Jandreau v. Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 23 November 1971
• Citation: 284 A.2d 86
• Parties: Huey JANDREAU v. Dr. Jose RODRIGUEZ.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 86

284 A.2d 86

Huey JANDREAU v. Dr. Jose RODRIGUEZ.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Daviau & Geller by Jerome G. Daviau, Waterville, for plaintiff.

Locke, Campbell & Chapman by Joseph B. Campbell, Augusta, for defendant.

Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.

ARCHIBALD, Justice.

On appeal by the plaintiff from the dismissal by the Justice below of a motion that the defendant be found guilty of contempt of court.

During the pendency of this civil action (medical malpractice), the plaintiff took the deposition of a doctor. Subsequently, the defendant wrote the deponent a letter describing the technique used in the surgical procedure under attack and included the following sentences:

'I would like to have the opportunity to discuss with you at some length, your testimony in the case of Huey Jandreau.

As you can well understand, this is very important to me, as my professional prestige is at stake.

Your statements could be misinterpreted by lay people as inferring that a metallic retractor should not be used in this type of surgery and I cannot believe that this was your intention.'

These statements are the only reasons asserted by the plaintiff to support his allegation that the 'Defendant is guilty of contempt of court' by attempting to persuade or induce the deponent to testify contrary to his previous testimony. A Justice of the Superior Court dismissed the contempt motion reasoning:

'If the alleged contempt is of a criminal nature it should be prosecuted by the State. As alleged, it is classified as a criminal contempt. Even if it were a civil contempt there would have to be a show cause order and a hearing by a Judge other than the Judge hearing the whole case on its merits.'

The motion which prompted the ruling complained of was served pursuant to M R.C.P., Rule 5(a) and filed by plaintiff's attorney as required by subdivision (d) of this rule. It is thus distinguished from original process and becomes part of the docketed papers in the original action. We conceive it to be an interlocutory motion and, a fortiori, the ruling of the Justice below is interlocutory, which term is defined as 'something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.' Black's Law Dictionary, (4th Ed.), page 952. See State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Quesenberry, (1963) 72 N.M. 291, 383 P.2d 255, 257. The ruling did not decide, dispose of, or conclude the rights of the plaintiff in the basic action, and cannot be considered a final judgment therein.

The jurisdiction of the Law Court has statutory limitations which include 'questions of law arising on reports of cases, including interlocutory orders or rulings of such importance as to require, in the opinion of the justice, review by the law court before any further proceedings in the action * * *.' 4 M.R.S.A. § 57. Our Rules of Civil Procedure provide a method of review of interlocutory rulings.

'Report of Interlocutory Rulings. If the court is of the opinion that a question of law involved in an interlocutory order or ruling made by it in any action ought to be determined by the Law Court before any further proceedings are taken therein, it may on motion of the aggrieved party re...