GOODWILL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

SARA D. GOODWILL, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00407-SDN

)

THE MASIELLO GROUP )

LIMITED, d/b/a BETTER HOMES )

AND GARDENS REAL ESTATE/ )

THE MASIELLO GROUP, )

)

Defendant )

RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL

Almost three years into what should have been a relatively straightforward

employment case, I issued an order requiring Sara D. Goodwill to show cause “why

her case should not be dismissed for her repeated and ongoing failure to comply with”

my discovery orders and her lawyer to show cause “why disciplinary proceedings

should not be initiated against him for” lack of candor. ECF No. 106. Having now

reviewed Goodwill and her lawyer’s response to my order to show cause as well as

The Masiello Group’s reply, I recommend that the Court (1) dismiss Goodwill’s case

with prejudice as a sanction for her stubborn noncompliance with the discovery

process and my orders and (2) send information about her lawyer’s lack of candor to

the Maine Board of Bar Overseers for potential disciplinary action.

I. Background

In September 2022, Goodwill initiated this case in state court, asserting age

discrimination claims against her former employer The Masiello Group, as well as

Maine wage and employment law claims on behalf of herself and a putative class.

See ECF No. 2-1. The Masiello Group removed the case to this Court based on federal

question and diversity jurisdiction, see ECF No. 1, Goodwill amended her complaint,

see ECF No. 12, and the Court dismissed Goodwill’s claims against a second

defendant—Anywhere Real Estate, see ECF No. 22.

In July 2023, I issued a scheduling order setting a discovery deadline of

December 14, 2023. See ECF No. 23. I granted various extensions of the pretrial

deadlines, see ECF Nos. 32, 36, and, in December 2023, I extended the discovery

deadline to September 27, 2024, see ECF No. 41.

In February 2024, Goodwill’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case citing

a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. See ECF No. 42. Following a

hearing on that motion in April 2024, which Goodwill attended, I granted her

counsel’s motion to withdraw, stayed all remaining scheduling order deadlines, and

set a deadline of May 11, 2024, for Goodwill’s new counsel to enter an appearance or

for her to file a pro se entry of appearance. See ECF Nos. 43, 49-50.

After the May 11, 2024, deadline passed without any filing by Goodwill, The

Masiello Group filed a motion for default judgment, which the Court denied.

See ECF Nos. 51, 52. In July 2024, still having received no communications or filings

from Goodwill, I entered an order requiring her to explain in writing why her case

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See ECF No. 53. On July 22, 2024,

Goodwill’s new counsel—who happens to be her son—entered his appearance.

See ECF No. 55.

In August 2024, following a conference of counsel, I entered an amended

scheduling order, setting a March 31, 2025, discovery deadline. See ECF Nos. 60, 63.

At The Masiello Group’s request, I held a discovery hearing in October 2024, following

which I ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status report

regarding various discovery disputes and the remaining deadlines. See ECF No. 68.

Only The Masiello Group filed a status report. See ECF No. 69.

On December 4, 2024, I held another discovery hearing, following which I

ordered Goodwill to submit complete discovery responses to The Masiello Group by

December 18, 2024, along with her availability for a deposition in January 2025.

See ECF No. 73. I warned Goodwill that I would likely authorize The Masiello Group

to file a motion for sanctions if she did not comply with my order. See id.

On December 20, 2024, I held a status conference at The Masiello Group’s

request to address Goodwill’s inadequate discovery responses. See ECF No. 79.

Following that conference, I ordered Goodwill, by December 30, 2024, to provide

signed authorizations that would enable The Masiello Group to obtain her tax return

documents, files, and communications directly from the IRS and her tax return

preparers and to submit to me unredacted copies of communications between herself

and her attorney prior to his representation for an in-camera review. See ECF No. 80

at 2. I warned Goodwill for a second time “that if [she] continued to drag her feet in

producing important and long overdue discovery responses, I would not hesitate to

authorize” The Masiello Group “to file a motion for sanctions.” Id. at 2. I also

reminded Goodwill’s counsel, when he tried to deflect blame onto The Masiello Group,

that he was free to raise such issues in a properly filed request for a discovery hearing

under Local Rule 26(b). See id. at 2-3. And, finally, I ordered the parties to submit a

joint status report by December 31, 2024. See id. at 2. Once again, only The Masiello

Group filed a status report by the deadline. See ECF No. 81.

