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

Filing 245

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "...Motionfor Reconsideration and Protective Order (Docket No. 241 ) is ALLOWED. The protective order encompasses all future discovery sought to be elicited from Mr. Carpenter and w ill be vacated upon the occurrence of either a jury verdict of acquittal, dismissal of the charges or sentencing in United States v. Carpenter, Criminal Action No. 04-cr-10029-GAO. Carpenters motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 243 ) is DENIED and all other discovery will proceed according to the scheduling order. The Courts reconsideration of its July 7, 2011 Order applies to Carpenter only. Unless they have already completed their depositions, all other persons subject to this Courts July 7, 2011 Order will appear in this Court on Thursday, August 4, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of this Court." (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-

MEMORANDUM & 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 pending motions involve the ongoing

discovery dispute related to depositions of the defendants.

In

February, 2011, upon consideration of a motion by plaintiffs, the
Court held that certain defendants were required to appear for
their depositions before March 31, 2011 and that, if they were
not fully compliant, sanctions would be imposed.

In June, 2011,

however, plaintiffs moved, once again, to compel those same
persons to appear for their depositions and defendants filed a
corresponding motion for a protective order with respect to one
of the prospective deponents, Molly Carpenter.
On July 7, 2011, the Court allowed plaintiff’s motion to
compel and directed defendants to complete the noticed
depositions in Massachusetts or Connecticut on or before July 31,
2011.
denied.

Defendants’ counter-motion for a protective order was
The Court stated that, if defendants failed to comply

with its latest order, the defaulting deponents would appear in
this Court on Thursday, August 4, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt of this Court.

The

Court also imposed upon the defendants sanctions in the amount of
$7,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs to reimburse them for

-2-

attorney’s fees and costs incurred with respect to their motion
to compel.
In a sealed motion, defendant Daniel Carpenter now seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s July 7, 2011 Order and a
protective order staying the remainder of his deposition and any
further discovery directed at him.

The Court is persuaded by

Carpenter’s new, intervening argument and, as such, his Motion
for Reconsideration and Protective Order (Docket No. 241) is
ALLOWED.

The protective order encompasses all future discovery

sought to be elicited from Mr. Carpenter and will be vacated upon
the occurrence of either a jury verdict of acquittal, dismissal
of the charges or sentencing in United States v. Carpenter,
Criminal Action No. 04-cr-10029-GAO.
Carpenter’s motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 243) is
DENIED and all other discovery will proceed according to the
scheduling order.

The Court’s reconsideration of its July 7,

2011 Order applies to Carpenter only.

Unless they have already

completed their depositions, all other persons subject to this
Court’s July 7, 2011 Order will appear in this Court on Thursday,
August 4, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. to show cause why they should not be
held in contempt of this Court.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated August 1, 2011
-3-