Devaney v. St. Thomas More Catholic Church
| Decision Date | 09 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-167-Appeal.,WC 17-54 |
| Citation | 285 A.3d 23 |
| Parties | John DEVANEY v. ST. THOMAS MORE CATHOLIC CHURCH et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John Devaney, pro se.
Amanda Prosek, Esq., Robert K. Taylor, Esq., for Defendants.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
This case came before the Supreme Court on October 27, 2022, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The pro se plaintiff, John Devaney (plaintiff), appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendants, St. Thomas More Catholic Church (St. Thomas More), St. Peter's By-the-Sea Episcopal Church (St. Peter's), and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (defendants), following the dismissal of the matter in accordance with Rule 37 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Litigation regarding the underlying issues in this case commenced almost ten years ago; taking a toll on all parties involved. See Devaney v. Kilmartin , 88 F. Supp. 3d 34, 43 (D.R.I. 2015). In July 1995 plaintiff purchased his home at 56 Rockland Street in the Narragansett Pier neighborhood of Narragansett (the town). St. Thomas More is located at 53 Rockland Street, while St. Peter's is located at 72 Central Street. Both churches are located in the town's Pier neighborhood.
Beginning in 1999, St. Peter's began to operate an electronically generated and amplified bell-ringing system that had recently been donated to the parish. The plaintiff began to hear an electronically amplified bell-ringing system from the bell tower of St. Thomas More sometime thereafter. He contends that the excessive noise emanating from defendants’ bell towers is a serious hazard to his health and welfare and unnecessarily degrades his quality of life. He further alleges that the ringing of the bells has resulted in a diminution of the value of his property, impeded its free use, and led to the breakup of his family, causing him to suffer mental anguish. The plaintiff first attempted to litigate this matter in 2013, when he filed suit against defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. See Devaney , 88 F. Supp. 3d at 43. The federal court dismissed that suit in 2015 and declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims under state law. Id . at 38, 59.
On February 7, 2017, plaintiff filed the case at bar in Washington County Superior Court, seeking to enjoin defendants from operating their respective bell systems, alleging a claim of nuisance, and seeking more than $3 million in damages.1 The crux of the issue on appeal concerns plaintiff's answers to interrogatories, specifically his response to interrogatory number six, which required him to identify any expert witnesses he expected to call at trial, as well as the substance of the facts and opinions that each expert was expected to provide.
The plaintiff was first served a set of interrogatories, including the expert-witness inquiry, on June 7, 2017. The plaintiff responded on August 12, 2017, objecting to most of the questions, including the expert-witness interrogatory, stating that the information requested had not been fully developed at that time. Thirteen months later, on September 25, 2018, the trial court granted a motion to compel more responsive answers to the interrogatory. The plaintiff responded on December 12, 2018, and provided a list of twelve people identified as proposed experts and three additional non-specified experts to testify as to various elements of his claims.2
In an order dated February 1, 2019, the trial court denied plaintiff's request for the court to appoint expert witnesses and ordered plaintiff to disclose by April 5, 2019, all experts he expected to testify at trial, the subject matter of the expected testimony, and the substance of the expected facts and opinions, together with a summary of the grounds for each opinion. The plaintiff responded on April 5, 2019, identifying three additional individuals he expected to call as experts, including Bertram Gibbes, Ph.D. (Dr. Gibbes), who was to attest to the effect on plaintiff's well-being resulting from the noise generated by the ringing bells.
On August 23, 2019, the trial court entered a conditional order of dismissal, in accordance with Rule 37, ordering plaintiff to provide full and complete interrogatory answers for his experts Edward A. Caswell, Jr. (Caswell) and Dr. Gibbes by September 25, 2019. The order further stated that if plaintiff failed to comply by that date, the conditional order of dismissal would become final only upon further motion and hearing. On September 24, 2019, plaintiff submitted his final supplemental interrogatory response. In his answer, plaintiff removed Caswell from his witness list, and he then proceeded to identify Dr. Gibbes as his only expert witness and set forth the subject matter, substance, and grounds for Dr. Gibbes's testimony.
At a hearing on November 20, 2019, plaintiff informed the trial court that Dr. Gibbes would be his only expert witness testifying at trial. Counsel for defendant St. Thomas More asserted that plaintiff's interrogatory responses were deficient. The role that Dr. Gibbes played in drafting the response also was questioned, as counsel believed there were statements in the supplemental response that no expert would proffer. Counsel for St. Thomas More suggested that he be allowed to subpoena Dr. Gibbes's records and to take his deposition.
During a status conference, counsel for St. Peter's indicated that she had received some of the records requested from Dr. Gibbes by way of subpoena, but that she intended to depose Dr. Gibbes, while continuing her deposition of plaintiff.
Soon thereafter, defendants filed a joint motion seeking to preclude plaintiff's expert witnesses and requesting a dismissal pursuant to Rule 37. The defendants asserted that plaintiff had failed, once again, to provide timely and sufficient answers to defendants’ expert interrogatory. Highlighting plaintiff's deposition testimony, defendants argued that plaintiff did not comply "with the spirit or substance" of the court's discovery orders.
During his deposition, plaintiff admitted that Dr. Gibbes did not read the responses before they were served on defendants. He further stated that he did not know if the answers contained in the supplemental expert interrogatory response were a complete and accurate opinion of the purported witness. The plaintiff testified that the draft report prepared by Dr. Gibbes contained opinions that were not included in the interrogatory answer. The plaintiff further added that he had included "things that [he] [saw] on [his] own" in the supplemental response.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a hearing on the motion to dismiss was not held until September 23, 2020. The defendants reiterated their contention that plaintiff had failed to comply with discovery orders, repeatedly highlighting the fact that the court had issued four orders to compel disclosure of expert witnesses. The defendants asserted that they did not know whether the expert interrogatory answer was complete, or rang true, because Dr. Gibbes never reviewed or adopted the response. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed as a result of plaintiff's actions.
The plaintiff stated that his answer to the expert interrogatory question was complete. He also argued that he complied with the trial court's orders because he responded to the interrogatory with the responses that he "expected" his expert to give and that there was no guarantee that Dr. Gibbes would testify to what plaintiff anticipated in the response. The trial justice reserved decision.
The trial justice subsequently issued a written decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37(b). The trial justice held that because plaintiff admitted to supplementing the expert interrogatory answers with matters that he had personally observed, while also admitting that he did not know if the answers he provided were a complete and accurate opinion of Dr. Gibbes's expected testimony, dismissal was warranted. The trial justice concluded that Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure did not permit plaintiff to speculate on the expected testimony of an expected witness because it would impede defendants’ trial preparations. The trial justice found that plaintiff was aware that he was to comply with the expert discovery disclosure orders and was given numerous warnings but continued to resist despite these opportunities. Accordingly, the trial justice dismissed plaintiff's complaint due to his continued failure to comply with Rule 26.
Yet another hearing was held on October...
To continue reading
Request your trial