Harris v. Soley, 2000 ME 150 (2000)

Citation: Harris v. Soley, 2000 ME 150 (2000)
Parent Document: Harris v. Soley, 2000 ME 150 (2000)
Jurisdiction: Maine (state)
Effective Date: 2000-07-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1922039/harris-v-soley/ ↗

Full Text

911 chars

[¶ 17] Recourse to the authority of the court for orders compelling compliance with the rules must be the exception rather than the rule. Ordinarily, the court’s intervention in discovery matters should be necessary only where there is a legitimate dispute regarding the responsibility of one party to provide certain discovery. When one party forces another to obtain a court order merely to enforce an obligation that is not legitimately in dispute, that party wastes the court’s resources, causes unnecessary expense to the opposing party, and delays the ultimate resolution of the suit. Hence, a party’s failure to cooperate in discovery prior to the entry of a court order compelling compliance constitutes “conduct throughout the proceeding” that may be considered by a court in determining an appropriate sanction for purposes of M.R. Civ. P. 37(b). Baker’s Table, Inc., 2000 ME 7, ¶ 17, 743 A.2d at 243.

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text