Opinion ID: 1938099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discovery and Right to Present Evidence

Text: Brookstone argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow it to conduct discovery prior to the hearing on damages and in refusing to allow it to present evidence at the hearing. We have never discussed whether a defaulted defendant is entitled to conduct discovery on the issue of damages prior to a hearing on damages. However, we have twice considered the extent of a defaulted defendant's participation in such a hearing. Firth, 580 A.2d at 697; McNutt, 477 A.2d at 740-41. [1] We review a trial court's decision regarding a defendant's participation in a damages hearing for an abuse of discretion. Id. In exercising this discretion, a trial court should decide the scope of the defendant's participation necessary and proper to determine the damages.... [and] the court should be alert that no fraud is perpetrated on the court and that the chance for error in setting damages is kept to a minimum. Firth, 580 A.2d at 697. Other courts have allowed a defaulted defendant to conduct discovery prior to a damages hearing. Clague v. Bednarski, 105 F.R.D. 552, 553 (E.D.N.Y.1985); Bashforth v. Zampini, 576 A.2d 1197, 1200 (R.I.1990). Likewise, other courts have allowed a defaulted defendant to present evidence at a hearing on damages. Clague, 105 F.R.D. at 553; Bashforth, 576 A.2d at 1200; Miller v. Miller, 70 Md.App. 1, 519 A.2d 1298, 1309 n. 11 (1987). A trial court's decision of whether to allow a defaulted defendant discovery or to present evidence is a discretionary one which should be granted only after careful consideration. In this case, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Brookstone to conduct discovery on the issue of damages and in refusing to allow Brookstone to present evidence at the hearing on damages. Prior to the hearing on damages, Brookstone had little, if any, information concerning the extent of the damages claimed or the evidence that would be submitted by the Boits. After the hearing on damages, at which Brookstone was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Boits, the trial court awarded to the Boits $278,995.12, plus interest and costs, which was subsequently reduced by $100,000 to reflect a settlement previously accepted by the Boits from their contractor. This award was based upon testimonial and non-testimonial evidence, partly from experts, presented by the Boits, concerning the repairs done to the house, antiques, and pieces of art, and the value of certain antiques and pieces of art. Given that the determination of damages required complicated determinations of the value of services and objects, which necessitated the use of experts, we find that Brookstone should have been allowed to conduct limited discovery and present evidence solely on the issue of damages in order to prevent fraud and the chance of error. [2] We do not find that defaulted parties are entitled to discovery and to present evidence at a damage hearing in every instance. Rather, we find that the greater the complexity of the evidence required to prove the damages at issue, the greater the likelihood that discovery and participation in the damage hearing will be required to prevent fraud and error. [3] The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.