Holmes v. Garvey et al
Filing
77
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Compel (Halley, Taylor)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-13196-GAO
MARY CELESTE HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER M. GARVEY and ALFRED TRINH, in their individual capacities,
and the MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
ORDER
January 27, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This Order resolves the pending discovery motions:
1. The plaintiff’s Motion to Compel directed to defendant Jennifer Garvey (dkt. no. 34) is
GRANTED as to Garvey’s military service records and otherwise DENIED without prejudice.
Garvey shall produce her military service records within twenty-one (21) days of this Order.
2. The plaintiff’s Motion to Compel directed to defendant Alfred Trinh (dkt. no. 37) is
GRANTED as to his personnel file. Additionally, specific discovery disputes are resolved as
follows:
Interrogatory No. 8: MBTA Supervisors: Trinh shall supplement his answer to this
interrogatory, including approximate dates of supervision if known to him.
Interrogatory No. 11: Reports of Incident: To the extent that there are any other reports,
Trinh shall supplement his answer to disclose them.
Interrogatory No. 12: Statements to and from Holmes: To the extent that there are any
additional statements of which Trinh is aware, he shall supplement his answer to disclose them.
Interrogatory No. 15: Contact between Holmes and Officers: Trinh shall answer the
interrogatory directly, rather than by reference to other documents.
Trinh shall produce his personnel file and supplement his interrogatory responses within
twenty-one (21) days of this Order. This motion is otherwise DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?