GLADU v. MAGNUSSON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:22-cv-00134-SDN
)
MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants ask the Court to impose sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to produce
certain documents in discovery as ordered by the Court. (Motion for Sanctions, ECF No.
306.) Following a review of the record and after consideration of the parties’ arguments,
the Court grants in part the motion.
BACKGROUND
In December 2024 and June 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce documents
that he referenced during his deposition, which documents Plaintiff maintained supported
his legal claims. (Orders, ECF Nos. 205, 259.) As set forth in the Court’s June 9, 2025,
Order, the documents consisted of (a) communications between Plaintiff and Defendant
Magnusson regarding the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint, (b) the Maine State Prison’s
response to Plaintiff’s grievance regarding the subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint, (c)
communications between Plaintiff and any other prison officials regarding the subject
matter of Plaintiff’s complaint, and (d) the order or communication from the court
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 335 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
regarding Plaintiff’s attempt to reopen a complaint that Plaintiff previously asserted.
(Order After Discovery Conference at 1, ECF No. 259.)
In the June 2025 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce the documents by
June 30, 2025. Plaintiff subsequently requested more time to produce the document and a
protective order that would relieve him of the obligation to produce the documents. The
Court granted the request for more time—extending to September 12, 2025, the deadline
to produce the documents—and denied the motion for protective order.
The parties’ filings regarding the motion for sanctions establish that Plaintiff has
not produced the documents. Plaintiff contends, as he did when he requested the protective
order, that due to the management of his files by prison personnel, he does not have access
to the documents.
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims or, in the alternative, to limit
Plaintiff’s ability to rely on the documents in the prosecution of his claims.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against a
party for failure to cooperate in discovery. 	A court may under certain circumstances
dismiss the action “in whole or part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), (v).
Dismissal as a sanction should be used cautiously. As the First Circuit explained:
Prior to choosing the harsh sanction of dismissal, a district court should
consider the broad panoply of lesser sanctions available to it, such as
contempt, fines, conditional orders of dismissal, etc. The severe sanction of
dismissal serves as a powerful means of deterring others from frustrating the
district court’s well justified efforts at docket management, but it is not the
only such deterrent.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 335 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Crossman v. Raytheon Long Term Disability Plan, 316 F.3d 36, 39 – 40 (1st Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). When assessing whether dismissal is
warranted, a court must consider “the gravity of the violation and balance it with the need
for order in the trial court, the prejudice to the other party, and the preference for disposing
of a case on the merits.” Id. (citing Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir. 2003)).
Here, the Court cannot conclude that the failure to provide the information warrants
dismissal. 	However, fundamental fairness militates in favor of an order that precludes
Plaintiff from relying on the documents. 	When a party fails to provide information in
discovery, a court may “prohibit[] the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). On two occasions, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce the
documents, yet Plaintiff has not produced the documents. (Orders, ECF Nos. 205, 259.)
More than eighteen months have passed since Plaintiff was first ordered to produce the
documents and discovery has closed. Under the circumstances, an order precluding
Plaintiff from relying on the documents to support his claims is reasonable.
C ONCLUSION
Following a review of the record and after consideration of the parties’ filings
regarding Defendants’ motion for sanctions, for the reasons explained above, the Court
grants in part the motion. Plaintiff may not introduce as evidence the following documents
that Plaintiff referenced during his deposition: (a) communications between Plaintiff and
Defendant Magnusson regarding the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint, (b) the Maine State
Prison’s response to Plaintiff’s grievance regarding the subject matter of Plaintiff’s
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 335 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
complaint, (c) communications between Plaintiff and any other prison officials regarding
the subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint, and (d) the order or communication from the
court regarding Plaintiff’s attempt to reopen a complaint that Plaintiff previously asserted.1
NOTICE
Any objections to the Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 31st day of August, 2026.
1 In connection with the motion for sanctions, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to obtain evidence to support
his opposition to the motion for sanctions. (Motion, ECF No. 313.) The alleged evidence relates to
Plaintiff’s contention that he has not had access to his file materials. As Defendants’ note, Plaintiff
essentially advances arguments that the Court has previously assessed. Further, regardless of the reason
for Plaintiff’s failure to produce the documents, it would be unreasonable to permit Plaintiff to produce and
rely on the documents at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 335 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>