Jonathon Friedmann and Casey Sack were featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on September 22, 2025, for securing a rare and significant remedy of default judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The article, titled “‘No more,’ judge says in ordering default as discovery sanction,” details the court’s extraordinary ruling in favor of the firm’s homeowner clients, the Malaros, in a prolonged residential construction dispute.
The default judgment, which was issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, was the result of repeated discovery violations by the contractor, including the failure to produce communications relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims. As reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the court’s decision underscores the severity of discovery misconduct and marks a rare but powerful sanction in civil litigation.
The Malaros filed their federal lawsuit in April 2022, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and violations of Massachusetts General Laws Chapters 142A and 93A. The dispute stemmed from a home renovation project in Westport, Massachusetts that ballooned from $175,000 to nearly $270,000.
Throughout the litigation, the contractor consistently disregarded court orders to produce discovery, particularly project-related text messages and communications. Despite four separate court orders and mounting evidence that more messages existed, the defendant produced just a single text message.
In his September 5, 2025, order, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton wrote: “Plaintiffs have continued to incur costs litigating against an opponent who obfuscates and delays. No more.” The Court entered default judgment in favor of the Malaros on all claims and dismissed the contractor’s counterclaims with prejudice.
This followed a June decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal, who denied the contractor’s motion for a protective order, awarded over $14,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs, and called the defendant’s actions “both untimely and frivolous,” concluding: “Enough is enough.”
Jon said he believes the entry of default judgment was driven by the fact that information helpful to his clients was in the possession, custody and control of the defendant.
“And so the normal remedies of an order precluding documents that weren’t produced from being used at trial would have punished our clients as opposed to the recalcitrant party,” Jon said. “I think part of what must have gone into the court’s reasoning was that the sanction was appropriate because [the keepers] of the information wouldn’t give the information because they knew it was harmful to them.”
Casey said the record supports Gorton’s decision to order a default judgment.
“There were four court orders that were outstanding where [the defendant] refused to produce really any communications with the relevant personnel on the project,” she said. “The crux of the claim was overbilling on the project, deficient work and delay. The project communications would have spoken to all of those things.”
With liability now established, the plaintiffs are preparing a memorandum of damages, due October 3, and intend to seek substantial compensation, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees under Chapters 93A and 142A.
Continue reading “‘No more,’ judge says in ordering default as discovery sanction,” on the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly website (subscription required).
