Evans v. Boston Red Sox (The) et al

Filing 185

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. 181 Motion for ECF access and to appear by telephone is ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 174 Motion to issue and serve subpoenas is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 183 Motion for sanctions is DENIED. See attached Order. (Matteson, Nicholas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

BRIAN EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOSTON RED SOX,
FENWAY SPORTS MANAGEMENT
LARRY LUCCHINO
DAVID FRIEDMAN
DR. CHARLES STEINBERG
TOM WERNER
JOHN HENRY
SAM KENNEDY
RASKY BAERLEIN STRATEGIC
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13-13259-GAO

ORDER ON INITIAL PENDING MOTIONS
February 5, 2014
SOROKIN, C.M.J.
In an electronic order dated January 31, 2014, the district judge presiding over this case
referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for full pretrial management as well as
for report and recommendations on any dispositive motions. Presently, several motions are
pending before the Court.
The Pro Se Plaintiff requests leave of Court so that he may file his motions and other
pleadings electronically using the Electronic Case Filing system ordinarily available only to
1

licensed attorneys. Doc. No. 181. The Court ALLOWS the foregoing request subject to the
following conditions: (a) Plaintiff must comply with all rules governing use of the ECF system;
(b) Plaintiff bears responsibility for contacting Ginny Hurley of the Clerk’s Office to obtain login information for the system; and (c) Plaintiff, or his friend, but in no event the Court, must bear
the ordinary charges that apply to the use of the ECF system. In the same motion, Plaintiff also
requests permission to appear by telephone because he lives in Hawaii. Doc. No. 181. This
request is ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff shall appear in person at
any trial or evidentiary hearing in this matter, unless specifically excused in writing by the
judicial officer presiding over the hearing or trial. However, at other proceedings Plaintiff may
appear by telephone unless the presiding judicial officer directs otherwise. Accordingly, the
Court ALLOWS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the foregoing requests.
The Pro Se Plaintiff has filed a motion to have subpoenas issued and served by the
United States Marshal’s Office. Doc. No. 174. This Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Discovery will not commence until after resolution of the pending motions to
dismiss (see below). Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff seeks discovery from the Defendants, at the
appropriate time and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, he may do so by serving on
counsel, by mail, requests for production of documents or other similar discovery tools rather
than subpoenas served by the Marshals.
The Pro Se Plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions, Doc. No. 183, contending that the
Defendants have violated a preservation order issued by the magistrate judge in Hawaii.
Plaintiff points to the removal from a public website of a press release Plaintiff contends relates
to the case. This does not evidence violation of the preservation order. The Order did not

2

preclude changes to websites, it required preservation of documents so that Plaintiff would have
an opportunity to obtain the documents during discovery. See Doc. No. 42 at 4. The Court
reminds the Defendants it expects compliance with the preservation order. Accordingly, the
Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
Red Sox related Defendants (all defendants other than Rasky and the Doe defendants)
have filed a combined motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 177. The Rasky Defendant has filed its own
motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 179. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to both motions. These
pleadings are under review.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

3