EdgengG (Private), Ltd. v. Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 April 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-17-Appeal.,PB 12-2362
• Citation: 272 A.3d 596
• Parties: EDGENGG (PRIVATE), LTD., et al. v. FIBERGLASS FABRICATORS, INC., et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

272 A.3d 596

EDGENGG (PRIVATE), LTD., et al.

v.FIBERGLASS FABRICATORS, INC., et al.

No. 2021-17-Appeal.

PB 12-2362

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 25, 2022

Michael J. Gardiner, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Charles S. Beal, Esq., for Defendant.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

Justice Long, for the Court.

The plaintiff, EdgengG (Private), Ltd. (EdgengG), appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendants, Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. (Fiberglass Fabricators) and Anthony Capo (collectively defendants), following the entry of judgment in favor of defendants on the complaint filed by EdgengG and plaintiff Don Sidantha Ganegoda (collectively plaintiffs) for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery orders. On appeal, EdgengG argues that the trial justice abused his discretion when he entered judgment in favor of defendants.¹

This appeal came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

Facts and Procedural History

The parties to this case were involved in the manufacture and sale of fiberglass components used in municipal water systems. Mr. Ganegoda, formerly an engineer and salesperson for Fiberglass Fabricators, founded EdgengG to manufacture finished fiberglass products in Sri Lanka. In 2010, the parties executed a contract providing that Fiberglass Fabricators would sell the finished fiberglass products manufactured by EdgengG.

On May 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging that defendants had failed to pay upon delivery of goods, and that they conspired to deprive EdgengG and Mr. Ganegoda of profits and sales commission.

Six years passed before either party propounded discovery. The defendants eventually, in October 2018, served plaintiffs with interrogatories and requests for production of documents; plaintiffs did not respond, and defendants successfully sought orders compelling responses to discovery by May 3, 2019.

When plaintiffs failed to comply with the orders, defendants requested conditional orders of dismissal, to which plaintiffs agreed. Consequently, the trial justice conditionally dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, ordering that the court would vacate the dismissals if plaintiffs provided discovery responses by June 17, 2019. The conditional orders further provided that dismissal of the claims would not become final until after a hearing on a subsequently filed motion for entry of final judgment.

On June 12, 2019, defendants’ counsel received an electronic file containing plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ request for production; however, defendants’ counsel stated that he was unable to access the file. Subsequently, on June 17, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendants’ counsel an email stating that plaintiffs’ answers to the interrogatories were attached to the message; however, the attachment was missing.

After the June 17, 2019 due date, defendants began receiving EdgengG's discovery responses. Mr. Ganegoda responded to defendants’ interrogatories and requests for documents on behalf of EdgengG as its principal, but he did not answer any discovery that had been served upon him personally.

By February 2020, neither plaintiff had provided complete responses to the outstanding discovery. The defendants therefore moved for entry of final judgment against plaintiffs or, in the alternative, further motions to compel.² At a hearing on March 2, 2020, the trial justice deferred ruling on the motions until March 23, 2020, but admonished plaintiffs to supplement their deficient discovery responses on or before March 16, 2020. Specifically, the trial justice warned plaintiffs that if they did not adhere to the March 16, 2020 deadline, the complaint would be dismissed at the hearing on March 23, 2020. Again, plaintiffs failed to provide responses by the due date.

On March 17, 2020, Rhode Island Supreme Court Executive Order No. 2020-04 issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Executive Order No. 2020-04 continued nonessential matters until after April 17, 2020, and extended filing deadlines for thirty calendar days from the date of the order.

Three days later, on March 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the March 16, 2020 discovery deadline, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and Executive Order No. 2020-04. The defendants filed an objection; and the March 23, 2020 hearing on defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment was continued. Nevertheless, plaintiffs did not serve additional discovery responses until April 25, 2020, when they provided duplicative documents in response to the outstanding document requests. The plaintiffs subsequently served unsigned supplemental answers to interrogatories, and, on June 4, 2020, the continuance date for the hearing on defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment, plaintiffs’ counsel emailed additional discovery responses both to defendants’ counsel and to the trial justice.

Following the hearing, the trial justice issued a written decision granting defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment. The trial justice referenced plaintiffs’ continued failure to respond to discovery requests in a timely manner and their failure to comply with Superior Court orders. Furthermore, the trial justice reviewed the untimely discovery responses plaintiffs had sent the morning of the hearing, finding them to be "incomplete [and] evasive" responses that "would be treated as a failure to answer." The trial justice also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Executive Order No. 2020-04 had extended their deadline by thirty days, noting that the executive order had been issued after the discovery deadline had passed. Accordingly, on June 26, 2020, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion for final judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for relief; judgment in favor of defendants entered on that same date. EdgengG timely appealed the June 26, 2020 order and final judgment.³

We consider whether the trial justice erred in granting judgment in favor of defendants based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with orders to provide discovery.

Rule 37 Dismissal

We review a justice's decision to impose a sanction pursuant to Rule 37 for noncompliance with a discovery rule or order for abuse of discretion. E.g. , Joachim v. Straight Line Productions, LLC , 138 A.3d 746, 751 (R.I. 2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial justice dismisses the action "in the absence of evidence demonstrating persistent refusal, defiance or bad faith." Travelers Insurance Company v. Builders Resource Corporation , 785 A.2d 568, 569 (R.I. 2001) (mem.).

Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides, in pertinent part, that: "If a party * * * refuses to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, * * * the court may * * * enter * * * final judgment dismissing the action or proceeding[.]" We have stated that "[t]he decision whether or not to invoke that ultimate sanction is confided to the sound discretion of the [trial] justice." Flanagan v. Blair , 882 A.2d 569, 573 (R.I. 2005). Thus, "[d]espite the severity of a final judgment dismissing the action, this [C]ourt will affirm a trial justice's use of this type of drastic sanction in the face of a party's persistent failure to comply with discovery obligations." Mumford v. Lewiss , 681 A.2d 914, 916 (R.I. 1996).

The record in this case is unequivocal: EdgengG "persistent[ly] fail[ed] to comply with discovery obligations[,]" Mumford , 681 A.2d at 916, pursuant to the Superior Court's orders. The record is replete with evidence of EdgengG's continuous failure to respond to discovery requests in defiance of the Superior Court's orders. For months after defendants first propounded discovery in October 2018, EdgengG ignored Superior Court orders requiring plaintiffs to respond to the discovery—the orders granting defendants’ motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production, and the conditional orders of dismissal for failure to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. When EdgengG belatedly began to provide discovery responses in June 2019, the responses were incomplete.

At the March 2, 2020 hearing on defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment, the trial justice provided EdgengG yet another extension, until March 16, 2020, warning plaintiffs to supplement discovery by that date or face dismissal. EdgengG again did not provide timely discovery responses; it submitted responses over a month later. Thus, for sixteen months, despite the Superior Court's orders, EdgengG repeatedly delayed responding to outstanding discovery. On June 4, 2020, when EdgengG provided long-overdue discovery responses, the discovery responses were "incomplete [and] evasive" and constituted "a failure to answer" under Rule 37(a)(3) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, in light of EdgengG's persistent failure to comply, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by entering final judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. See Providence Gas Company v. Biltmore Hotel Operating Co. , 119 R.I. 108, 114, 376 A.2d 334, 337 (1977) (holding there was no abuse of discretion when the motion justice entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff after the defendant's...