Rafi v. Brigham and Women's Hospital et al

Filing 43

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 35 Motion ; granting Nunc Pro Tunc 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/2015 to File Response/Reply ( Responses due by 10/12/2 015); denying 36 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting Nunc Pro Tunc 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/2015 to File Response/Reply ( Responses due by 10/12/2015); granting Nu nc Pro Tunc 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/2015 to File Response/Reply ( Responses due by 10/12/2015); denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting Nunc Pro Tunc 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/2015 to File Response/Reply ( Responses due by 10/12/2015); granting 33 Motion ( Copy of this Order mailed out to plaintiff). (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14017-GAO
SYED K. RAFI, PhD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIGHAM AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, and HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14205-GAO
SYED K. RAFI, PhD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOSTON and HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
Defendants.

ORDER
October 28, 2015
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This Order resolves several motions pending before the Court in these two related actions
brought by the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff’s Motion by Pro Se Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing and to Change
the Phone Number (dkt. no. 33 in 14-14017 and dkt. no. 24 in 14-14205) is GRANTED
subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall comply with all applicable training and
technical requirements.
2. The plaintiff’s Motion by Pro Se Litigant Requesting the Court to Grant the Opportunity
to Attempt in Good Faith to Resolve or Narrow the Issues (dkt. no. 35 in 14-14017) is

DENIED as unnecessary. Parties do not need the Court’s permission before they attempt
to resolve or narrow any issues in dispute.
3. The plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time and renewing his motion for the appointment
of an attorney (dkt. nos. 36, 37, and 38 in 14-14017 and dkt. nos. 26 and 27 in 14-14205)
are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The requests for additional time are permitted
nunc pro tunc. The renewed requests for an appointment of counsel are DENIED.
4. The plaintiff’s Motion by Pro Se Litigant Informing the Court [of] the Newly Agreed
Plaintiff’s Response Due Date (dkt. no. 40 in 14-14017 and dkt. no. 29 in 14-14205) is
GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
5. Harvard Medical School’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum (dkt. no. 33 in
14-14205) is GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2