Coyle v. Kittredge Insurance Agency et al

Filing 89

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 84 Motion to Amend and granting 86 Motion for Discovery. (Castles, Martin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_____________________________________________   

)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
KITTREDGE INSURANCE AGENCY,
)
INC., FRANCIS KITTREDGE, and
)
EASTERN INSURANCE GROUP, LLC,
)
Defendants
)
)
__________________________________________)

PETER COYLE,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 4:12-CV-40014-TSH

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) (Docket No. 84) AND
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR LIMITED PURPOSES (Docket No. 86)
June 3, 2014

HILLMAN, District Judge.

On March 28, 2014, this Court entered an order (Docket No. 83) granting in part and
denying in part, the summary judgment motion of Defendants Kittredge Insurance Agency, Inc.,
Francis Kittredge and Eastern Insurance Group, LLC. The Defendants Kittredge Insurance
Agency and Francis Kittredge have now moved to alter or amend the order pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Specifically, the Defendants ask the Court to, 1) to correct a typographical error in
the Conclusion that read “denied” instead of “granted” as to Count XII (tortious interference with
advantageous business relationship); and 2) to correct what Defendants claim is the Court’s
“clear error of law” in not dismissing Count III, the 93A claim. Defendants’ have also moved to

re-open discovery for limited purposes, seeking discovery from St. Peter-Marian High School
regarding its hiring of the Plaintiff, his employment there, and his employment termination.
Defendants are concerned that the Court has overlooked the rule of law in Massachusetts
with regard to a 93A claim in an employment situation. See Manning v. Zuckerman, 388 Mass. 8
(1983) (93A claim not actionable when it arises out of the employment relationship). In the
Court’s order, however, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court
simply found that there remain factual questions regarding the existence and nature of the
agreement with Eastern Insurance Agency and how that involved the Plaintiff. This evidence,
along with other evidence on the record of events that may have occurred outside of the
employment context, created a question of fact for the jury regarding the Defendants’ liability for
the relevant claims. The Court was not making a determination that the record definitely proved
the fact that certain actions did or did not fall within the employment relationship. The Court has
only determined that enough evidence exists on the record to bring to create a question of fact for
determination by a fact finder. Accordingly, the motion to alter or amend the Order as to Count
III is denied.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above:
1) Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is
GRANTED (Docket No. 84) as to Count XII (tortuous interference with
advantageous business relationship), which should be corrected to read that summary
judgment is “GRANTED” as to Count XII;

2 

2) Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Docket No.
84) is DENIED as to Kittredge Insurace Agency, Inc. and Francis Kittredge on Count
III (93A);
3) Defendants’ Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purposes (Docket No. 86) is
GRANTED for a period of sixty (60) days for the limited purpose of discovery
regarding the hiring, employment and termination of Peter Coyle at St. Peter-Marian
High School.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3