Opinion ID: 2291239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court Sanctions

Text: The Superior Court found that Glasser's failure to confer with the other parties to discuss the contents of the record, submission of only a partial record, and refusal to supply defendants with copies were sufficient bases to sanction him by denying him the chance to file a reply brief or to be heard at oral argument. M.R. Civ.P. 80B(e) makes the plaintiff responsible for the preparation and submission of the record and directs the parties to meet in advance to agree on the record to b be submitted. Every designation of record must be served upon each of the parties. See M.R.Civ.P. 5(a). Glasser failed to comply with those rules. The sanction imposed by the court was essentially that specified by M.R.Civ.P. 80B(h) for a defendant's failure to comply with the procedural rules of Rule 80B. It was no abuse of discretion for the court to impose the sanction in the present circumstances. See Lerman v. Inhabitants of Portland, 406 A.2d 903, 904 (Me.1979). In any case, because were review the Planning Board's action directly, see Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023, 1026 (Me.1982) the restrictions on Glasser's participation before the Superior Court have not at all hampered his advocacy before us. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.