documents sought in their non-party requests for production of documents. We find no error. Even assuming the Rices were entitled to more complete responses to their discovery efforts, this did not excuse their repeated wilful refusal to attend their depositions. “Although a trial court may take into account both parties’ actions during discovery when determining what sanctions are appropriate, the nature of the moving party’s actions in responding to discovery requests does not preclude sanctions in its favor.” West v. Equifax Credit Information Svcs., Inc. , 230 Ga. App. 41, 44 495 SE2d 300 1997 physical precedent. We find no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction of dismissal on these facts.
