Back-and-forth over wine deliveries to Rhode Island continues in court. Here's the latest.
PROVIDENCE – A federal judge has reversed his decision ordering the state to pay legal fees for failing to properly disclose new evidence in a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on out-of-state retailers delivering wines to Rhode Islanders’ doorsteps.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. concluded this week that the state had acted in "good faith” and that the error was due to a difference in memory about what was said in an October chambers conference.
Why did the judge rescind the order?
McConnell late last month ordered the state to pay legal fees associated with the out-of-state wine interests’ motion urging the court to strike down the state’s retail liquor sales regime as unconstitutional. The judge found that the state’s failure to disclose statements from five new witnesses and 537 pages of new documents had rendered that motion “meaningless.”
Federal court rules require parties to “supplement written disclosures and discovery responses whenever a prior disclosure or response may be incomplete or incorrect, or when new facts come to light or change.”
McConnell agreed, however, to strike the evidence and directed the parties to determine a new discovery and briefing schedule – this time with any new witnesses and evidence properly disclosed. That portion of the order remains in effect.
Special Assistant Attorney General Lionel Joseph Dutreix IV asked McConnell to reconsider, arguing that, unlike the court, he recalled saying that the state would want to supplement the record during the October conference.
Lawyers for wine enthusiasts Kambis Anvar, of East Greenwich, and Michelle Drum, a Newport resident, objected, arguing that McConnell “appropriately exercised" his discretion in ordering the state to cover the fees.
Lawyer James A. Tanford observed that the undisclosed evidence doubled the size of the record and added five witnesses, and it should have been disclosed to allow the wine interests to decide if they wanted to add rebuttal evidence.
More: Wine deliveries from out-of-state are banned in RI, and the state is fighting to keep it that way.
State argues the law is a matter of health, safety
A 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in September that Rhode Island’s ban on bottles being shipped from out-of-state sellers straight to buyers discriminated against retailers from other states.
The court sent the case back to McConnell, who earlier upheld the law, to examine whether the state can prove that the law is necessary to protect the health and safety of Rhode Islanders.
Rhode Island, like many states, controls the distribution of alcohol through a “three-tier system” that protects local liquor stores and distributors from national retailers and e-commerce.
In asking the court to uphold the liquor laws and regulations, the state argued in January they are necessary for public safety and health.
It cited national studies about Rhode Island’s “well-documented” alcohol abuse problem, as compared with national trends. A 2021 study revealed that the estimated rate of alcohol and binge alcohol use in Rhode Island was above the national average, the state said.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI bans out-of-state wine delivery. Here's the latest in the court case