On January 7, 2025, following my in-camera review of Goodwill’s unredacted

communications with her counsel, I concluded that the redactions were seemingly

justified but that Goodwill’s privilege log provided insufficient context.

See ECF No. 88 at 1-2. I ordered Goodwill to produce, by January 10, 2025, to The

Masiello Group “the privilege log [she] submitted to me as well as a revised privilege

log” consistent with my order. Id. at 2-3. On January 8, 2025, I also further extended

the scheduling order deadlines at The Masiello Group’s request, including the

discovery deadline, which I extended to August 7, 2025. See ECF No. 90.

On January 13, 2025, The Masiello Group filed a request for a discovery

hearing in which it indicated that Goodwill had not fully complied with my orders to

sign authorizations for it to obtain documents directly from her tax preparers and to

produce the privilege logs. See ECF No. 92. In lieu of scheduling another discovery

hearing, I authorized The Masiello Group to file a motion for sanctions.

See ECF No. 93.

On January 14, 2025, Goodwill filed a motion seeking an extension of time to

comply with my orders due to her counsel’s January 10, 2025, diagnosis of COVID-19,

which purportedly had prevented him from diligently representing her and

addressing discovery matters. See ECF No. 94. I denied the motion, noting that I

would not “stay discovery or continue deadlines that have already passed.”

ECF No. 95.

On May 6, 2025, I granted The Masiello Group’s motion for sanctions in part.

See ECF No. 99. I noted “that Goodwill’s discovery violations [were] persistent and

severe, that her misconduct [was] deliberate and [had] prejudiced both The Masiello

Group and the Court, and that she [had] provided no legitimate mitigating excuses

for her ongoing noncompliance.” Id. at 6. Nevertheless, because discovery did not

close until August 7, 2025, and there was “still time for [Goodwill] to recognize the

error of her ways, get back on track, and finish discovery so that the Court [could]

reach the merits of her claims,” I declined to recommend the dismissal of Goodwill’s

case as The Masiello Group had requested. Instead, I ordered Goodwill, by June 6,

2025, to (1) pay The Masiello Group $6,750 to cover the reasonable attorney’s fees it

had needlessly incurred as a result of her discovery abuses and (2) file a status report

“outlining in detail her efforts to come into compliance with my previous orders and

to respond to any outstanding discovery requests.” Id. at 9-10. I also warned

Goodwill that if she did “not demonstrate significant progress in fulfilling her

outstanding discovery obligations, her case” would “likely be dismissed.” Id. at 10.

On June 6, 2025, Goodwill filed a status report in which she indicated—

through her counsel and “under penalty of perjury”—that she had (1) executed and

submitted requests for copies of her tax returns to the IRS on December 30, 2024; (2)

executed and provided authorizations to The Masiello Group to obtain her tax returns

directly from her tax preparers; (3) managed to recover her 2019-2024 tax returns

with the assistance of a “forensic-accounting vendor” and would produce them to The

Masiello Group by June 17, 2025; (4) proposed dates for her deposition and a meet

and confer regarding outstanding discovery disputes; and (5) “transmitted USD

$1,350 (20% of the $6,750 sanction) to [The Masiello Group] via overnight post” on

“June 6, 2025.” ECF No. 104 at 1-3.

On June 10, 2025, The Masiello Group filed a status report indicating that it

had yet to receive the tax preparer authorizations or the partial sanctions payment.

See ECF No. 105 at 1-2. It also highlighted that Goodwill had yet to furnish an

updated privilege log as she was ordered to do in January 2025, and that her

representation that she had requested her tax returns from the IRS on

December 30, 2024, was inconsistent with her representation during a status

conference on December 20, 2024, that she had submitted those requests on

December 5, 2024. See id.

