Joint Motion to Strike Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend — Adams v. Mass General Brigham (D. Mass.)
- Date
- 2025-03-26
Summary
A joint motion filed March 26, 2025 as Document 288 in Adams v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Represented Plaintiffs Robin Meadows, Kathleen Fusco and Michael Saccoccio, Attorney Ryan McLane for the former represented plaintiffs, and Mass General Brigham Incorporated ask the court to strike the pro se plaintiffs' memorandum supporting leave to file a second amended complaint, ECF No. 284, and ECF Nos. 285-2 through 285-5. The motion argues those filings describe confidential settlement negotiations inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 408. It also argues they disclose privileged joint communications with former counsel that the pro se plaintiffs cannot waive unilaterally. The six-page filing ends with a Local Rule 7.1 certificate and 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 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TYLER ADAMS, KATHLEEN FUSCO,
ROSEANN MCNAMARA, ROBIN
MEADOWS, MICHELLE ORFANOS,
MICHAEL SACCOCCIO, SARAH
SHULMAN, AND JAMIE STEVERMAN,
Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS
v.
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND AND EXHIBITS B THROUGH F THERETO
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Robin Meadows, Kathleen Fusco, and Michael Saccoccio, by and through their
counsel; Attorney Ryan McLane, on behalf of the former represented Plaintiffs; and, Mass General
Brigham Incorporated (“MGB”) (collectively, the “Represented Parties”), respectfully move for
an order striking (1) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint (the “MOL”), ECF No. 284, and (2) Exhibits B through F
thereto (declarations of pro se Plaintiffs Adams, McNamara, Orfanos, Shulman, and Steverman),
ECF Nos. 285-2 through 285-5. This relief is warranted for two reasons. First, these documents
are replete with improper, and inadmissible, alleged descriptions of the parties’ confidential
settlement communications. Second, the filings are also replete with discussions of alleged
privileged joint communications between the Represented Parties and their former counsel—a
privilege that the pro se Plaintiffs have no right to unilaterally waive.
316916969v.1
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 2 of 6
ARGUMENT
I. The Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Filings Contain Numerous Discussions of Settlement
Offers and Negotiations That are Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 408.
The pro se Plaintiffs’ filings contain numerous, detailed descriptions of parties’ settlement
discussions throughout this three year old case, including the conduct of settlement negotiations
and specific monetary offers and amounts. See, e.g., ECF No. 284 at 17-18 (describing conduct
of settlement negotiations); ECF No. 285-1 at ¶¶ 26-27; ECF No. 285-2 at ¶¶ 26, 28, 30 (disclosing
settlement discussions and specific settlement amounts); ECF No. 285-4 at ¶¶ 38-40 (conduct of
settlement negotiations and characterizing amount of settlement offers). The parties’ settlement
discussions have no relevance to any claim or defense asserted in this case, nor are they relevant
to an analysis of the propriety of leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. This Court accordingly
can, and should, strike these improper and inadmissible references to settlement negotiations and
amounts offered in settlement. See Jones v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. C-08-03971-JW DMR, 2010
WL 4055928, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010) (District Courts have the “inherent power to strike
portions of documents that are improperly part of the record” and may “strike a paragraph from a
case management document that discloses confidential settlement negotiations”); Low-Iacovino v.
Benefit Plan Comm. of Nonbargained Program of AT&T Benefit Plan, No. CV1606614ABGJSX,
2018 WL 6984850, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2018) (“based on its inherent powers, a court may
strike material from the docket, and numerous courts have stricken similar references to
confidential [settlement] communications”); Sharestates Investments, LLC v. WFG Nat’l Title Ins.
Co., No. 1:23-CV-01416-JMC, 2023 WL 8436159, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2023) (“granting a
motion to strike a plaintiff’s references to the parties’ settlement discussions is appropriate where
a plaintiff offers those discussions in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 408”).
2
316916969v.1
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 3 of 6
II. The Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Filings are Replete With Discussions of Privileged
Communications Between Jointly Represented Plaintiffs and Their Lawyers.
