CHARETTE v. DINSMORE et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRIAN CHARETTE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:24-cv-00355-JAW
)
RYAN DINSMORE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
As a sanction for Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with his discovery obligations
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a Court order, Defendants ask the Court to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff did not file a
response to the motion.
After consideration of Defendants’ motion and following a review of the record, I
recommend the Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
In June 2025, as contemplated by the Scheduling Order, Defendants’ counsel attempted
to confer with Plaintiff regarding discovery and the deadlines established by the Scheduling
Order. Plaintiff did not respond to counsel’s attempt to contact him.
The Scheduling Order designated June 17, 2025, as the deadline for the parties to serve
initial disclosures and October 7, 2025, as the discovery deadline. 	Defendants served their
initial disclosures, and on August 6, 2025, Defendants served Plaintiff with a request for
documents. Plaintiff did not serve his initial disclosures and did not respond to the discovery
Case 1:24-cv-00355-JAW Document 42 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
request. On September 8, 2025, Defendants’ counsel wrote to Plaintiff requesting the
information. Plaintiff did not respond.
On September 16, 2025, Defendants served interrogatories upon Plaintiff. When
Plaintiff did not respond to the interrogatories, on October 17, 2025, Defendants’ counsel
wrote to Plaintiff requesting his initial disclosures and his responses to the discovery requests.
Plaintiff did not respond. 	Counsel also attempted to contact Plaintiff by phone but was
unsuccessful. 	On 	October 	24, 	2025, 	counsel 	again 	wrote 	to 	Plaintiff 	requesting 	the
information, but Plaintiff did not respond.
Defendants then requested a discovery conference in accordance with District of Maine
Local Rule 26(b). Upon review of the request, the Court established November 21, 2025, as
the deadline for Plaintiff to serve his initial disclosures and his response to the discovery
requests. 	In the Court’s order, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to provide the
information, the Court could impose sanctions, including the dismissal of the matter. 	The
Court also authorized Defendants to file a motion for sanctions if Plaintiff failed to comply
with the Court’s order.
On November 7, 2025, Defendants’ counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel providing him
with a copy of the Court’s order. 	Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with any of the
information required by the Court’s order and has not otherwise communicated with
Defendants’ counsel.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the Court to impose sanctions, including
dismissal, in the event a party fails to comply with a court order, or fails to respond
Case 1:24-cv-00355-JAW Document 42 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
appropriately to legitimate discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), (d). Dismissal, while
authorized, is the ultimate sanction. When considering whether a discovery violation warrants
dismissal, the Court should consider a variety of factors, including “the severity of the
violation, the legitimacy of the party’s excuse, repetition of violations, the deliberateness vel
non of the misconduct, mitigating excuses, prejudice to the other side and to the operations of
the court, and the adequacy of lesser sanctions.” 	Malloy v. WM Specialty Mortg. LLC, 512
F.3d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Robson v. Hallenbeck, 81 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1996)).
Under District of Maine Local Rule 7(b), a party is expected to file an objection to a
motion if the party contests the motion, and unless the party files an objection, the party is
“deemed to have waived objection.” 	D. Me. Loc. R. 7(b). 	Dismissal, therefore, would be
warranted based solely on Plaintiff’s lack of objection to Defendants’ motion for sanctions.
The record also supports dismissal. 	Despite Defendants’ multiple inquiries, Plaintiff
has failed to serve initial disclosures, a response to a request for documents, and answers to
the interrogatories as required by the civil rules of procedure and the Court’s order. 	Given
Plaintiff’s failure to serve initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
his failure to serve responses to Defendants’ written discovery requests, and his failure to
comply with the Court’s order, dismissal is warranted.
CONCLUSION
After consideration of Defendants’ motion for sanctions and following a review of the
record, I recommend the Court grant the motion for sanctions and dismiss the matter.
Case 1:24-cv-00355-JAW Document 42 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum
and shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.
Case 1:24-cv-00355-JAW Document 42 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>