Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr. Motion for Protective Order — Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated (Dkt. 110)

Summary

A Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr. Motion for Protective Order, Document 110 filed 08/12/22 in Tyler Adams, et al. v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, drafted with attorney assistance. Dr. Wines requests a protective order on specific discovery disclosures, including the identities of former colleagues sought by question No. 8 of the Defendant MGB's questionnaire to all plaintiffs, and his medical information. He states he believes the names of colleagues still employed by MGB may be used to retaliate against them. He asks for an order barring MGB's attorneys from disclosing that information. The motion certifies a Local Rule 7.1 conference on August 10, 2022 that did not narrow the issues.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 5 of 5 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document110 Filed 08/12/22 Page 1of5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

TYLER ADAMS, et al.

Plaintiffs

Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686
Vv. =

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
INCORPORATED

SSVH 40 1

Defendant |
PLAINTIFF JAMES D. WINES, JR. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(drafted with assistance of an attorney licensed to practice in this Court)

3901430 SMYA10 Ni

The Plaintiff, James D. Wines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., respectfully requests a protective order

on specific requested discovery disclosures. The requests are as follows.

1. Request for Protective Order for Identities of Former Colleagues

No. 8 of the Defendant MGB’s questionnaire to all plaintiffs is:

Please identify any communications you had with MGB employees or any other
persons — other than e-mails to or from GBReligiousExemptions@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 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 answer.

As to his response to this request Dr. Wines answered, “This question has not been answered as
there will be a protective order request of the court.”

Responding to the above Questionnaire #8 requires Dr. Wines to provide names of
colleagues who are still employed by MGB. He believes that this information may be used to

retaliate against these individuals. This retaliation on the part of MGB could be for activities of
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document110 Filed 08/12/22 Page 2of5

these individuals ranging from something significant, such as providing professional or moral
support to any of the plaintiffs in their efforts to obtain an exemption to MGB’s vaccination
policy or an accommodation, or for something seemingly insignificant such as expressing a
negative opinion about the policy.

This retaliation could possibly come in the form of a denial or a delay of deserved
promotions (hospital-wide and/or academic appointments) that were worked for for many years,
or demotions, or outright terminations, or other forms of retaliatory or unfair treatment. For this
reason, Dr. Wines respectfully requests the following protective order.

The first requested protective order is that the identities of any current or former MGB
employees, officers, or other agents that are disclosed by Dr. Wines in response to MGB’s
discovery demands are not to be disclosed to any of MGB’s employees, officers, or other agents;
said identities to be viewed only by MGB’s attorneys, including their in-house attorneys, and
said attorneys are not to disclose the said identities to anyone.

2. Request for Protective Order for All Medical Information

The questionnaire that was submitted to all plaintiffs requires disclosure of protected
medical information. Question 14 asks:

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.

(rest of page intentionally left blank to keep a whole footnote on the same page)
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 110 Filed 08/12/22 Page 3of5

Defendant acknowledges that an employee’s vaccination status is private information. See (#50,
12/06/21), p. 11, fn. 11.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dr. Wines is very concerned about what he believes were potentially unauthorized
disclosures of his private medical information, including his vaccination status. He therefore
requests the following protective order:

No medical information disclosed by Dr. Wines shall be disclosed by MGB’s attorneys
(including MGB’s in-house attorneys) to any officers, employees or agents of MGB or to any
other person, nor shall said attorneys publish such information anywhere at any time during or
after the conclusion of this case.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr. M.D., M.P.H.
respectfully requests a protective order barring MGB’s attorneys, including in-house attorneys,
from disclosing any information and documents containing the identities of any of his former
colleagues, whether currently still employed by MGB or formerly so employed, or from
disclosing any of his medical information. He also requests any other or further relief that this

Court deems just and proper.

1 U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA,
the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws: § K.4 (2021),
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-
other-eeo-laws
(last accessed May 24, 2022) (“Is information about an employee’s COVID-19 vaccination
confidential medical information under the ADA? Yes. The ADA requires an employer to
maintain the confidentiality of employee medical information. Although the EEO laws do not
prevent employers from requiring employees to provide documentation or other confirmation of
vaccination, this information, like all medical information, must be kept confidential...) (emphasis
in original).

(Signature and certificate of service on next page)
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 110 Filed 08/12/22 Page 4of5

Dated: August 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Jarheg D’ Wines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.

5YSea Ave

Quincy, MA 02169
617-755-1087
jamiewines@comcast.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above document was served on August 10, 2022 upon
attorneys for the Defendant via email attachment at the following addresses:

_ Lynn A. Kappelman, Esq. _ SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Katherine E. Perrelli, Esq. Seaport East
Kristin McGurn, Esq. Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 |
Dawn Reddy Solowey, Esq. : Boston, MA 02210-2028
kperrelli@seyfarth.com | TEL: (617) 946-4800
Ikappelman@seyfarth.com FAX: (617) 946-4801
kmcegum@seyfarth.com |

James PJ Wines Jr., M.D., M.P.H.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1

I hereby certify pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) that I (via telephone with Attorney Lynn
Kappelman on August 10, 2022) and my former counsel, David Kiah, Esq. conferred in good
faith with opposing counsel in order to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this motion.
Counsel for the parties were unable to narrow the issues presented in this motion.

Jams 0 Wines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.110.0.pdf

Size

535,716 bytes

SHA-256

893385e122d69b6d30416a63d76ef1382b2663c941b84d5f0ab5cc56d1504bf7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.110.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.