Opinion ID: 3183090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motions to Reopen Discovery

Text: We first address Albanese’s claim that the court erred by denying her multiple motions to request additional materials from defendants long after the discovery phase had passed. This Court consistently has held that “[t]he Superior Court has broad discretion to regulate how and when discovery occurs.” Shelter Harbor Conservation Society, Inc. v. Rogers, 21 A.3d 337, 343 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Giuliano v. Pastina, 793 A.2d 1035, 1037 (R.I. 2002)). This Court will not disturb a decision granting or denying discovery, except upon a showing that the lower court abused its discretion. Id. We previously have remarked that, “[o]nce the court enter[s] [a] scheduling order, the parties [become] bound to comply with the sequence and timing for discovery set forth in that scheduling order and subsequent court orders.” Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497, 506 (R.I. 2011). Here, more than six and a half years had elapsed between the time Albanese brought suit in 2006 and July 17, 2013, the court-ordered discovery deadline. The plaintiff had ample time to request materials throughout this period and was represented by counsel at the time discovery closed. She claims that her desire to reopen discovery is because her former attorney had failed to seek allegedly pertinent documents.5 Nonetheless, Albanese did not move to reopen discovery 5 We do not mean to suggest that Albanese’s previous attorney erred or that we would have reached a different conclusion regarding any issue raised on appeal had additional discovery materials been requested. -6- until several months after she assumed self-representation. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Superior Court justice did not abuse her discretion when she denied Albanese’s motions to resurrect a discovery period that had ended months before.6