WIDI v. MCNEIL et al

Filing 586

ORDER granting 578 579 and 580 Motions for Sanctions By JUDGE JOSEPH A. DICLERICO, JR. (jwr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

David J. Widi, Jr.

v.

Civil No.

2:12-cv-188-JD

Paul McNeil, et al.

O R D E R
David J. Widi, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought civil rights claims against federal and state
defendants, most of whom have been dismissed from the case.1
The remaining defendants, Kevin Curran, Kevin Cady, Robert
Brown, Elliott Moya, and Theodore Short, who are or were
officers in the Town of Eliot, Maine, Police Department, move
for sanctions against Widi for failing to comply with the
court’s discovery orders.2

Widi did not file a response to the

motions.
In the motions for sanctions, the defendants describe in
detail Widi’s failure to provide discovery and to abide by the
court’s discovery orders in this case.

1

See doc. nos. 578, 579,

The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on August
30, 2018, following recusal of the judges in the District of
Maine.
2 The initial motion for sanctions was filed on behalf of
Curran and the other defendants then joined the motion.

& 580.
orders.

The court has addressed the issues in a series of
See doc. nos. 540, 543, 553, 560, 569, 573, & 574.

The

court held a sixth telephone conference with Widi and the
defendants on August 3, 2018, to address the continuing
discovery issues.

The court ordered that motions for sanctions

were due by August 24, 2018, and the response deadline was set
for September 14, 2018.
The defendants filed their motion for sanctions within the
time allowed.

Widi did not file a response to the defendants’

motion by the deadline.

Discussion
The defendants ask the court to dismiss the claims against
them, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A),
as a sanction against Widi for his failure to comply with his
discovery obligations and the court’s orders.

The defendants

also argue that the claims should be dismissed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because of Widi’s failure to
prosecute his claims.

Alternatively, the defendants ask that

the court impose other lesser sanctions allowed under the rule
and order Widi to pay the expenses they have incurred because of
his conduct.
“District courts’ authority to dismiss an action as a
2

sanction for noncompliance with a discovery order is well
established.”
Cir. 2010).

Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla, 607 F.3d 1, 7 (1st

That is because dismissal “is an essential tool for

district courts’ effective exercise of their right to establish
orderly processes and manage their own affairs.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Id. at 8

While dismissal is a harsh

sanction and courts “should not be too quick to resort to
dismissal, . . . disobedience of court orders, in and of itself,
constitutes extreme misconduct (and thus warrants dismissal).”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “reinforce and augment
the inherent power of district courts to dismiss cases for
disregard of judicial orders.”
(1st Cir. 2003).

Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81

Rule 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it.”

In addition, under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v), the court

may dismiss the action if a party “fails to obey an order to
provide or permit discovery.”
Widi filed his complaint in June of 2012.

After initial

review and subsequent amendments, the case proceeded against
federal and local defendants on a range of civil rights claims.
The claims against all defendants, except the Eliot Police
3

Department defendants, were previously dismissed.
The Eliot Police Department defendants then proceeded with
discovery.

The court set April 30, 2018, as the deadline for

Widi to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests.
provided some discovery documents through email.

Widi

He did not

provide direct responses to the defendants’ requests or answers
to interrogatories within the time ordered by the court.

During

a second conference call, the court explained Widi’s discovery
obligations and set May 29, 2018, as the deadline for his
compliance.

The court then extended the deadline as requested

by Widi to June 14, 2018.
Widi did not provide the outstanding discovery by the June
14, deadline.

The court set a third conference call, but Widi

failed to participate.

A fourth conference call was held on

June 29, but Widi again failed to participate despite the
court’s order that he do so and having received notice of the
call.
The court set a fifth conference call for July 20 and
required the defendants to physically serve Widi with notice.
The court notified Widi that if he again failed to participate,
the court would impose sanctions, including dismissal of his
claims.

The defendants attempted to physically serve Widi with

notice of the July 10 call but were unable to do so.
4

Widi did participate in the July 20 call.

The court set

July 30 as the deadline for Widi’s discovery responses and
warned Widi that sanctions would be imposed if he continued to
be unavailable and unresponsive.

The court also scheduled a

sixth telephone conference for August 3, 2018.
Counsel for the defendants continued to experience
difficulty communicating with Widi.

While Widi again provided

documents by email, he did not properly respond to the
defendants’ discovery requests as he was directed to do by the
court.

He also refused to address issues with his interrogatory

responses.
The sixth conference call was held on August 3.

After a

discussion about whether or not Widi had properly responded to
the defendants’ discovery requests, the court allowed the
parties to file motions for sanctions.

Widi did not respond to

the defendants’ counsels’ subsequent efforts to resolve the
discovery issues.

Widi also did not respond to the motions for

sanctions.
The circumstances in this case demonstrate that Widi has
deliberately refused to comply with the court’s discovery
orders.

The court repeatedly explained his obligations, and he

has not provided an adequate excuse for his behavior.

His

failure to respond to the motions for sanctions further shows
5

his failure to prosecute his case.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and
the inherent power of the court to manage its proceedings, it is
appropriate in this case to dismiss the remaining claims as a
sanction for Widi’s failure to obey court orders, to comply with
ordered discovery, and to prosecute his case.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions for
sanctions (documents 578, 579, and 580) are granted.
The remaining claims in the case, against defendants
Curran, Cady, Brown, Moya, and Short, are dismissed with
prejudice.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
(Sitting by designation.)
September 20, 2018
cc:

David J. Widi, Jr., pro se
Evan J. Roth, AUSA
John G. Osborn, AUSA
Sheila W. Sawyer, AUSA
John J. Wall, III, Esq.
Edward R. Benjamin, Jr.
6

Kasia S. Park, Esq.
Brendan R. O’Rouke, Esq.
Benjamin Wahrer, Esq.

7