Philip C. Battryn v. Indian Oil Co., Inc. (Maine 1984)

Summary

The court affirmed a $500 Rule 37 sanction imposed on plaintiff's counsel after counsel failed to answer interrogatories or timely assert a self-incrimination objection despite an order compelling responses. It held that a privilege against self-incrimination may justify refusing to provide information but does not excuse failing to respond by serving objections, and that the trial court could assess reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining both the discovery order and sanctions. The court also held that imposing the sanction on counsel alone was within the trial court's discretion.

Holding

Whether the self-incrimination privilege excused the failure to respond to interrogatories and comply with the discovery order.. The privilege against self-incrimination may justify refusing to provide requested information, but it does not relieve a party or counsel of the obligation to respond to interrogatories by timely serving answers or objections. Because the objection was asserted only after prolonged noncompliance, the failure was not substantially justified.

Whether the sanction could be imposed on counsel alone.. The Superior Court acted within its discretion by ordering Battryn's counsel, rather than Battryn himself, to pay the sanction because Rule 37 permits sanctions against the attorney alone and the record indicated that the noncompliance resulted from counsel's judgments concerning the privilege, timing, and interpretation of the discovery requirements.

Whether the sanction could include expenses incurred in obtaining the original discovery order.. The Superior Court had authority to include reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses incurred in obtaining the discovery order, as well as expenses incurred in prosecuting the later sanctions motion.

Philip C. Battryn v. Indian Oil Co., Inc.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by