Opinion ID: 2327341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preclusion Orders

Text: The plaintiff first argues that the Superior Court erred in precluding Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew from testifying at trial. The plaintiff maintains that the motion justice issued the preclusion orders based upon an erroneous interpretation of Rules 26(b)(4)(A) and (d) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. According to plaintiff, the motion justice interpreted Rules 26(b)(4)(A) and (d) as requiring the taking of plaintiffs medical experts' depositions by defendants before defendants' experts were deposed by plaintiff. This argument is without merit. The timeline for taking depositions in this case was established when the motion justice granted a motion for entry of a scheduling order filed by Dr. Kempner pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4). [11] Once the court entered the scheduling order, the parties became bound to comply with the sequence and timing for discovery set forth in that scheduling order and subsequent court orders. Our review of the record satisfies us that the motion justice precluded Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew from testifying, not because of any misinterpretation of Rule 26, as plaintiff alleges, but rather because of plaintiffs noncompliance with the court's discovery orders. Rule 37(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides the court with a variety of sanctions that may be imposed on a party who has failed to comply with an order to provide discovery. Flanagan v. Blair, 882 A.2d 569, 572-73 (R.I.2005). The decision to impose a particular sanction is within the sound discretion of the trial court. International Depository, Inc. v. State, 603 A.2d 1119, 1124 (R.I.1992). The trial justice selects the sanction he or she believes is `[the] most appropriate [one] for the situation in question.' Id. (quoting Margadonna v. Otis Elevator Co., 542 A.2d 232, 233 (R.I. 1988)). One of the sanctions that is available to the court in appropriate circumstances is the preclusion of a party's expert witness from testifying at trial. See Rule 37(b)(2)(B). [12] The imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 will be overturned only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial justice. Goulet v. Office-Max, Inc., 843 A.2d 494, 496 (R.I.2004) (mem.). The plaintiff argues that preclusion orders were not appropriate sanctions in this case. He contends that defendants failed to show that prejudice would result from further extensions of time for the completion of Dr. Polsby's and Dr. Andrew's depositions, and that therefore his expert witnesses should not have been precluded from testifying. The plaintiff further argues that his noncompliance with the discovery orders was the result of the unavailability of Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew for depositions, which was beyond his control. The plaintiff cites this Court's opinion in Allen v. South County Hospital, 945 A.2d 289 (R.I.2008), for the premise that the Court supports not sanctioning a party whose expert does not comply with court orders scheduling testimony. In Allen, 945 A.2d at 290-91, the plaintiff's primary expert witness unexpectedly abandoned the plaintiff's claim just weeks before trial and after several years of preparation. After the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to secure a replacement witness in the little time remaining before trial, the trial justice dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Id. Soon thereafter, the plaintiff was contacted by another potential expert witness who indicated that he would be willing to testify on her behalf. Id. The plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which initially was granted subject to certain conditions, including the pecuniary condition that the plaintiff post a corporate surety bond for $60,000 to secure payment for the defendants' anticipated costs and fees. Allen, 945 A.2d at 290-91. After the plaintiff was unable to post the $60,000 bond, the motion to vacate was then deemed denied. Id. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint; however, this Court also affirmed the initial order vacating said judgment subject to new conditions as modified by the Court's opinion. Id. at 297. We reasoned that [a]ccess to our courts ought not depend upon pecuniary preconditions. Id. at 296. We also noted that the loss of plaintiff's primary expert witness at the eleventh hour indeed created extraordinary circumstances warranting the vacation of the judgment of dismissal. Id. at 297. The Allen case is inapposite to the case at bar. In this case, the motion justice twice granted plaintiff's motions to amend the scheduling order, over defendants' objections, ultimately extending the deadline for plaintiff's experts to be deposed to August 1, 2008 from the initial deadline of March 15, 2008. Moreover, the motion justice granted extensions on three different occasions for plaintiff to disclose his expert witnesses. After plaintiff identified Dr. Andrew, more than three months past the deadline for expert disclosure, the motion justice nonetheless denied defendants' motions to strike Dr. Andrew as a witness, thereby permitting him to be added as an expert. At a July 16, 2008 hearing on defendants' motions to strike, the motion justice ordered that Dr. Andrew be deposed by August 8, 2008, and that Dr. Polsby's deposition be concluded by July 31, 2008. The motion justice expressly cautioned plaintiff against further noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines and warned him that Dr. Andrew and Dr. Polsby would be precluded from testifying at trial if their depositions were not completed by said dates. Despite the motion justice's warning and the repeated attempts by defendants to establish deposition dates, plaintiff failed to produce Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew for depositions by the court-ordered deadlines. Instead, plaintiff again moved to amend the scheduling order and filed a motion to reconsider the court's orders imposing the expired deadlines for completion of Dr. Polsby's and Dr. Andrew's depositions. After a hearing, both of plaintiff's motions were denied on September 15, 2008, and Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew were thereby precluded as experts in accordance with the court's prior orders. The motion justice carefully considered the circumstances before issuing the preclusion orders, stating: I'm never happy issuing preclusion orders because I believe firmly that we ought to try everything on its merits and let our juries decide. But, we had had multiple amendments of this scheduling order. This case was filed on the eve of the statute of limitations. There's been nothing but difficulty in coming up with the names of the expert witnesses. And, I think there was even some amendment to your expert disclosure at the eleventh hour and outside the last scheduling order. I don't know what more I can do. I mean, these defendants are entitledwere entitled to all of this information. The record indicates that plaintiff was given ample opportunity over the course of several months to comply with his discovery obligations. The plaintiff's delay in this case is quite different from the situation in Allen, in which the plaintiff was left without an expert witness because of circumstances entirely beyond her control. Despite multiple extensions to scheduling orders, which were generously granted at plaintiff's request, and despite an express warning from the motion justice, plaintiff failed to timely produce Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew for depositions. Given plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with discovery orders, we cannot say that the motion justice abused her discretion under Rule 37(b)(2)(B) by precluding Dr. Polsby and Dr. Andrew from testifying as expert witnesses.