Failure to Provide the Hearing Transcript Defeats Appellate Review of Discovery Orders Absent an Adequate Record

1. Introduction

In LandingPartners LLC v. Shiva, LLC, et al. (R.I. June 3, 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed whether it could review a Superior Court order (i) quashing a deposition subpoena and (ii) granting a protective order, where the pro se appellant, defendant Jay Patel, intentionally declined to order the transcript of the hearing that produced the challenged rulings.

The underlying litigation arose from an alleged breach of a purchase and sale agreement for real property at 1850 Post Road, Warwick. LandingPartners LLC sued multiple defendants, including Patel-associated entities (Shiva, LLC and Airport Hospitality, LLC), and Centreville Bank. After certain defendants defaulted, the Superior Court entered a default judgment ordering specific performance and appointed a commissioner (Richard Gemma, Esq.) to effectuate the closing.

After Patel’s Rule 60 motion to vacate the default judgment was denied, he pursued post-judgment discovery and subpoenaed Commissioner Gemma for deposition. LandingPartners moved to quash and sought a protective order; Centreville joined the motion to quash. The Superior Court granted both forms of relief. Patel appealed—without providing the transcript of the hearing on those motions.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Superior Court’s order. The Court held that Patel’s failure to supply the transcript of the April 3 hearing rendered the record insufficient for meaningful appellate review, particularly because the challenged rulings were discretionary and the written order merely stated that the motions were granted “for reasons stated on the record.” Although the Court acknowledged a narrow circumstance where an appeal may proceed without a transcript (pure legal issues sufficiently appearing on the record and acceptance of the trial justice’s findings), it concluded that the exception did not apply here.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. City of Cranston, by and through Strom, 208 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183 (R.I. 2013)):
    These cases supplied the governing appellate standard for discovery rulings—broad trial-court discretion reviewed only for abuse of discretion. By framing the issue as discretionary, the Court underscored why the hearing transcript was essential: abuse-of-discretion review is highly dependent on the context, arguments presented, and reasons articulated on the record.
  • Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340 (R.I. 2002):
    Cited for the proposition that a decision to quash a subpoena is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. This reinforced that the appellate court needed the hearing record to evaluate whether the subpoena was defective, whether discovery was closed, and whether any asserted “good cause” existed.
  • Kalooski v. Albert-Frankenthal AG, 770 A.2d 831 (R.I. 2001) (quoting May v. Penn T.V. & Furniture Co., 686 A.2d 95 (R.I. 1996)):
    These decisions provided the core appellate-record principle: the appellant bears the burden of furnishing a record adequate to review the alleged error, and where the appellant fails to supply a sufficient transcript, the Supreme Court “cannot perform a meaningful review” and must uphold the trial justice’s findings. The Court treated this doctrine as dispositive.
  • Sentas v. Sentas, 911 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 326 (R.I. 1990)):
    Cited to reject any implication that pro se status relaxes procedural expectations; even self-represented litigants must familiarize themselves with procedural rules. This supported the Court’s characterization of Patel’s omission as a deliberate choice rather than an excusable misunderstanding.
  • 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates, LLC ex rel. Leef, 799 A.2d 279 (R.I. 2002):
    This case supplied the limited exception permitting an appeal to proceed without a transcript where the issues are purely legal and appear sufficiently on the record, and the appellant accepts the trial justice’s findings. The Court also quoted its caution that proceeding without a transcript is “risky business.” Applying 731 Airport Associates, the Court held the exception did not fit because the one-page order did not disclose the hearing justice’s reasons and the issues were not reviewable on the paper record alone.

B. Legal Reasoning

  1. Standard of review drove the need for the transcript. The Court began by emphasizing that discovery rulings and subpoena-quash decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. That standard typically requires examining what was argued, what factual and procedural context existed, and what reasons the trial justice provided.
  2. Rule-based obligation to provide a transcript. The Court relied on Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires the appellant, within twenty days of the notice of appeal, to order transcripts necessary for the record. The Court treated compliance as fundamental to appellate review, not a technicality.
  3. The written order was insufficient to reveal the rationale. The Superior Court’s order stated only that the motions were granted “for reasons stated on the record,” barred Commissioner Gemma’s deposition, and concluded that “document production is not appropriate at this time, as discovery in this case is closed.” Because the actual reasoning was oral and not transcribed, the Supreme Court could not evaluate whether the trial justice considered (for example) purported “good cause” for post-judgment discovery, the alleged service defect, or the case posture after dismissal with prejudice as to Centreville.
  4. The “pure legal issue” no-transcript pathway did not apply. Although Patel argued the appeal involved questions of law (including service under Rule 45 and alleged “structural errors”), the Court held that the record did not “appear sufficiently” to allow review, particularly where the contested rulings were discretionary and fact/context dependent.
  5. Outcome: dismissal/affirmance without reaching the merits. The Court did not decide whether post-judgment discovery was warranted, whether the subpoena was properly served, or whether fraud allegations justified discovery. It affirmed solely because the inadequate record prevented meaningful appellate scrutiny.

C. Impact

  • Practical appellate rule reinforced: appellants challenging discretionary trial-management orders (especially discovery rulings) should expect dismissal or affirmance if they do not provide the relevant hearing transcript when the trial court’s reasons were given orally.
  • Constrained scope for “paper-record” appeals: the decision underscores that the 731 Airport Associates exception is narrow, and will not salvage appeals where the order incorporates oral reasoning or where the issues depend on hearing-level context.
  • Pro se litigants: the Court reaffirmed that self-representation does not relax compliance with appellate rules, which may influence how trial and appellate courts handle pro se procedural defaults.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Protective order: a court order limiting or forbidding certain discovery (for example, stopping a deposition or document requests) to prevent improper, burdensome, or untimely discovery.
  • Motion to quash a subpoena: a request to invalidate a subpoena (such as one compelling a deposition) because it is defective, improperly served, outside allowable discovery, or otherwise improper.
  • Abuse of discretion: a deferential appellate standard; the trial judge’s decision is upheld unless it was unreasonable or based on an error of law or clearly improper considerations.
  • Default judgment / specific performance: a judgment entered because a party failed to respond, which here included an order compelling the defendants to complete the real-estate sale as agreed.
  • Rule 60 motion: a request to set aside a judgment for specified reasons (often including lack of service or other grounds), which Patel filed months after default entered.
  • Why the transcript matters: if the judge’s reasons are stated orally, the appellate court cannot evaluate the decision without a transcript; a one-page order rarely captures the necessary detail.

5. Conclusion

LandingPartners LLC v. Shiva, LLC, et al. stands for a straightforward but consequential appellate principle: when a challenged trial-court ruling rests on reasons “stated on the record,” an appellant—pro se or represented—generally cannot obtain appellate review without providing the relevant hearing transcript. The decision also reinforces that discovery and subpoena rulings are discretionary, making a complete record especially critical. As a result, the Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Patel’s arguments about post-judgment discovery, alleged fraud, or subpoena service.