## Facts

- Algonquin Gas Transmission Company hired workers, including Robert Bailey, to excavate a trench and lay a gas line in East Providence, Rhode Island.
- The workers alleged they suffered personal injuries from toxic chemical contamination in the soil and groundwater at the worksite.
- The workers claimed defendants, including Maguire Group (an engineering firm), knew or should have known of contamination and negligently failed to warn or misrepresented the risks.
- During discovery, the workers served Maguire’s counsel with a request for production of documents; counsel did not respond.
- Counsel also failed to respond to subsequent motions and conditional court orders compelling production, despite proper service.
- The Superior Court entered a default judgment against Maguire for $458,533.69, including prejudgment interest and costs.
- Maguire asserted it was unaware of counsel’s noncompliance and alleged counsel misled it about the case status; Maguire learned of the judgment only when collection efforts began.
- Maguire discharged prior counsel, retained new counsel, and moved to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b).

## Issues

1. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying relief from a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) based on “excusable neglect” when the default resulted from counsel’s repeated discovery noncompliance.
2. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for “any other reason justifying relief” based on alleged gross attorney misconduct and claimed client unawareness.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the order denying Maguire’s Rule 60(b) motion.
- The court held the attorney’s failures constituted inexcusable, sustained noncompliance rather than “excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)(1).
- The court held the asserted attorney misconduct did not amount to “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
- The court concluded the motion justice acted within his discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A client is generally bound by the acts and omissions of its attorney under agency principles, including litigation defaults caused by counsel’s failures.
- Rule 60(b)(1) relief for “excusable neglect” is not available for repeated, unexplained, or willful failures to comply with discovery obligations and court orders.
- Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for extraordinary circumstances not addressed by other Rule 60(b) grounds; attorney dereliction, even severe, ordinarily does not justify relief without additional exceptional factors.
- Appellate review of a Rule 60(b) ruling is for abuse of discretion; the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment absent a clear abuse.

## Conclusion

The court left the default judgment intact, ruling that Maguire was accountable for its counsel’s discovery failures and that neither “excusable neglect” nor “extraordinary circumstances” justified setting aside the judgment under Rule 60(b).


Bailey v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co., 788 A.2d 478 (R.I. 2002)