Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr. Opposition to MGB's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Discovery — Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated (Dkt. 122)

Summary

A filing by Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H. requesting 1. Opposition to MGB's Motion to Dismiss and 2. Motion to Compel MGB to Immediately Produce All Discovery Materials, Document 122 filed 10/14/22 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. He states that he complied with all discovery requests except 3 contested questions, while MGB failed to provide substantive discovery materials despite the Court's instruction on 8.23.22. He argues that MGB changed the Protective Order and that a motion to dismiss his case with prejudice should be denied in full. He asks the Court to compel MGB to immediately provide all discovery materials.

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.

Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 122 Filed 10/14/22 Page1lof3

tN CLERKS OFFICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
772 OCT 14 PH & 20

TYLER ADAMS, et al. ) BIS) DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs ) = UW

) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-14 686) |)

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM ) q€3
INCORPORATED ) ef)

Defendant

PLAINTIFF JAMES D. WINES, JR. MD, MPH REQUESTS
14. OPPOSITION TO MGB’S MOTION TO DISMISS and
2. MOTION TO COMPEL MGB TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE ALL DISCOVERY
MATERIALS

State of the Case

First, it is imperative to highlight from the onset that | have complied with all the discovery requests
including sitting for a deposition lasting several hours or more, answering all interrogatories,
admissions, and the Plaintiff questionnaire with the exception of 3 contested questions. By
contrast, MGB has flouted this Honorable Court by failing to provide ANY substantive
discovery materials including Defendant Questionnaire, Interrogatories, and Admissions despite
the Court’s instruction on 8.23.22 to work with Attorney McLane to get me the discovery materials
(please see Exhibits A, B, and C all of which are completely unanswered). Also, | was not allowed
to attend any of the depositions. Furthermore, Defendants have misled this Court by pretending
they cannot give me any substantive discovery materials because | have not signed a defective
and highly prejudicial Protective Order, that | did not in any way assent to. It is also important to
point out that the new, pro se Protective Order was not “tweaked” as MGB attorneys referred

to the changes in the document, but rather it was drastically altered using an ill-defined term,
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 122 Filed 10/14/22 Page 2of3

“communicator,” that was not even mentioned in this Court's order. MGB is fond of
perseverating on the fact that 160+ Plaintiffs did this or did that. It certainly begs the question as
to why MGB would over hall the Protective Order after it was used previously by 160+ Plaintiffs.
The fact that | am a pro se litigant is not the answer. Given that MGB has been noncompliant
with essentially the entire discovery process, a motion to dismiss my case with prejudice
is absurd and obviously should be denied in full. Furthermore, | respectfully ask that this
Honorable Court actively protect all of my rights as a non-attorney, pro se litigant and
compel MGB, with the threat of sanction and/or dismissal, to immediately provide all discovery

materials.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff James D. Wines, Jr. M.D., M.P.H. respectfully
requests that MGB’s motion to dismiss be denied in full. Furthermore, | respectfully ask that
this Honorable Court protect all of my rights as a non-attorney, pro se litigant and compel
MGB, with the threat of sanction and/or dismissal, to immediately provide all discovery

materials. | also request any other or further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 122 Filed 10/14/22 Page 3of3

Dated: October 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

James eo M.D., M.P.H.

Pro se

51 Sea

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| certify that a true copy of the above document was served on October 14, 2022 upon
attorneys for the Defendant via email attachment at the following addresses:

Lynn A. Kappelman, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Dawn Reddy Solowey, Esq. Seaport East
lkappelman@seyfarth.com Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200
dsolowey@seyfarth.com Boston, MA 02210-2028

TEL: (617) 946-4800
FAX: (617) 946-4801

James vn Jr., M.D., M.P.H.


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.122.0.pdf

Size

485,098 bytes

SHA-256

5c1efffbfa9415ab565d9667f782fa0d04a698e897dddd14688b820033ce9afb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.238919.122.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.