Baldi v. John T. Broderick, Jr., et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Baldi
v. Case No. 04-cv-466-01-PB
Opinion No. 2006 DNH 143C
John Broderick, Jr.
O R D E R
Ronald and Gail Brown have moved for a default judgment with
respect to their counterclaims against John Baldi. The Browns
allege in the motion that a default judgment is warranted because
Baldi failed to file answers to interrogatories and failed to
file a final pretrial statement. Further, after the Browns filed
their motion for default judgment, they appeared at the final
pretrial conference and orally complained that a default judgment
should also be entered because Baldi failed to attend the
conference. Baldi has responded with an objection challenging
the validity of the counterclaims and arguing that I must be
barred from presiding over the case. However, he does not
challenge the Browns’ contentions that he failed to respond to
the interrogatories and failed without justification to file a
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 105 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 3

-2-
pretrial statement. Nor has he offered an explanation for his
failure to attend the pretrial conference.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the entry of a
default judgment for the failure to respond to interrogatories,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), the failure to file a pretrial
statement, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), and the failure to attend a
pretrial conference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); see also Guex v.
Allmerica Financial Life Ins. and Annuity Co., 146 F.3d 40, 41
(1st Cir. 1998); Hathrock v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 53
F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995). While a default judgment obviously
is a severe sanction that should not be imposed lightly, it is
warranted in cases like this where the resulting harm is severe,
lesser sanctions are insufficient, and the offending party’s
behavior is inexcusable.
I have no doubt that the Browns have been severely
prejudiced by Baldi’s failure to respond to interrogatories and
his failure to file a pretrial statement. Indeed, I do not see
how they could possibly be ready for trial without the
information they seek. I also have no reason to believe that
lesser sanctions will bring Baldi into compliance with the
court’s rules and orders because he has made no attempt to
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 105 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 3

-3-
justify or excuse his noncompliance. Moreover, his failure to
attend the final pretrial conference even after he had been
served with the Motion for Default Judgment suggests that he has
no intention to fulfill his duties as a litigant. Accordingly, I
grant the Browns’ Motion for Default Judgment (Document No. 99)
and refer the case to the Magistrate Judge for a hearing on
damages.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
December 18, 2006
cc: John A. Baldi, pro se
Charles Russell, Esq.
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 105 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3