The pro se Plaintiffs’ filings repeatedly describe, in great and improper detail, alleged
confidential and privileged communications between the jointly represented Plaintiffs and
Attorney McLane, their then-counsel, while the pro se Plaintiffs were among Attorney McLane’s
firm’s jointly represented clients.1 See, e.g., ECF No. 284 at 17; ECF No. 285-1 at ¶ 25; ECF No.
285-2 at ¶¶ 24, 26, 28, 29; ECF No. 285-4 at ¶¶ 36, 38, 39. The pro se Plaintiffs have no right to
unilaterally waive privilege with respect to alleged communications that occurred with co-
Plaintiffs while they were jointly represented by the same attorneys. See Hudson-RPM
Distributors, LLC v. Bowditch & Dewey, LLP, No. 4:19-CV-40095-TSH, 2021 WL 9649662, at
*4 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2021) (“[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 ... [and] may not ... 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.”) (emphasis
added), quoting In re Teleglobe Commc’ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 363 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court
should therefore strike these disclosures of alleged privileged communications. See Low-Iacovino,
2018 WL 6984850, at *5 (courts have inherent power to strike materials that improperly disclose
confidential communications). 2
1
The Represented Parties note that the pro se Plaintiffs are careful to distinguish when their
purported waivers of privilege pertain to discussions they had “individually” with Attorney
McLane. See ECF No. 284 at 17. The pro se Plaintiffs’ filings otherwise leave no doubt that the
communications described occurred in the presence of other jointly represented Plaintiffs, who
have not waived the privilege. See, e.g., ECF No. 285-1, ¶ 25 (alleging that communications with
counsel “primarily” occurred through collective Zoom calls).
2
Plaintiffs Meadows and Fusco, and Plaintiff Saccoccio, through their counsel, join in this motion
to the extent that any attorney-client privilege as to their communications with predecessor counsel
has been waived by virtue of the filings the Represented Parties seek to have stricken.
3
316916969v.1
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 4 of 6
CONCLUSION
For these foregoing reasons, the Represented Parties respectfully jointly request that this
Court (1) grant the instant motion and (2) enter an order striking ECF Nos. 284 and 285-2 through
285-5.
Dated: March 26, 2025 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
/s/ Jack Spitz
Jack R. Spitz (Pro hac vice)
jspitz@sirillp.com
Christina Xenides (BBO# 677603)
cxenides@sirillp.com
Siri & Glimstad LLP
1005 Congress Ave., Ste. 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Tel.: (224) 263-7422
Fax: (646) 417-5967
COUNSEL FOR ROBIN MEADOWS and
KATHLEEN FUSCO
4
316916969v.1
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 5 of 6
/s/ Richard Chambers
Richard Chambers (BBO# 651251)
richard@chamberslaw.com
Chambers Law Office
220 Broadway, Suite 404
Lynnfield, MA 01940
Tel.: (781) 581-2031
Fax: (781) 581-8449
COUNSEL FOR MICHAEL SACCOCCIO
/s/ Ryan 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 THE
FORMER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS
5
316916969v.1
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 288 Filed 03/26/25 Page 6 of 6
LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATE
I, Dawn R. Solowey, certify that on March 26, 2025, this office conferred with the pro se
Plaintiffs regarding the relief requested in this motion. Ms. Orfanos, on behalf of the five pro se
Plaintiffs, indicated that they are willing to withdraw the filings that are the subject of this motion
and re-file after removing the improper references to privileged and confidential settlement and
attorney-client communications. The pro se Plaintiffs did not specifically indicate whether they
oppose the instant motion, but instead requested that MGB’s counsel provide them with a list of
specific “lines” that the Represented Parties request to be removed. MGB’s counsel indicated that,
given the importance of obtaining prompt relief, the Represented Parties would proceed to file the
instant motion. Nonetheless, MGB’s counsel offered to confer further with the pro se Plaintiffs
regarding the specific references that, in the view of the Represented Parties, ought to be removed
before their papers are re-filed.
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Dawn R. Solowey
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dawn R. Solowey, certify that on March 26, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing document to be filed and uploaded to the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Dawn R. Solowey
6
316916969v.1
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.238919.288.0.pdf
- Size
- 39,252 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2e00f159013664c6133f13b125305b07f20bcaf363d56ee7bcaaf677521ae251
- Original
- archive.org