Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Massachusetts Department Of Health And Human Services x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Jobs | Massachusetts
Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA
Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 131 Notice of Appeal, Documents included: 135. (FGD)
Order ~Util - Terminate Motions
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), with all supporting documents, as well as the accompanying motion to impound various exhibits and the defendant’s opposition memorandum. Doc. Nos. 128, 129, 129-1 to -8, 130, 130-1 to -4, 134. The motion to seal (Doc. No. 128 ) is ALLOWED IN PART. The records the plaintiff has filed under seal (Doc. No. 130, 130-1 to -4) shall remain sealed—a state of affairs to which the defendant assents. But to the extent the plaintiff seeks impoundment and ex parte review of such records, her request is DENIED. She has not established a basis for proceeding ex parte, and the Court discerns none. If the defendant seeks to obtain copies of the relevant records, it may do so by filing a motion seeking the records, in which the defendant identifies the reason for its request. If the Court allows such a request, the use of the relevant records by the defendant and its agents and representatives shall be limited to use in this case (including the pending appeal) only. The motion to amend, alter, or reconsider judgment (Doc. No. 129 ) is DENIED. A material factor in the Court’s decision to dismiss this case was the plaintiff’s repeated and ongoing failure to participate in the discovery process as required by the governing procedural rules and this Court’s various prior orders. The pending challenge to the Court’s dismissal is not accompanied by any assurance or evidence that the plaintiff has yet attempted in good faith to cure her prior failures, such as by producing or proposing complete (or even partial) responses to the defendant’s discovery requests. Instead, the plaintiff simply proposes a further period of time (forty-five more days, at least) in which to prepare and serve such responses. The Court rejects her requests for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) for this reason, as well as for all the reasons identified by the defendant in its opposition memorandum. See generally Doc. No. 134 (arguing, among other things, that plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under standards governing motions such as this one). (FGD)
The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), with all supporting documents, as well as the accompanying motion to impound various exhibits and the defendant’s opposition memorandum. Doc. Nos. 128, 129, 129-1 to -8, 130, 130-1 to -4, 134. The motion to seal (Doc. No. 128 ) is ALLOWED IN PART. The records the plaintiff has filed under seal (Doc. No. 130, 130-1 to -4) shall remain sealed—a state of affairs to which the defendant assents. But to the extent the plaintiff seeks impoundment and ex parte review of such records, her request is DENIED. She has not established a basis for proceeding ex parte, and the Court discerns none. If the defendant seeks to obtain copies of the relevant records, it may do so by filing a motion seeking the records, in which the defendant identifies the reason for its request. If the Court allows such a request, the use of the relevant records by the defendant and its agents and representatives shall be limited to use in this case (including the pending appeal) only.
The motion to amend, alter, or reconsider judgment (Doc. No. 129 ) is DENIED. A material factor in the Court’s decision to dismiss this case was the plaintiff’s repeated and ongoing failure to participate in the discovery process as required by the governing procedural rules and this Court’s various prior orders. The pending challenge to the Court’s dismissal is not accompanied by any assurance or evidence that the plaintiff has yet attempted in good faith to cure her prior failures, such as by producing or proposing complete (or even partial) responses to the defendant’s discovery requests. Instead, the plaintiff simply proposes a further period of time (forty-five more days, at least) in which to prepare and serve such responses. The Court rejects her requests for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) for this reason, as well as for all the reasons identified by the defendant in its opposition memorandum. See generally Doc. No. 134 (arguing, among other things, that plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under standards governing motions such as this one).
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.