Gordon v. Craver et al

Filing 30

Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Compel. "As agreed by the parties during todays motion hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs motion and orders the following relief." (DHH, law2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ALAN GORDON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 4:17-cv-40013-DHH

v.
ROBIN L. CRAVER, FREDERICK C.
SWENSEN, and TOWN OF CHARLTON,
Defendants.

Order
November 21, 2017
Hennessy, M.J.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, Docket #23, is now before the Court. Defendants
opposed the motion, Docket #24, and Plaintiffs filed a reply, Docket #25. The Court held a
hearing today at which it heard arguments from both parties. With the parties’ consent, the Court
also reviewed five unredacted documents in camera to assess the propriety of Defendants’
redactions to them. The Court then discussed those redactions with Defendants’ counsel ex
parte.
As agreed by the parties during today’s motion hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART
AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion and orders the following relief.
Plaintiff’s Document Requests
The following refers to Plaintiff’s document requests as numbered in Defendants’
responses to Plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, Docket #23-2. Unless

1

otherwise specified, Defendants shall produce all responsive documents and affidavits to
Plaintiff by December 5, 2017.
•

Request #1: By November 22, 2017, Plaintiff will identify to Defendants all missing
warrant article votes for annual town meetings and special town meetings from 2008
through 2016. Defendants will produce any responsive documents, as well as all warrant
articles and corresponding votes from 2003 through 2008.

•

Request #2: Defendants will provide Plaintiff an affidavit of Ms. Mary Devlin that
identifies the date of each executive session of the Board of Selectmen from February 4,
2014 through the present and states whether minutes of each such executive session exist.
If any scheduled executive session was not held, or if an executive session was held but
no minutes were created, the affidavit will explain why. Defendants will produce to
Plaintiff any responsive minutes not yet produced.

•

Request #3: Plaintiff has withdrawn his motion to compel as to this request.

•

Request #4: Plaintiff has withdrawn his motion to compel as to this request.

•

Request #5: Defendants will provide Plaintiff an affidavit of the Charlton Town Clerk
attesting that, based on the Clerk’s review of Town files and on representations of a
representative of the Finance Committee, all existing Finance Committee meeting
minutes have been produced.

•

Request #6: The only Personnel Board meeting still in dispute is the Board’s meeting of
July 29, 2014. Defendant will provide Plaintiff an affidavit attesting that minutes for this
meeting were never created.

•

Requests ##7 and 8: The parties have agreed to narrow these requests to correspondence
from February 4, 2014 through the present. Defendants will provide Plaintiff affidavits

2

from the Charlton Town Clerk, Defendant Craver, and Defendant Swensen. Each
affidavit will specify the contents and date ranges of all word searches that each affiant
has conducted of all applicable personal and work email accounts. Each affidavit will
further state that all responsive documents found during Defendants’ searches have been
produced to Plaintiff.
•

Request #9: By December 5, 2017, Defendants will subpoena or request from Human
Resources Services, Inc. (“HRS”) HRS’s entire file for work it performed for the Town
of Charlton, including all draft versions of HRS’s Classification Plan. Defendants will
produce all responsive documents to Plaintiff by December 12, 2017.

•

Request #10: Defendants have fully complied with this request.

•

Request #11: Plaintiff has withdrawn his motion to compel as to this request.
Defendants’ Redactions to the Board of Selectmen’s Executive Session Minutes
The Court finds that some of Defendants’ proposed redactions are improper. By

December 5, 2017, Defendants are to produce to Plaintiff newly redacted versions of the
following minutes of the Board of Selectmen’s Executive Sessions. Defendants may only redact
the information listed below.
•

July 22, 2014: Paragraph 6, portions of lines 3 and 4 (as discussed ex parte).

•

May 12, 2015: Paragraph 4, as originally redacted; and paragraph 6, sentences 2 and 3.

•

June 21, 2016: Paragraph 5.

3

The Court reserves decision on Defendants’ proposed redactions to the minutes dated
February 17, 2015 and January 5, 2016. 1 Defendants are to provide the Court with legal
authority supporting its proposed redactions by December 5, 2017.
It is so ordered.

/s/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Court finds that Defendants’ proposed redactions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the minutes dated January 5, 2016
are proper. The only proposed redaction of that document on which the Court reserves decision is of paragraph 4.

4