Full text
80256655v.4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERTA LANCIONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DISCOVERY QUESTIONNAIRES
Plaintiffs Roberta Lancione et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Mass General Brigham
Incorporated (“MGB”) jointly move for this Court’s approval of their proposed forms of
Questionnaires as permissible written discovery devices in this case, to be governed by the
applicable provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33, 34, and 36 and any other applicable federal or
local discovery rules. As grounds for this motion, the parties states as follows:
1.
On December 17, 2021, after a joint motion by the parties, this Court entered a
Scheduling Order providing a phased timetable for the efficient completion of discovery and
motion practice. ECF No. 56. Under the Scheduling Order, the parties must serve written
discovery requests no later than March 16, 2022. Id., ¶ 4(a).
2.
On January 19, 2022, the parties appeared by video for a status conference. ECF
No. 62. During the status conference, the Court asked the parties to confer regarding proposals
to gain further efficiencies in written discovery.
3.
The parties subsequently conferred, per the Court’s instruction, to discuss
proposals for streamlining written discovery in Phase 1. As a result, the parties have agreed that
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 6
2
80256655v.4
in Phase 1 MGB may serve a Plaintiff Questionnaire, to be completed by each plaintiff, which
may ask questions and seek documents, shall be completed under oath, and shall be governed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33, 34 and 36 and any other applicable federal rules.1 The parties have
further agreed that MGB may also serve in Phase 1 a limited set of interrogatories and document
requests to which Plaintiffs will respond collectively.2 In turn, the parties have agreed that
Plaintiffs may use a questionnaire format for a subset of their requests. The questionnaire,
interrogatories, and requests for production served by either side shall collectively contain no
more than a total of 40 requests. In addition, the parties have agreed that each side may serve up
to 10 requests for admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
4.
In accordance with the parties’ agreement, MGB has prepared a Plaintiff
Questionnaire and Requests for Admission, attached as EXHIBIT A hereto. MGB has
endeavored to make these forms easily understandable by a lay person. MGB will also serve a
limited set of interrogatories and document requests on Plaintiffs’ counsel. MGB has shared
drafts of the complete set of requests with Plaintiffs’ counsel.
5.
In accordance with the parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs prepared a form of
Questionnaire for MGB, attached as EXHIBIT B hereto. Plaintiffs will also serve a limited set
of interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission on Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Plaintiffs have shared drafts of the complete set of requests with MGB’s counsel.
6.
As the Court emphasized at the recent status conference, the instructions on both
parties’ Questionnaires make clear that the responses shall be made under oath; that they are
subject to supplementation; and that the federal and local rules, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33,
1 Plaintiffs may likewise serve a Defendant Questionnaire.
2 Plaintiffs may likewise serve a set of document requests and interrogatories.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 6
3
80256655v.4
34, and 36, as well as the corresponding local rules, apply with full force and effect to these
questionnaires (and requests for admission attached to each Questionnaire for Plaintiffs).
7.
The parties agree that responses to the Questionnaires will be due 30 days from
service. Responses to the interrogatories, document requests and requests for admission will be
due as the federal and local rules provide.
8.
The parties conferred on March 10, 2022 to reach agreement on this motion.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order approving
MGB’s proposed Plaintiff Questionnaire and Requests for Admission, see Ex. A, and Plaintiffs’
Proposed Questionnaire, see Ex. B, as permissible discovery devices governed by Rules 26, 33,
34, and 36, their local rule counterparts, and all other generally applicable rules of discovery.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 6
4
80256655v.4
Dated: March 11, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/_Ryan P. McLane______________
.Ryan P. McLane (BBO# 697464)
Lauren Bradford (BBO# 700084)
McLane & McLane, LLC
269 South Westfield Street
Feeding Hills, MA 01030
ryan@mclanelaw.com
lauren@mclanelaw.com
TEL: (413) 789-7771
FAX: (413) 789-7731
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
/s/ Lynn A. Kappelman
Lynn A. Kappelman (BBO# 642017)
Katherine E. Perrelli (BBO# 549820)
Kristin McGurn (BBO# 559687)
Dawn Reddy Solowey (BBO# 567757)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East
Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200
Boston, MA 02210-2028
kperrelli@seyfarth.com
lkappelman@seyfarth.com
kmcgurn@seyfarth.com
dsolowey@seyfarth.com
TEL: (617) 946-4800
FAX: (617) 946-4801
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 6
80256655v.4
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1
I hereby certify pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) that on March 10, 2022, we conferred in
good faith with opposing counsel, Ryan McLane, by telephone in order to resolve or narrow the
issues presented by this motion. The parties agreed to file the instant motion jointly.
/s/ Lynn A. Kappelman
Lynn A. Kappelman
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 6
6
80256655v.4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lynn A. Kappelman, certify that on March 11, 2022, I caused a true and accurate copy
of the foregoing document to be filed and uploaded to the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Lynn A. Kappelman
Lynn A. Kappelman
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 71 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 6