Motion (2022-08-15)
- Date
- 2022-08-15
Summary
Defendant Mass General Brigham Incorporated's opposition to Plaintiff Wines's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 110), filed August 15, 2022 as Document 113 in Tyler Adams, et al. v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. MGB asks the Court to deny the motion and order the pro se plaintiff to answer court-approved Questionnaire questions 8, 14 and 16. The opposition states that the other 160+ plaintiffs answered the questionnaire, and argues that the plaintiff's retaliation concern is no basis to refuse question 8 and that he placed his medical information at issue by filing suit. It asks for answers before his deposition scheduled for August 24, 2022, and is signed by Seyfarth Shaw LLP counsel with a certificate of service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TYLER ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF WINES’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant Mass General Brigham Incorporated (“MGB”) files this Opposition to
Plaintiff Wines’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 110), and requests that the Court order
Plaintiff Wines to answer Questionnaire questions numbers 8, 14, and 16.
BACKGROUND
To date, Plaintiff Wines has refused to provide essential discovery information supplied
by the other 160+ plaintiffs who remain in this case, including the other pro se Plaintiff.
Specifically, Plaintiff Wines refuses to provide an answer to the following three questionnaire
questions:
8. Please identify any communications you had with MGB employees or any other persons
— other than e-mails to or from MGBReligiousExemptions@Partners.org or
PHSOHSCovid19@partners.org — about your exemption request(s) by providing: (a) the
person with whom you communicated, (b) the date of the communication, (c) the form of
the communication (e.g., email, phone call, oral conversation), and(d) the substance of the
communication. Use the space below for your answer. Attach a copy of any documents
that constitute, reflect, or relate to any communications identified in your answers.
84677066v.3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 6
14. If you indicated above that you sought a medical exemption, please provide information
about any medical conditions for which you claim to have requested an exemption under
the Vaccination Policy by filling out the chart below.
16. Do you contend that any of the medical condition(s) for which you have sought an
exemption substantially limits a major life activity (e.g., seeing, hearing, walking, lifting,
speaking)? If yes, please explain using the space below. Attach a copy of any documents
that support your contentions.
The Court expressly approved all three questions when it approved MGB’s Questionnaire. (Dkt.
71, 72). The Court has also ordered that pro se Plaintiffs “must answer in full the Questionnaire.”
(Dkt. 94) (emphasis original). Rather than answer them, Plaintiff Wines filed the instant motion
for protective order and asks the Court to prohibit MGB’s counsel from sharing his responses with
MGB employees, including MGB witnesses involved in defending the lawsuit.
ARGUMENT
Despite the other 160+ Plaintiffs (including the other pro se Plaintiff) complying with their
duty to answer the court-approved questionnaire, Plaintiff Wines refuses to answer simple
questions about the most basic facts underlying the case. After separating from two sets of counsel
(Dkt. 87, 103), Plaintiff Wines now proceeds pro se and seems to think that he alone is somehow
not bound by ordinary discovery processes. Plaintiff Wines has no special exemption from
discovery. He cannot articulate any basis for his refusal to respond to basic discovery questions.
I. There Is No Basis For Plaintiff Wines’s Refusal To Answer Questionnaire
Question No. 8
First, Plaintiff Wines refuses to answer questionnaire question no. 8 regarding the
substance of his communications with MGB employees about his exemption request and the
identities of the employees with whom he communicated. The other 160+ plaintiffs have answered
the question.
Plaintiff Wines’s proposed protective order would serve no purpose other than inhibiting
MGB’s ability to prepare its case. MGB is entitled to share information about Plaintiff Wines’s
2
84677066v.3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 6
discussions of his requests with its witnesses in order to prepare its defenses. Plaintiff cites no
authority as grounds for his refusal to respond to discovery. Instead, he claims “[h]e believes that
this information may be used to retaliate against these individuals.” Plaintiff Wines’s unfounded
“belief” that information might be used to retaliate against his former colleagues is not a basis for
him to refuse to comply with his discovery obligations. Nor is it based in reality. Plaintiff Wines
identifies no basis for his belief that MGB would retaliate against any of his former colleagues
other than his own unfounded speculation. Nor does he explain why he alone out of 160+ Plaintiffs
harbors such speculation.
II. Plaintiff Wines Put His Medical Information At Issue By Filing The Lawsuit
And Cannot Refuse To Disclose It
Second, Plaintiff Wines refuses to answer question no. 14 and 16, claiming that MGB
should not be entitled to discovery about the basis for his medical exemption request unless MGB
agrees not to disclose such information to any MGB employees.