Following The Masiello Group’s status report, I issued the following order to

show cause:

Based on The Masiello Group’s representations in its status report

(ECF No. 105) about the purported inaccuracies in [Goodwill’s] earlier

status report (ECF No. 104), [Goodwill] is ORDERED to show cause in

writing by June 24, 2025, why her case should not be dismissed for her

repeated and ongoing failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

[Goodwill’s] counsel is further ORDERED to show cause in writing by

June 24, 2025, why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated

against him for his purported lack of candor. See Local Rule 83.3(a);

Me. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a). [Goodwill] and her counsel are instructed

to support any factual assertions in their responses with affidavits and

exhibits.

ECF No. 106.

On June 24, 2025, Goodwill filed a response to the order to show cause,

see ECF No. 107, which I ultimately struck because Goodwill’s counsel was

administratively suspended from the practice of law at the time of filing,

see ECF No. 109. I nevertheless extended the deadline to respond to the order to

show cause to July 9, 2025, to give Goodwill’s counsel “an opportunity to resolve his

administrative suspensions.” Id.

On July 9, 2025, Goodwill again filed her response. See ECF No. 110. She

indicated that there was nothing untrue about the representations in her status

report because she had filed two separate requests for her tax returns with the IRS

and The Masiello Group had confirmed receipt of the partial payment and the

authorizations to obtain her tax returns from her preparers. See id. at 2-3. She

further indicated that the parties had recently conferred and “acknowledged an

intent to collaborate in a dual-track settlement/discovery process.” Id. at 4.

Attached to her response, Goodwill included a United States Postal Service

receipt and mailing label, both of which were dated June 9, 2025, to prove that she

mailed the partial payment and signed authorizations to The Masiello Group. See

ECF No. 110-1. She also attached responses from the IRS to her two requests for

copies of her tax returns, both of which indicated that the IRS couldn’t “provide any

of the items [she] requested.” ECF No. 110-2 at 4, 9. And finally, she attached a copy

of the partial payment check and an email thread between her counsel and counsel

for The Masiello Group confirming receipt of the partial payment and authorizations

on June 13, 2025. See ECF Nos. 110-3, 110-4.

On July 10, 2025, The Masiello Group responded that it still had not received

Goodwill’s tax returns or the revised privilege log I had ordered her to provide back

in January 2025. See ECF No. 111 at 3. It also vehemently disputed Goodwill’s

suggestion that any plan or agreement had been reached regarding outstanding

discovery. See id. at 2-4.

II. Legal Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 gives the district court “a veritable arsenal of sanctions” when

a party fails to comply with discovery obligations and orders, Companion Health

Servs., Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir. 2012) (cleaned up), from assessing

reasonable costs to dismissing some or all of a party’s claims, see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) (providing that a court may impose

sanctions, including Rule 37 sanctions, “on its own” “if a party or its attorney . . . fails

to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order”). In considering whether and what

Rule 37 sanctions may be appropriate, a court should weigh factors such as “the

severity of the discovery violations, legitimacy of the party’s excuse for failing to

comply, repetition of violations, deliberateness of the misconduct, mitigating excuses,

prejudice to the other party and to the operations of the court, and adequacy of lesser

sanctions.” AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 780 F.3d 429, 435 (1st Cir. 2015).

III. Discussion

To reiterate, in my May 2025 order granting in part The Masiello Group’s

motion for sanctions, I found that (1) Goodwill’s discovery violations were persistent

and severe where, years into the case, she had yet to produce basic discovery or

comply fully with my discovery orders; (2) she had prejudiced The Masiello Group’s

ability to defend this action and wasted limited judicial resources; (3) her misconduct

appeared to be deliberate after she failed to heed multiple warnings; and (4) her

excuses and attempts to deflect blame were unavailing. ECF No. 99 at 6, 9. It was

only my hope that a monetary sanction might prompt Goodwill to get back on track

before the close of discovery that stopped me from recommending the dismissal of her

case. Id. at 9-10.

Goodwill’s subsequent conduct has made it clear that lesser sanctions will not

suffice. After countless hearings, orders, warnings, and status reports, no meaningful

progress has been made in this case since Goodwill’s counsel entered his appearance

in July 2024.

