Order on Joint Motion to Strike

Summary

Order on Joint Motion to Strike in Tyler Adams, et al. v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated, Civil Action No. 21-11686-FDS, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Defendant and plaintiffs represented by counsel moved jointly to strike a memorandum (ECF No. 284) and exhibits filed by pro se plaintiffs, citing disclosures of alleged settlement discussions and privileged communications. The Court granted the motion as to ECF No. 284 and other exhibits, struck those filings with leave to refile amended versions within 14 days (by April 16, 2025), and denied the motion without prejudice as to ECF No. 285-3. The struck materials are to be placed under seal pending further order. The order is dated April 2, 2025, and shows /s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV, Chief Judge.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________

)
TYLER ADAMS, et al.,
)

)

Plaintiffs,
)

)

v.
)
Civil Action No.

)
21-11686-FDS
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
)
INCORPORATED,
)

)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE
SAYLOR, C.J.
On March 18, 2025, pro se plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint along with a memorandum and set of exhibits in support.
Defendant and plaintiffs represented by counsel have moved jointly to strike the pro se
plaintiffs’ memorandum (ECF No. 284) and several of the filed exhibits (ECF Nos. 285-1
through 285-5),1 because those filings contain numerous disclosures of alleged settlement
discussions and other privileged communications that pro se plaintiffs are not entitled to disclose
unilaterally.
“[B]ased on its inherent powers, a court may strike material from the docket, and
numerous courts have [struck] . . . references to confidential communications.”  Low-Iacovino v.

1 In their introduction, movants request “an order striking . . . Exhibits B through F . . . (declarations of pro
se plaintiffs Adams, McNamara, Orfanos, Shulman, and Steverman, ECF Nos. 285-2 through 285-5.”  (Mot. at 1).
While they cite five exhibit letters and five declarations, they only cite four ECF numbers.  In body of their
memorandum, movants also cite to ECF No. 285-1, the docket number that appears to be missing from their request.
The Court will read the ECF numbering as a mistake and treat the motion as being directed at the declarations of all
five pro se plaintiffs.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS     Document 293     Filed 04/02/25     Page 1 of 3

2
Benefit Plan Comm. of Nonbargained Program of AT&T Benefit Plan, 2018 WL 6984850, at *5
(C.D. Cal. June 20, 2018).  Such confidential communications include settlement discussions
that would be inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and privileged attorney-client
communications.
Rule 408 permits evidence of settlement communications for the purpose of “negating a
contention of undue delay.”  Fed. R. Evid. 408(b).  Thus, the fact that settlement discussions
were taking place may be relevant to pro se plaintiffs’ contention that they are not unduly
delayed in seeking leave to file an amended complaint.  However, the details and content of
those discussions are not relevant, would not be admissible, and will therefore be struck.
Examples of such content can be found throughout pro se plaintiffs’ memorandum and exhibits.
See, e.g., (ECF No. 284 at 17-18; ECF No. 285-1 ¶ 26; ECF No. 285-2 ¶¶ 26, 28, 30; ECF No.
285-4 ¶¶ 38, 39-40; ECF No. 285-5 ¶¶ 24-26).
Pro se plaintiffs’ filings also disclose alleged communications that are protected by the
attorney-client privilege.  “[A] client may unilaterally waive the privilege as to its own
communications with a joint attorney, so long as those communications concern only the
waiving client; it may not, however, unilaterally waive the privilege as to any of the other joint
clients’ communications or as to any of its communications that relate to other joint clients.”  In
re Teleglobe Commc'ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 363 (3d Cir. 2007).  Thus, pro se plaintiffs may
choose to waive their own privilege as to communications concerning matters related to them
alone that were made between attorney McLane and themselves individually.  However, their
disclosure of communications allegedly made by McLane to all of his jointly represented clients,
or communications made relating to his joint representation, cannot be waived by pro se
plaintiffs unilaterally.  Therefore, references to such communications amount to improper
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS     Document 293     Filed 04/02/25     Page 2 of 3

3
disclosures of confidential information and will be struck.  See, e.g., (ECF No. 284 at 17; ECF
No. 285-1 ¶ 25; ECF No. 285-2 ¶¶ 24, 26, 28, 29; ECF No. 285-4 ¶¶ 36, 38, 39; ECF No. 285-5
¶¶ 24, 26).
While movants requested that ECF No. 285-3 be struck, they did not cite to any
problematic content in that declaration and the Court was unable to locate in the document any
references to settlement discussions or privileged attorney-client communications.  Accordingly,
that document will not be struck.
Rather than attempt to perform a line-by-line edit, the Court will strike the problematic
filings in their entireties and grant leave to plaintiffs to make amended filings consistent with this
order.  Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED as to ECF Nos. 284, 285-1, 285-2, 285-4,
and 285-5, and those filings are hereby STRUCK, with leave to refile amended versions in
accordance with this Order within 14 days (that is, by April 16, 2025).  The motion to strike is
DENIED without prejudice as to ECF No. 285-3.
The struck materials shall be placed under seal pending further order of the Court.
So Ordered.

/s/  F. Dennis Saylor IV _____________

F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated:  April 2, 2025
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS     Document 293     Filed 04/02/25     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.293.0.pdf

Size

142,072 bytes

SHA-256

2fc56aa441a4595cc08bb2fc887ab95fe9d528867d62cc9621f207e7d362bdda

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.293.0.pdf

Original

archive.org