Iantosca et al v. Benistar Administrative Services, Inc et al

Filing 237

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "...Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket No. 232 ) is ALLOWED and defendants are hereby directed to complete the noticed depositions in Massachusetts or Connecticut on or befor e July 31, 2011. Defendants corresponding motion for a protective order (Docket No. 224 ) is DENIED. If defendants fail to comply with this order, the defaulting deponents, whomever they are, shall appear in this Court on August 4, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. to show cause why they should not be held in contempt."(Duong, Diep)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
________________________________
JOSEPH IANTOSCA, Individually
)
and as Trustee of the Faxon
)
Heights Apartments Realty Trust )
and Fern Realty Trust, BELRIDGE )
CORPORATION, GAIL A. CAHALY,
)
JEFFREY M. JOHNSTON, BELLEMORE
)
ASSOCIATES, LLC, and
)
MASSACHUSETTS LUMBER COMPANY,
)
INC.,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BENISTAR ADMINISTRATIVE
)
SERVICES, INC., DANIEL
)
CARPENTER, MOLLY CARPENTER,
)
BENISTAR PROPERTY EXCHANGE TRUST )
Civil Action No.
COMPANY, INC., BENISTAR LTD.,
)
08-11785-NMG
BENISTAR EMPLOYER SERVICES TRUST )
CORPORATION, CARPENTER FINANCIAL )
GROUP, LLC, STEP PLAN SERVICE
)
INC., BENISTAR INSURANCE GROUP, )
INC., and BENISTAR 419 PLAN
)
SERVICES INC.,
)
Defendants,
)
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and )
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, )
)
LONDON,
)
Reach and Apply
)
Defendants.
________________________________ )
)
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, )
)
LONDON and All Participating
)
Insurers and Syndicates,
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
)
WAYNE H. BURSEY,
Third-Party Defendant. )
________________________________ )
-1-

ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case arises from the plaintiffs’ effort to recover a
multimillion dollar Massachusetts state court judgment against
some of the defendants.

The parties are once again embroiled in

a dispute over depositions that plaintiffs desire to conduct.

In

its most recent Memorandum & Order, in February, 2011 (Docket No.
207), the Court held that certain defendants must appear for
their depositions before March 31, 2011 and that, if they were
not fully compliant, sanctions would be imposed.

Plaintiffs have

now moved, once again, to compel those same persons to appear for
their depositions and defendants have filed a corresponding
motion for a protective order with respect to one of the soughtafter deponents.
With respect to the related pending motions to dismiss filed
by defendants, the Court has appraised them sufficiently to
determine that they do not preclude favorable consideration of
plaintiff’s motion to compel.

The motions will, however, remain

under advisement for the time being.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 232) is ALLOWED and
defendants are hereby directed to complete the noticed
depositions in Massachusetts or Connecticut on or before July 31,
2011.

Defendants’ corresponding motion for a protective order

(Docket No. 224) is DENIED.

If defendants fail to comply with
-2-

this order, the defaulting deponents, whomever they are, shall
appear in this Court on August 4, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt.
The Court also imposes upon the defendants sanctions in the
amount of $7,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs to reimburse them
for attorney’s fees and costs associated with their motion to
compel.

So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated July 7, 2011

-3-