Gonzalez v. Dooling et al

Filing 132

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: As follows: For the reasons stated in the attached memo and order, the court hereby ALLOWS, inpart, and DENIES, in part, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 113 ), Defendants Motion for Protec tive Order (Dkt. No. 116 ), and Defendant Halls Motion for Protective Order and to Reset Discovery Deadlines (Dkt. No. 119 ).The court hereby orders actions outlined in the attached memo and order. Including Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, if any, will be due by 3/28/14, Ptfs opposition, together with his cross-motion for summary judgment, will be due by 4/18/14, to which Defendants may respond by 5/9/14. The remainder of Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neimans Scheduling Order, (Dkt. No. 106 ), including the summary judgment hearing set for May 28, 2014, remains in effect. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff
v.
TIMOTHY V. DOOLING, ET AL.,
Defendants

)
)
)
) C.A. No. 11-cv-30271-MAP
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR COSTS,
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND DEFENDANT HALL’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND TO RESET DISCOVERY DEADLINES
(Dkt. Nos. 113, 116 & 119)
January 31, 2014
PONSOR, U.S.D.J.
A discovery dispute has arisen among the parties in this
case, and three related motions are currently pending.

A

fourth motion, Motion to Compel Documents (Dkt. No. 125), has
been filed but it is not yet ripe for decision.
Having reviewed the papers, the court hereby ALLOWS, in
part, and DENIES, in part, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt.
No. 113), Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No.
116), and Defendant Hall’s Motion for Protective Order and to
Reset Discovery Deadlines (Dkt. No. 119).
The court hereby orders as follows:
1. Counsel will work together to schedule the
remaining depositions of all previously noticed
witnesses. Each deposition shall be scheduled for

a date no later than February 28, 2014. Any
deposition previously conducted, but suspended,
shall also be completed by February 28, 2014.
Failure of a witness to attend the deposition will
subject the party to Rule 37 sanctions.
2.
As a result of Defendant Howard-Hogan’s and
Pease’s failure to attend their depositions,
Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees for
Attorney Thompson’s 2.3 hours spent at the duly
noticed depositions ($705), the .5 hours spent
preparing the Motion to Compel ($150), and the costs
of the stenographic services ($225).
3.
To the extent new defense counsel enters the
case, they will be expected to comply with this
order.
4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, if any,
will be due by March 28, 14. Plaintiff’s opposition,
together with his cross-motion for summary judgment,
will be due by April 18, 2014, to which Defendants
may respond by May 9, 2014.
5.
The remainder of Magistrate Judge Kenneth P.
Neiman’s Scheduling Order, (Dkt. No. 106), including
the summary judgment hearing set for May 28, 2014,
remains in effect.
It is So Ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
United States District Judge

2