Goodwill still has not produced her tax returns, despite indicating that she was

ready to do so after recovering them from her hard drive; it took her half a year to

comply with my December 2024 order to produce signed authorizations to The

Masiello Group to obtain her tax returns from her preparers; she still has not

provided the updated privilege log as I ordered her to do back in January 2025; she

has not complied with my previous sanctions order, which required her to pay The

Masiello Group $6,750 by June 6, 20251; and the time for remedying these

shortcomings has run out where the already extended discovery period has now

closed.

1 Goodwill’s proposal to pay the sanction in installments is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. But the

fact that she unilaterally submitted a partial payment after the deadline without first seeking the

Court’s permission or The Masiello Group’s agreement is problematic.

When confronted with these failings and given an opportunity to explain

herself, Goodwill—and her counsel—can only cast blame on The Masiello Group and

the Court, saying that she has “dedicated significant time to addressing character

attacks and undue scrutinization” and simply “cannot comply” with her discovery

obligations with the “guillotine” of dismissal hanging over her head. ECF No. 110

at 1-2, 4.

That Goodwill continues to blame others for a mess entirely of her own making

convinces me this case can go no further. Her stubborn refusal to comply with my

discovery orders and fulfill her discovery obligations after multiple warnings and

opportunities for correction is precisely the sort of “severe, repeated, and deliberate”

conduct warranting the “drastic sanction” of dismissal with prejudice.

AngioDynamics, Inc., 780 F.3d at 435-36. “[N]o lesser sanction,” at this point, would

accomplish “the twin goals of penalty and deterrence.” Id. at 436.

I must also note, as a final matter, that Goodwill’s counsel has been repeatedly

untruthful in his representations to the Court. When Goodwill’s counsel

misrepresented his communications to the Clerk’s Office after showing up late to a

hearing in December 2024, I “emphatically” reminded him of his duty of candor to the

Court. ECF No. 80 at 1-2. But in the June 6, 2025, status report he filed on Goodwill’s

behalf, he declared, “under penalty of perjury,” that he had furnished signed

authorizations and transmitted a partial sanctions payment to The Masiello Group

“via overnight post” “[o]n June 6, 2025.” ECF No. 104 at 1-3. These representations

are directly contradicted by his subsequent filing of his USPS receipt and shipping

label dated three days later on June 9, 2025, and the email exchange between him

and The Masiello Group’s counsel confirming receipt of the authorizations and partial

payment on June 13, 2025. See ECF Nos. 110-1, 110-3, 110-4.2 Likewise, his

representations in the July 9, 2025, response to the order to show cause that the

parties had “resolved” the issues raised in prior status reports and were “exchanging

proposed terms for settlement,” ECF No. 110 at 2, were immediately and vehemently

contradicted by The Masiello Group, ECF No. 111 at 1-4.

Goodwill’s counsel’s repeated transgressions of his duty of candor to the Court

raise substantial questions about his honesty and trustworthiness as a lawyer and

should be referred to the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar for potential

disciplinary action. See Me. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly

. . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false

statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”);

Local Rule 83.3(a) (“This Court adopts as its standard for professional conduct the

Maine Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court, as

amended from time to time by that Court.”); Local Rule 83.3(d) (providing a process

to appoint special counsel to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings in this Court but

noting that the rule does not prohibit “the Court from taking other action it deems

appropriate”); cf. Me. R. Prof. Conduct 8.3(a) (“A lawyer who knows another lawyer

has committed a violation of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a

2 The Masiello Group highlighted this misrepresentation in its response to Goodwill’s first response to

the order to show cause. Nevertheless, even after her first response was stricken, Goodwill did not

take the opportunity to explain the issue in her subsequent response.

substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a

lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.”).

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Goodwill’s

complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) as a sanction for

her discovery noncompliance. I also recommend that the Court direct the Clerk’s

Office to send information about Goodwill’s counsel’s lack of candor to the Maine

Board of Overseers of the Bar.

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 after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum

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.

Dated: December 19, 2025

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf

United States Magistrate Judge