Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in Rhode Island

Background

“When a party fails to respond to a discovery request, the party seeking discovery may move for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d).” (See Super. R. Civ. P. 37(d); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Builders Res. Corp. (2001) 785 A.2d 568, 569 [finding Rule 37(d) sanctions proper where defendant refused to answer interrogatories and attend a duly noticed deposition]; Berrios v. Jevic Transp., Inc., C.A. No. PC 2004-2390, at *1 (R.I. Super. July 11, 2012).)

“Specifically, lawyers in this State are prohibited under Rule 3.4(a) from unlawfully obstruct[ing] another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter[ing], destroy[ing] or conceal[ing] a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.” (See Sup. Ct. Art. V R. 3.4(a); Laurent v. St. Michael's Country Day Sch., C.A. No. WC-2009-0545, at *1 (R.I. Super. Apr. 30, 2013).)

“Rule 37(d) provides in pertinent part: If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) ... to testify on behalf of a party fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition, after being served with a proper notice ... or (3) to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34 . . . the court on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just. . . .” (See Super. R. Civ. P. 37(d) (emphasis added); Berrios v. Jevic Transp., Inc., C.A. No. PC 2004-2390, at *1 (R.I. Super. July 11, 2012).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“These sanctions have a twofold purpose: to deter repetition of the harm and to remedy the harm caused.” (See Cf. Michalopoulos v. C &D Restaurant, Inc. (2004) 847 A.2d 294, 300; Glassie v. Doucette, C.A. No. NP-2016-0265, at *1 (R.I. Super. Nov. 6, 2020).)

“In determining which sanction to impose, courts have often considered the following factors:

1. whether the defendant was prejudiced
2. whether the prejudice can be cured;
3. the practical importance of the evidence
4. whether the [despoiler acted] in good faith or bad faith; and
5. the potential for abuse if the evidence is not excluded.”

(See Farrell v. Connetti Trailer Sales, Inc. (1999) 727 A.2d 183, 187 [quoting Northern Assurance Co. v. Ware (1993) 145 F.R.D. 281, 282-83; Laurent v. St. Michael's Country Day Sch., C.A. No. WC-2009-0545, at *1 (R.I. Super. Apr. 30, 2013).)

“Sanctions are intended to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant a sanction and deter those who may be tempted to engage in improper conduct.” (See Fremming v. Tansey (1993) 626 A.2d 219, 221; Glassie v. Doucette, C.A. No. NP-2016-0265, at *1 (R.I. Super. Nov. 6, 2020).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of discovery is broad and liberal, and trial courts possess the authority to impose sanctions in order to protect the sanctity of the discovery process.” (See DeCarvalho, 106 R.I. at 627, 262 A.2d at 634; Joachim v. Straight Line Prods., LLC (2016) 138 A.3d 746, 752; Darling v. Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc., C.A. No. PC-2018-0940, at *1 (R.I. Super. Feb. 26, 2019).)

“The decision to impose a particular sanction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See Raposa v. Cardi Corp., C.A. No.: NC-2014-0177, at *3-4 (R.I. Super. Mar. 18, 2016).)

"The trial justice selects the sanction he or she believes is '[the] most appropriate [one] for the situation in question.” (See id.)

“The court may require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (See Triton Realty v. Essex Mutual Ins. Co., PC No. 03-2061, at *1 (R.I. Super. Mar. 23, 2006).)

“The imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 will be overturned only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial justice.” (See Goulet v. OfficeMax, Inc. (2004) 843 A.2d 494, 496; Raposa v. Cardi Corp., C.A. No.: NC-2014-0177, at *4 (R.I. Super. Mar. 18, 2016).)

“This [C]ourt is not likely to reverse on the basis of abuse of discretion when a rule provides for alternative sanctions and the trial justice selects the sanction that he or she deems the most appropriate for the particular case.” (See Insurance Co. v. Kayser-Roth Corp. (2001) 770 A.2d 403, 411.)

Meet and Confer

“If the motion is granted or if requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court may, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant's first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (See Triton Realty v. Essex Mutual Ins. Co., PC No. 03-2061, at *1 (R.I. Super. Mar. 23, 2006).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that Rule 37(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure "provides the court with a variety of sanctions that may be imposed on a party who has failed to comply with an order to provide discovery.” (See Raposa v. Cardi Corp., C.A. No.: NC-2014-0177, at *3 (R.I. Super. Mar. 18, 2016).)

It is also well settled that pursuant to “Rule 37 the court may impose sanctions if a party fails to answer interrogatories or to comply with an order compelling it to do so. The available sanctions include, but are not limited to: dismissal, default, striking certain defenses, and precluding a party from producing evidence.” (See Insurance Co. v. Kayser-Roth Corp. (2001) 770 A.2d 403, 411.)