Again, Plaintiff Wines’s argument is meritless. Plaintiff Wines sought both medical and
religious exemptions, which were denied, and which are now the subject of this lawsuit. In the
request for medical exemption that he submitted to MGB, he argued that he should be exempt from
the Vaccination Policy because he had had COVID-19. Plaintiff Wines placed his medical
information squarely at issue by filing this lawsuit. MGB is entitled to responses to Questionnaire
questions 14 and 16, and to share those responses as needed with MGB witnesses to defend the
lawsuit. Plaintiff Wines’s request for a protective order must be denied.1
1
Plaintiff Wines’s reliance on MGB’s previous Motion for Protective Order is ill-conceived. In
its Motion, MGB asked the Court to issue a protective order protecting from disclosure the
identities of members of the Religious Exemption Review Committee. MGB further argued that
it anticipated plaintiffs would seek non-plaintiffs’ medical information, and asked the Court to
issue a protective order as to non-plaintiffs’ medical information in order to protect their privacy
interests. While it is true that disclosure of non-plaintiff employees’ medical records would
unduly invade the privacy of employees who want nothing to do with this case, Plaintiff Wines
3
84677066v.3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 4 of 6
III. The Court Should Order Plaintiff Wines To Respond to Questionnaire
Question Nos. 8, 14, and 16
Plaintiff Wines is required to provide responses to Defendant’s questionnaire to Plaintiff
Wines. (Relevant excerpts of Plaintiff Wines’s responses are attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
Plaintiff Wines has no basis to refuse to answer Court-approved questionnaire question
nos. 8, 14, and 16. Those questions ask Plaintiff Wines to identify basic facts central to his
contentions. Specifically, he is asked to identify communications he has made about his exemption
request (Question 8), identify any medical condition that formed the basis for his request for a
medical exemption (Question 14), and explain how his medical condition substantially limits a
major life activity (Question 16). Rather than answer, he supplied a series of non-responses and
diatribes against vaccine efficacy:
As to Question 8, Plaintiff Wines flatly refused, as discussed in Section I. supra,
based on unfounded concerns about retaliation. Ex. 1.
As to Question 14, rather than identify his medical conditions, Plaintiff Wines
responded that he does not want to identify his medical condition, that his objection to the vaccine
was based upon “informed consent,” and that he never sought “approval by another ‘healthcare
professional’ because no one is more qualified to make informed decisions for [his] treatment than
[he is.]” Plaintiff Wines’s response to Question 14 is plainly non-responsive. Id.
As to Question 16, Plaintiff Wines again refused to identify any medical condition
or substantial limitations on major life activities. Plaintiff Wines instead copied and pasted his
answer to Question 14, made argument about his beliefs as to the efficacy of the vaccine, and
has placed his medical information at issue by filing this lawsuit. He is not similar to non-party
employees and his privacy interests are not the same.
4
84677066v.3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 5 of 6
concluded that he thinks the decision not to get the vaccine is the right decision for him. Yet again,
Plaintiff Wines’s answer offered nothing responsive to the question asked. Id.
Absent a valid objection, a party cannot avoid discovery obligations by providing written
responses that ignore the questions posed to them. Plaintiff Wines provided no basis—in his
discovery responses or in the instant Motion—for his refusal to answer questionnaire question nos.
8, 14, and 16. Therefore, Plaintiff Wines should be compelled to respond to the Court-approved
questionnaire and answer question nos. 8, 14, and 16.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Wines’s motion for protective order should be denied
and Plaintiff should be ordered to immediately provide substantive answers to questionnaire
questions no. 8 and 14, and 16 in advance of his scheduled deposition on August 24, 2022.
Dated: August 15, 2022 MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
By Its Attorneys,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
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
5
84677066v.3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 113 Filed 08/15/22 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dawn R. Solowey, certify that on August 15, 2022, I caused a true and accurate copy of
the foregoing document to be served upon Plaintiff via first class mail postage pre-paid and e-mail
to the following address:
James D. Wines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H
51 Sea Ave.
Quincy, MA 02169
jamiewines@comcast.net
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Dawn R. Solowey
6
84677066v.3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.238919.113.0.pdf
- Size
- 55,716 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8d951012bcd3e6bb98e255772ddac9bb38b10062f3754c13313e26482e11afaf
- Original
- archive.org