Commonwealth v. Carney, 458 Mass. 418

A judge imposed a $25,000 punitive sanction and attorney’s fees on the Commonwealth for alleged discovery violations under Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 (c)(1).
The sanctions were premised on three findings: swabbing the pistol for DNA, test-firing it, and failing to produce firearms and marijuana by 10 a.m. on September 10, 2008.
The ex parte discovery order and ensuing proceedings led to an extended evidentiary hearing examining the Commonwealth’s conduct and compliance with orders.
The single justice stayed parts of the orders pending further action, and the District Court conducted a three-week sanctions hearing with defense witnesses and no Commonwealth witnesses.
The judge concluded that the Commonwealth willfully violated discovery orders and imposed punitive monetary sanctions along with fees, prompting relief petitions.
The full court remanded, vacating the sanctions order, holding that Rule 14(c)(1) sanctions must be remedial, not punitive, unless properly limited by the rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are punitive monetary sanctions authorized under Rule 14(c)(1)?	Commonwealth argued broad discretion supports punitive fines for noncompliance.	Carney/Farrow/Watson argued sanctions must be remedial to cure prejudice.	Punitive fines under Rule 14(c)(1) are not authorized; sanctions must be remedial.
Did the judge err in finding violations of discovery orders supporting the sanctions?	Commonwealth allegedly violated orders by testing and handling evidence contrary to orders.	Defendants contended no clear, prejudicial violation occurred given stays and ambiguities.	Findings of three alleged violations were erroneous; sanctions vacated.
Was the ex parte handling of the discovery motion permissible?	Ex parte procedure was warranted to protect confidential information and preserve rights.	Ex parte procedure was inappropriate and contributed to confusion and improper sanctions.	Ex parte use was improper; procedures should have included Commonwealth input and stenographic record.
Does Rule 14(c)(1) permit monetary sanctions against the Commonwealth or only remedial measures?	Monetary sanctions may be used to coerce compliance and deter misconduct.	Remedial measures suffice; punitive coercion against the Commonwealth is improper.	Monetary sanctions cannot be punitive against the Commonwealth; remedy must be remedial.

Commonwealth v. Lam Hue To, 391 Mass. 301 (Mass. 1984) (pretrial discovery remedies and prejudice-focused sanctions)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 453 Mass. 873 (Mass. 2009) (police misconduct and prejudice-guided sanctions; remedy-oriented approach)
Commonwealth v. Hine, 393 Mass. 564 (Mass. 1984) (remedial sanctions tailored to prejudice; not punitive)
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 429 Mass. 388 (Mass. 1999) (sanctions where prejudice and alternatives assessed)
Commonwealth v. Gliniewicz, 398 Mass. 744 (Mass. 1986) (need for proper discovery and remedy when evidence mishandled)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 444 Mass. 786 (Mass. 2005) (ex parte discovery motions and limits; need for safeguards)
Commonwealth v. Shaughessy, 455 Mass. 346 (Mass. 2009) (limits on ex parte submissions and protect Commonwealth's response)
Commonwealth v. Durham, 446 Mass. 212 (Mass. 2006) (rule meaning and permitted remedial orders for discovery)