Exhibit A — Status Conference — Tyler Adams — Mass General Brigham, Inc. — No. 21-11686-FDS (February 18, 2025)
- Date
- 2025-03-14
Summary
Exhibit A, filed March 14, 2025 as Document 282-1 in Tyler Adams, et al. v. Mass General Brigham, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-11686-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contains pages from the transcript of a status conference held February 18, 2025 before Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV. The cover and appearance pages list counsel for the plaintiffs, several pro se plaintiffs, and Seyfarth Shaw, LLP for the defendant. The transcript pages include an exchange about whether pro se plaintiffs still need to be deposed in Phase II under the phased scheduling order. They close with the court stating that either party may take depositions and that the current deadline is May 30th, and defense counsel asking for an order sequencing the plaintiffs' depositions first. The exhibit is five pages.
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
Cite this document
“Exhibit A — Status Conference — Tyler Adams — Mass General Brigham, Inc. — No. 21-11686-FDS (February 18, 2025).”
Original at archive.org, dated 2025-03-14. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-03-14-plaintiffs-v-mass-general-brigham-inc/
, SHA-256 66d92594f097bcd54dc656f28548f4075d3395c07338ac104a94b94b6f873485.Full text
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 282-1 Filed 03/14/25 Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 282-1 Filed 03/14/25 Page 2 of 5
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
2
3
TYLER ADAMS, et al., )
4 )
Plaintiffs ) Civil Action
5 )
) No. 21-11686-FDS
6 vs. )
)
7 MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM, INC., )
Defendant )
8
9
BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV
10
11
STATUS CONFERENCE
12
13
14
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
15 Courtroom No. 10
1 Courthouse Way
16 Boston, MA 02210
17
February 18, 2025
18 2:04 p.m.
19
20
21
22
23 Valerie A. O'Hara, FCRR, RPR
Official Court Reporter
24 John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
25 Boston, MA 02210
E-mail: vaohara@gmail.com
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 282-1 Filed 03/14/25 Page 3 of 5
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For The Plaintiffs:
3 Chambers Law Office, by RICHARD CULLIN CHAMBERS, JR.,
ESQ., and JOSEPH C. SPINALE, ESQ., 220 Broadway, Suite 404,
4 Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940;
5 Siri & Glimstad, LLP, by JACK RYAN SPITZ, ESQ.,
8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB#161, Parsippany, New Jersey
6 07054;
7 Tyler Adams, pro se;
8 Michelle Orfanos, pro se;
9 Sarah Shulman, pro se;
10 Jamie Steverman, pro se;
Roseann McNamara, pro se;
For the Defendant:
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, by DAWN REDDY SOLOWEY, ATTORNEY,
Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 282-1 Filed 03/14/25 Page 4 of 5
11
MS. ADAMS: Your Honor, as far as I'm aware, all
the pro se plaintiffs have been deposed in Phase I
discovery. I may be incorrect, but I was under the
impression we have all been deposed.
THE COURT: Ms. Solowey.
MS. SOLOWEY: Your Honor, there still are pro se
depositions to take in Phase II.
THE COURT: Not as to all topics, is that the
idea?
02:17PM MS. SOLOWEY: If you recall, there's a phased
scheduling order, and so only a small group of
representative plaintiffs were deposed in Phase I, so that
does include some of the pro ses, but every plaintiff needs
to be deposed in Phase II, so there's just a few of those
that still need to get taken care of, and we do intend as
soon as we have clarity from the court as to, you know,
kind of the scheduling order as to the pro se plaintiffs,
we do intend to get those notices out for in-person
videotaped depositions.
02:17PM THE COURT: Did anyone else have any questions?
And I'll let the lawyers weigh in as well.
MS. ORFANOS: Yes. Your Honor, it's
Michelle Orfanos, pro se.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. ORFANOS: There are some things that we would
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 282-1 Filed 03/14/25 Page 5 of 5
33
saying the deposition shouldn't go forward or should only
go forward in part, and I will deal with that in due
course. Again, you don't get to ask the same questions
over and over again. Yes, Ms. Solowey.
MS. SOLOWEY: Your Honor, a couple of points. One
is I understand that your Honor is still working on the
motion for scheduling order and whether to approve that as
is or to modify it.
THE COURT: Yes.
02:48PM MS. SOLOWEY: Is there any constraint on us going
ahead and noticing the plaintiff's depositions in the
meantime?
THE COURT: No, that's why I said that either
party going forward can certainly depose people, and the
current deadline is May 30th.
MS. SOLOWEY: Okay. For clarification, can we
have an order sequencing the depositions so that the
plaintiffs's depositions go first? And I ask that for a
couple of reasons. One is just so that we don't have to
02:48PM kind of relitigate that issue with the pro ses but also, as
I said, we agree with Mr. Spitz that we will take the
plaintiffs's depositions and then pursue a mediation
avenue.
We would suggest the same with the plaintiffs, and
so if it makes sense to the Court, we would ask that the
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.238919.282.1.pdf
- Size
- 145,921 bytes
- SHA-256
- 66d92594f097bcd54dc656f28548f4075d3395c07338ac104a94b94b6f873485
- Original
- archive.org