Joachim v. Straight Line Prods., LLC

• Decision Date: 06 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2013–149–Appeal , No. 2013–227–Appeal.,2013–149–Appeal
• Citation: 138 A.3d 746
• Parties: Bryan JOACHIM v. STRAIGHT LINE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

138 A.3d 746

Bryan JOACHIM

v.STRAIGHT LINE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al.

No. 2013–149–Appeal

No. 2013–227–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 6, 2016.

Bryan Joachim, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Thomas R. Noel, Esq., John R. Harrington, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court.

These consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court after the Superior Court entered an order of dismissal as a sanction for the mid-trial production of certain documents and denied the plaintiff, Bryan Joachim's (plaintiff or Joachim), motion to vacate such order. On appeal, Joachim, who appeared pro se for oral argument,¹ sets forth a myriad of arguments to support his contentions that the hearing justice erred in (1) dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) denying his motion to vacate the order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

On March 4, 2009, Joachim filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court against defendants, Straight Line Productions, LLC, Joseph Strong, and Ann Strong (collectively, defendants). In his second amended complaint, Joachim set forth allegations of, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty resulting from oppressive conduct, breach of fiduciary duty resulting from self-dealing, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The essence of Joachim's complaint is that, after he paid $ 260,000 for a membership interest in Straight Line Productions, Joseph and Ann Strong shut him out by purchasing the interests of two other members to form a collective ownership interest of 80 percent. Thereafter, according to Joachim, the Strongs used their position to, among other things, engage in oppressive conduct by converting Straight Line's assets for their own personal gain and to engage in self-dealing by entering into transactions with other corporate entities for which the duo also serve as fiduciaries.

During discovery, defendants served three requests for production of documents upon plaintiff. It is undisputed that, throughout the course of discovery in this matter, the Superior Court did not enter any order compelling plaintiff to provide or permit discovery.

On April 25, 2012, a jury was impaneled and a trial commenced. Throughout the first several days of trial, various witnesses were called, including a forensic accountant, the accountant for Straight Line, and Joseph and Ann Strong. On Monday, April 30, 2012, four days into trial, plaintiff's counsel called Joachim as a witness. During cross-examination, defense counsel inquired into a letter (marked as exhibit No. 29) that Joachim had written to Joseph Strong. When he asked Joachim about the March 19, 2008, date on the letter, Joachim indicated that this letter had apparently been auto-dated by his computer. He further elaborated that he was “going through [his] files just this past weekend, [and he] came across one with a date September, I believe, 17th.” The cross-examination then continued without scrutiny into anything else that Joachim may have stumbled upon over the weekend.

Joachim's cross-examination continued into the fifth day of trial, which was followed by redirect examination. During this questioning, plaintiff's counsel showed Joachim an exhibit marked for identification as exhibit No. 41. When plaintiff's counsel asked Joachim if he recognized exhibit No. 41, defense counsel objected. The trial justice requested both parties to approach, and the following exchange took place at side bar:

“The Court: What is it?

“[Plaintiff's Counsel]: These are notes of Mr. Joachim apparently talking in at the time that he—he had the conversations.

“The Court: Were they produced? Were they asked for?

“[Defense Counsel]: Yes. And we've never seen this prior to this moment after my cross-examination.

“The Court: Why weren't they produced if they were asked for.

“[Plaintiff's Counsel]: I just found out about these as well.

“ * * *

“The Court: I am going to keep this out if there is a question—if there is a request for them. But let me see what the request was. I am going to send the jury for the midmorning break.”

The trial justice then excused the jury and took a brief recess. When the court reconvened outside of the presence of the jury, defense counsel noted that exhibit No. 41 appeared to be Joachim's handwritten notes and were not “helter skelter written on a piece of paper and put aside[,]” but, instead, “appear to be part of a journal or diary.” Defense counsel further stated that he “would question what other documents Mr. Joachim has that * * * we were not provided with. This is clearly pertinent stuff.” Based upon the fact that these notes were not disclosed until mid-trial and after his cross-examination of Joachim, defense counsel moved to dismiss all claims in the action pursuant to Rule 37(b).

