Francis v. Barber Auto Sales, Inc., 80-78-A
Decision Date | 11 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 80-78-A,80-78-A |
Parties | Raymond R. FRANCIS v. BARBER AUTO SALES, INC. v. David C. BRINDAMOUR. ppeal. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on appeal from an entry of a conditional order of dismissal for refusal to answer interrogatories in accordance with an order of the Superior Court. We affirm. The facts underlying the plaintiff's appeal are as follows.
The plaintiff filed his complaint on February 23, 1979, alleging that his automobile had been towed away by defendant pursuant to an order of the West Warwick police department. On April 12, 1979, defendant filed a third-party complaint naming defendant David C. Brindamour, in his capacity as Treasurer of the Town of West Warwick, as a third-party defendant. On June 15, 1979, defendant propounded a set of interrogatories to plaintiff. On June 28, 1979, plaintiff objected to defendant's interrogatories on the ground that they exceeded thirty in number in violation of Rule 33(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule provides in pertinent part:
"A party shall not serve more than one set of interrogatories upon an adverse party nor shall the number of interrogatories exceed thirty (30) unless the court otherwise orders for good cause shown."
A Superior Court justice, after hearing arguments, ordered plaintiff to answer the interrogatories within thirty days. No transcript of the justice's decision has been furnished to this court. It is undisputed that the interrogatories as propounded were eighteen in number, but contained certain subsidiary questions marked as subheadings a, b, and c, which are claimed by plaintiff to total sixty-six questions in all.
Professor Kent, in his treatise on Rhode Island Practice comments regarding the limitation on the number of questions:
1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 33.4 at 270 (1969).
Since no transcript of the Superior Court justice's decision has been furnished to us, we are unable to determine whether he found that the subsidiary questions were of a type that did not exceed a total number of thirty or whether he decided to relax the restrictions for good cause shown in the course of the hearing. Either of these decisions would have been of a discretionary nature and would be reviewed by this court only for abuse which caused severe prejudice to a party litigant. 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2176 at 558 (1970).
Since a ruling regarding the answering of interrogatories is interlocutory in nature, it would not be appealable as a matter of right. 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 37.7 at 310. Professor Kent also suggests that review by writ of certiorari may be available at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Senn v. Surgidev Corp.
...plaintiff exhibited persistent defiance of the court's order to answer the defendant's interrogatories. See Francis v. Barber Auto Sales, Inc., 454 A.2d 703, 704-05 (R.I.1983). This court has also found that a trial justice did not abuse her discretion by entering default in a case in which......
-
Hunter v. Malhotra, 96-66-A
...order, we conclude rendered the orders in question final in nature and hence appealable. See, e.g., Francis v. Barber Auto Sales, Inc., 454 A.2d 703, 705 (R.I.1983). In light of that somewhat unusual stipulation, we offer no opinion at this time as to whether this appeal has tolled the runn......
-
Lepore v. A.O. Smith Corp.
...has shown sufficiently good cause. Eleazer v. Ted Reed Thermal, Inc., 576 A.2d 1217, 1220 (R.I. 1990); see also Francis v. Barber Auto Sales, Inc., 454 A.2d 703, 705 (R.I. 1983) (noting that the decision "to relax the restrictions [on the number of interrogatories allowed] for good cause sh......
-
Lepore v. A.O. Smith Corp.
... ... cause. Eleazer v. Ted Reed Thermal, Inc. , 576 A.2d ... 1217, 1220 (R.I. 1990); e also Francis v. Barber Auto ... Sales, Inc. , 454 A.2d ... ...