Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC et al v. Nader et al

Filing 170

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered denying 156 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting in part and denying in part 165 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. See attached Order. (LTS, law2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISED
)
RESTAURANTS LLC, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 13-13023-LTS
)
ANTON NADER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 156)
AND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (DOC. NO. 165)
November 20, 2015
SOROKIN, J.
The defendants seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision denying their motion to
amend. Doc. No. 156. After a lengthy hearing on the motion and a careful review of the
defendants’ submission, the motion is DENIED primarily for the reasons stated in the Court’s
initial decision. See Doc. No. 152. Several additional reasons warrant brief discussion here and
further justify denial of the motion.
First, in response to the new counterclaims the defendants seek to add, Dunkin’
reasonably would seek discovery regarding all of the contracts and documents related to the over
sixty-million-dollar proposed purchase of franchises by Mrs. Nader, the underlying merits of the
proposed sale, and Mrs. Nader’s financial condition. This discovery would necessitate second
depositions of some witnesses already deposed, as well as at least one deposition of an otherwise
not relevant person. Paper discovery closed on July 29, 2015, well before the defendants filed
the original motion to amend on September 1, 2015. Fact discovery closed on November 12,

2015, days after the defendants filed their motion for reconsideration. Notably, even at this date,
the defendants admit that they have not yet disclosed all of the deal-related documents,
including, for example, the agreement between Mr. Nader and Mr. Tallo.
Second, the defendants’ contention that the proposed sale moots Dunkin’s claims in this
case is simply wrong as a matter of law.1 Dunkin contends that it lawfully terminated the
defendant franchises prior to instituting this lawsuit and, thus, that the defendants have nothing to
sell as a matter of law. No conclusive resolution of the defendants’ claim that Dunkin’ has
unreasonably withheld consent to the proposed sale to Mrs. Nader can occur without first
resolving Dunkin’s claim that Mr. Nader has nothing to sell in light of Dunkin’s termination of
his franchises.
Finally, the evolving nature of the facts relating to the proposed claims further militates
against permitting amendment. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 156) is
DENIED.
The parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Discovery (Doc. No. 165) is DENIED except as
follows: the defendants may take Dunkin’s Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on the dates agreed to by
the parties, even though those dates are after the close of the discovery period. Additionally, the
defendants’ oral request to extend until November 25, 2015 the scheduling order deadline for
filing motions to compel was allowed in open court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

1

Certainly, an agreement by Mr. Nader and Mr. Tallo to sell their interests in the franchises at
issue in the litigation might, with the assent of Dunkin’, resolve the litigation in the context of a
settlement. That, however, is a different issue.
2