The trial justice ordered that plaintiff's counsel turn over to the defense all documents that had allegedly been recently discovered by Joachim other than such documents believed to be privileged. The court then recessed until that afternoon. When the parties reconvened, plaintiff produced 155 pages of documents that had not been produced to defendants during discovery. The plaintiff's counsel stated that the documents had been provided to him the day before, at which point he compared the documents to the document requests propounded on behalf of defendants and concluded that “none of these documents fall directly within any of those requests.” However, when further questioned about this position, plaintiff's counsel indicated that, “[i]n the broad category of—there's a request for documents to support [c]ount 1, documents to support [c]ount 2. I believe if * * * under the oppression category these documents may, may fall within that.”² The trial justice deferred further arguments on the matter until the next day to give defense counsel a chance to review the documents.³

The following day, after hearing arguments from counsel for each party, the trial justice summarized defendants' argument that they “have been denied a fair trial because information contained in the various documents * * * would have permitted them to properly cross-examin[e] plaintiff with respect to a multitude of issues to which he testified at a time when they did not have some of [the late-disclosed documents].” The trial justice then noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure “made trial no longer an ‘I gotcha’ proposition.”⁴ He concluded that “the defendants unfortunately have been denied tools which would have enabled them to have had a fair trial” and that “the bell cannot be un-rung by bringing the jury back and having them hear further and additional testimony.” Accordingly, the trial justice dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37(b), but he declined to impose any monetary sanctions or counsel fees. The trial justice entered a written order to that effect on May 25, 2012, and final judgment entered on July 23, 2012.

On August 10, 2012, Joachim filed both a motion to vacate the Superior Court's judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) and a notice of appeal to this Court. On April 19, 2013, the trial justice delivered a bench decision on Joachim's motion to vacate. In it, the trial justice noted that “the action [taken] by this [c]ourt was draconian and unprecedented in this jurisdiction.” Nevertheless, he went on to declare:

“[U]nder the unique circumstances of this case, the [c]ourt believed that any other resolution would have imposed upon defendants an inappropriate burden not of their making which resulted from a claimed last-minute discovery by plaintiff of some 155 pages of material, portions of which, if produced by him in a timely manner, would have substantially assisted defendants in preparation for the trial, both by way of defense as to certain claims and as to their counsel's ability to cross-examine [Joachim] effectively.”

The trial justice then analyzed Joachim's asserted reasons for vacating the judgment against the various provisions of Rule 60(b). In so doing, the trial justice noted that “the belated document dump essentially at the end of plaintiff's case in chief made it impossible for the defendants, not having had access to portions of the material, to have a fair trial * * *.” Accordingly, the trial justice denied Joachim's motion to vacate the earlier judgment. On April 22, 2013, judgment was entered on the motion to vacate, from which Joachim filed a timely notice of appeal. That appeal was consolidated with Joachim's appeal of the underlying Rule 37 dismissal.

IIStandard of Review

“This [C]ourt will reverse the decision of a trial justice to impose a sanction under Rule 37 for noncompliance with a discovery rule or order only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Mumford v. Lewiss, 681 A.2d 914, 916 (R.I.1996). “We will find an abuse of discretion only when a motion justice has dismissed an action ‘in the absence of evidence demonstrating persistent refusal, defiance or bad faith.’ ” Flanagan v. Blair, 882 A.2d 569, 573 (R.I.2005) (quoting Travelers Insurance Co. v. Builders Resource Corp., 785 A.2d 568, 569 (R.I.2001) (mem.)).

Similarly, “[i]t is well-settled that ‘[a] Rule 60(b) motion to vacate is addressed to the trial justice's sound judicial discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of abuse of discretion.’ ” Turacova v. DeThomas, 45 A.3d 509, 514 (R.I.2012) (quoting Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 38 A.3d 1093, 1099 (R.I.2012) ).

IIIDiscussion

Before proceeding to the merits, we pause to address a threshold matter: whether Joachim's appeals are properly before us. Specifically, defendants contend that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate. In the alternative, defenda...