Walker v. F/V Madison Kate et al

Filing 56

Judge Indira Talwani: For the reasons set forth in the attached MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 42 MOTION for Discovery KOR Depositions of Previous Counsel in Other Claims and Defendant in Previous Claim filed by Sea Ventures, LLC, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LAWRENCE F. WALKER, JR.,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Plaintiff,
v.
F/V MADISON KATE and
SEA VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-14051-IT

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
TALWANI, D.J.
Defendant Sea Ventures, LLC’s Motion to Reopen Discovery to Serve Subpoenas for
Keeper of Records Depositions on Plaintiff, Lawrence Walker, Jr.’s Previous Counsel in Other
Lawsuits and to Conduct a Deposition of a Previous Defendant in Another Lawsuit [#42] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant’s Request for Production No. 34 requested “[a]ll records, pleadings and
documents concerning past or pending legal actions concerning the plaintiff.” Mot. to Reopen
Disc. Ex. A 11 [#42-1]. Plaintiff objected to this request “on the grounds that it is unduly vague,
overly broad in time and scope, unduly burdensome and not seeking evidence proportional to the
needs of the case” and produced no responsive documents. Id.
Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 22 requested the following:
[i]f you have ever asserted a claim of any kind for damages or for compensation
of personal injuries, including but not limited to worker’s compensation, please
state the date of the injury, the amount of damages or compensation received and
the names and addresses of each person or organization against whom a claim
was made and from whom a claim was made and from whom payments were
received.
Mot. to Reopen Disc. Ex. B 34 [#42-1]. In his supplemental response, Plaintiff objected to this

interrogatory “as unduly vague, overly broad in time and scope unduly burdensome and not
seeking evidence proportional to the needs of the case.” Mot. to Reopen Disc. 3 [#42] “Subject
to and without waiving the foregoing objections,” Plaintiff listed six claims. Id. at 3-4.
Defendant’s Motion asserts that additional discovery should be permitted relating to additional
lawsuits that Plaintiff allegedly failed to disclose at all or disclosed insufficient details.
With regards to Defendant’s requests involving Walker v. Nerbonne, Civil Action No.
1473-cv-00348, the court finds that Plaintiff should have disclosed this claim, and is not excused
from the failure to do so because Defendant knew that Anne Nerbonne was Plaintiff’s girlfriend
and could have been deposed during the discovery period regarding Plaintiff’s medical
condition. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery [#42] for records
relating to Walker v. Nerbonne from Irena Wallach Inman, Esq. of Callahan, Barraco & Inman
(counsel for Mr. Walker), and George E. Clancy, Esq. of Fuller Rosenberg Palmer & Beliveau
(counsel for Ms. Nerbonne), limited to documents not protected by the attorney-client privilege
or the work-product doctrine. The court also GRANTS Defendant’s request to reopen discovery
to depose Anne Nerbonne, limited to the facts and circumstances surrounding the Walker v.
Nerbonne action.
With regards to Defendant’s requests involving Walker v. Almond, III, et al., Civil
Action No. 0773-cv-00621, and Walker v. Lainey, et al., Civil Action No. 0673-cv-01541, the
Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that discovery should be reopened. Plaintiff
asserts that these two actions involved Plaintiff’s father, not Plaintiff himself. Defendant, who
has the burden here, offers no rebuttal.
With regards to Defendant’s requests involving Walker v. Gagne, et al., Civil Action No.
1073-cv-00350, the Court finds that Plaintiff did disclose this claim in his Answer to

2

Interrogatory No. 22, describing an injury by a dog-bite in 2008, for which he claimed
$10,000.00 in damages. Moreover, this claim does not appear to relate to the claimed knee and
back injuries which are the subject of the instant matter, and reopening discovery for this claim is
not “proportional to the needs of this case.” Order [#38].
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery to Serve Subpoenas for Keeper of Records
Depositions on Plaintiff, Lawrence Walker, Jr.’s Previous Counsel in Other Lawsuits and to
Conduct a Deposition of a Previous Defendant in Another Lawsuit [#42] is ALLOWED in part.
Discovery is reopened to allow Defendant: (1) to serve subpoenas duces tecum for records
relating to Walker v. Nerbonne from Irena Wallach Inman, Esq. of Callahan, Barraco & Inman
(counsel for Mr. Walker), and George E. Clancy, Esq. of Fuller Rosenberg Palmer & Beliveau
(counsel for Ms. Nerbonne), limited to documents not protected by the attorney-client privilege
or the work-product doctrine; and (2) to depose Anne Nerbonne, limited to the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Walker v. Nerbonne action. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 21, 2017

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

3