DocketNumber: No. P-05-31
Judges: DARIGAN, J.
Filed Date: 12/6/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
In response to the tragedy, a grand jury indicted the two nightclub owners, Michael and Jeffrey Derderian, and the Tour Manager of the Great White band, Daniel Biechele ("Defendants"). In addition to this criminal component, approximately 250 plaintiffs have consolidated their claims against over fifty defendants in the District Court of Rhode Island, seeking civil recovery for their losses. Gray v. Derderian, No. 04-3121L, 03-483L, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 28535 (D.R.I. Nov. 9, 2005). Plaintiffs in the civil case represent the interests of survivors, victims, and their families. See Passa v.Derderian,
The incident foam is relevant to issues in both the civil and criminal cases.2 The incident foam was allegedly not adequately flame resistant for what it was used for in The Station. As such, determining the characteristics of the incident foam and its impact on the fatalities and injuries is material in both the civil and criminal proceedings. Plaintiffs in the civil case are especially interested in testing the foam to determine what company manufactured the foam; the State and the criminal defendants are interested in the foam to determine its chemical properties for use in the prosecution and/or defense of the criminal case.
The State has labeled the sheets of foam using alphabetical letters A through J. This Court has previously transferred four square feet of incident foam to the District Court in response to an earlier civil request for testing; the four square feet apparently came from four foam sheets labeled A through D. The Gray Plaintiffs now request one square foot from foam sheets E through J, or a smaller piece if a particular sheet is not large enough. The Gray Plaintiffs do not identify any facts that would indicate that the samples from sheets A through D would be different in characteristics or manufacture than samples E through J.
Unfortunately, the amount of foam taken from The Station is extremely limited. Because of this fact, this Court has ordered that any party seeking testing of the foam obtain permission from the Court to perform destructive testing in order to preserve the foam. The Court has received testing requests by the Defendants in the criminal case to conduct destructive testing on the foam. Granting the Defendants' requests for foam testing would effectively deny the Gray Plaintiff's request, as the amount needed to perform those tests would leave only enough form for the State to present evidence at trial. What would remain would be a marginal amount left over from the larger pieces, and the small miscellaneous pieces of foam contained in the so-called "box of scraps." The Defendants requested a total of seventy square feet of incident foam for destructive scientific testing and the State requested one square foot of foam for trial purposes. The criminal parties have already substantially conserved the incident foam by agreeing to a stipulation to use exemplar foam for the purposes of the State's test (the Steiner Tunnel Test) which would have required approximately forty-eight square feet of foam. Regrettably, no further agreement could be reached by the parties.
This situation presents the Court with a Solomon-like decision of how to divide the foam among the many competing interests. The Rhode Island Superior Court Rules provide for extensive discovery on the part of a criminal defendant, and allows for the defendant to inspect tangible objects and conduct tests or experiments on such evidence in a fashion approved by the judge. R.I. Super. R. Crim. P. 16. The court may grant such requests by a defendant, and provide for suitable safeguards when appropriate and feasible, and also may deny a defendant's request, as long as the court does not abuse its discretion. State v. Farone,
This Court recognizes the importance of the civil suit in progress in the Rhode Island District Court. The civil system's ability to provide victims with recovery in the face of such tremendous tragedy serves an extremely valuable function in our society. The Court is tremendously sympathetic to the losses that so many endured as the result of the fire. "Justice is meted out in both civil and criminal litigation." Driver v. Helms,
However, the Court also recognizes that the priority given to the public interest in law enforcement should be given "substantial weight" over competing civil interests. Id. at 685 (even after the District Court applied "substantial weight" to the concerns of the criminal proceedings, the facts and circumstances did not justify staying the civil proceedings.) Keeping in mind the value of a fair criminal trial, this Court cannot ignore the consequences that would result if the Gray Plaintiff's foam request was granted. The Defendants in the criminal proceeding have not been given any foam previous to this decision. They have therefore had no opportunity to test and record the scientific data needed to rebut the State's allegations of the dangerous nature of the foam.
This Court believes the Defendants' request to be relevant and material to the State's case against the Defendants. See Statev. Faraone,
The Criminal Defendants have provided detailed ex parte motions specifying the nature of the tests and who will perform the requested tests. Upon reviewing those tests, the Court believes that the requests to test the foam are reasonable in nature. In the discretion of this Court, the Gray Plaintiffs' request for additional foam is hereby denied at this time, as the Court finds the Criminal Defendants' interests to be paramount when considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the criminal case. As a result, the majority of the available foam found will go to the Defendants.
In an effort to assist the Gray Plaintiffs in prosecuting the civil side of the case, the Court orders the State to release the small pieces of foam ("box of scraps") to the District Court for further distribution as the District Court feels appropriate. The Court further reiterates the protective order for foam preservation remains in effect on any foam not specifically ordered to be released by this Court. After the Defendants' testing is completed, the Civil Plaintiffs may be able to motion this Court for any remaining pieces currently in the State's possession that have not been consumed in the testing process.