Mumford v. Lewiss, 95-262-A
| Decision Date | 26 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-262-A,95-262-A |
| Citation | 681 A.2d 914 |
| Parties | John MUMFORD et al., v. Matthew LEWISS. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
On April 16, 1996, counsel for the defendant came before us to show cause why this appeal should not be summarily decided. 1 The plaintiffs, John and Irene Mumford, appeal from the dismissal of their legal malpractice complaint against the defendant, Matthew Lewiss, for failing to comply with discovery orders.
After reviewing the parties' memoranda, we conclude that the motion justice did not abuse his discretion in entering a final judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for their persistent failure to comply with their discovery obligations.
This appeal arises out of a legal malpractice action filed by plaintiffs against defendant in July of 1993. In mid-October of that year, defendant filed and served interrogatories upon plaintiffs. On December 30, 1993, defendant filed both a request for production of documents and a motion to compel more responsive answers to his interrogatories. A master granted defendant's motion to compel and ordered plaintiffs to file more responsive interrogatory answers by February 18, 1994. After plaintiffs had failed to produce the requested documents, the master granted defendant's second motion to compel and ordered plaintiffs to produce these documents on or before April 10, 1994.
Having received no reply to his request for documents or more responsive answers, defendant filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on April 14, 1994. On May 27, 1994, defendant agreed to extend to June 15 the time for plaintiffs to respond to both requests. Despite this extension, plaintiffs again failed to provide the requested information. For a second time, defendant filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and plaintiffs did not object. Consequently, an order of dismissal was entered with the condition that it would be removed if plaintiffs complied with the outstanding discovery orders on or before August 17, 1994. The plaintiffs failed to comply. Instead, on August 18 plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the expired time for compliance by an additional ten days.
On the basis of plaintiffs' failure to comply with the master's conditional order of dismissal, defendant filed a motion for entry of final judgment and an objection to plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time. These motions were heard on September 19, 1994. A trial justice denied plaintiffs' request for an extension and ordered them to file a motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal before October 17, 1994. On October 17 plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal. 2 This motion was heard on November 15, 1994. At the hearing plaintiffs' attorney represented to the master that during July and August of 1994, he was preparing to move his office and that, as a result, defendant's discovery requests went unanswered. The master denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate excusable neglect and that the final date for complying with defendant's discovery requests had expired August 17, 1994. 3 The defendant's motion for entry of final judgment was eventually heard on December 12, 1994. The trial justice granted defendant's motion and entered final judgment against plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an appeal with this court.
The plaintiffs assert on appeal that the sanction of entering a final judgment against them dismissing their complaint constituted an abuse of the motion justice's discretion. They argue that because they eventually complied with the discovery orders, defendant would not have been "unduly prejudiced by vacating the conditional order of dismissal."
At the outset, we note that, pursuant to the rules of discovery, the entry of a final judgment dismissing an action for noncompliance with a discovery order is within the discretion of the motion justice. See Providence Gas Co. v. Biltmore Hotel Operating Co., 119 R.I. 108, 112, 376 A.2d 334, 336 (1977). Rule 37(b)(2)(C) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey an order to permit discovery, the court may make "[a]n order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or a final judgment dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party * * *."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joachim v. Straight Line Prods., LLC
...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 demons......
-
Triton Realty Limited Partnership v. Essex Mutual Insurance Company, PC No. 03-2061 (RI 3/23/2006)
...with discovery requests and related court orders causes inordinate delay, expense, and frustration for all concerned." Mumford v. Lewis, 681 A.2d 914, 916 (R.I. 1996). Such a situation is characterized by "continuous and willful noncompliance with discovery orders" Goulet v. Officemax, Inc.......
-
Bremer v. Bremer
... ... of Default pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). See Mumford v ... Lewiss, 681 A.2d 914, 916 (R.I. 1996) (holding that ... failure to comply with ... ...
-
Goulet v. OfficeMax, Inc.
...judgment dismissing an action for noncompliance with a discovery order is within the discretion of the motion justice." Mumford v. Lewiss, 681 A.2d 914, 916 (R.I.1996) (citing Providence Gas Co. v. Biltmore Hotel Operating Co., 119 R.I. 108, 112, 376 A.2d 334, 336 (1977)). The imposition of......