Motion-Secondary: Srinivasan, Adriana vs. Cambridge Health Alliance

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                .
Date Filed 6/6/2023 11:17 AM


                                                                  11.1
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374




                                      COMMONWEALTH                 OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  MIDDLESEX, SS                                                   SUPERIOR COURT
                                                                                  NO. 2831CV00374
                                                                                                                            RECEIVED
                  ADRIANA SRINIVASAN                                                                                          6/6/23
                                 Plaintiff
                  Vv.
                  CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE,
                                              Defendant

                               AFFIDAVIT OF MARK D. STERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ADRIANA.
                                       SRINIVASAN’S EMERGENCY! MOTION FOR LEAVE
                                   TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF MORE THAN TWENTY PAGES

                               I Mark D. Stern swear under the pain and penalty of perjury that the following statement
                  is known to me personally, and is true, accurate and complete.
                       1       Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9C Alan Jay Rom and I conferred in regards to
                  Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) objection and responses (or lack thereof) to Plaintiff’s
                  (“Srinivasan”) Requests for Production of Documents inter alia with Counsel for the CHA Asha
                  A. Santos and Alexa Esposito on May 30, 2023 at 2 p.m.
                       2.      Numerous global objections were discussed at that time; however, it was not possible to
                  discuss all 181 specific objections made by CHA Counsel so it was agreed that Srinivasan would
                  serve her motion and memorandum to compel production on CHA shortly thereafter, and if CHA
                  determined to change.its position and actually produce some of the documents it indicated CHA.
                  “decline[d]” to produce, CHA could do so and Srinivasan would remove any portion of her
                  motion and memorandum referencing those documents from the materials she filed with the
                  Court.
                       3.      We agreed this would be the most economical and sensible way to complete conferring
                  about so many specific items. On information and belief this was understood to be necessary
                  because moving forward on the production of documents was a necessary precondition to doing
                  further discovery, such as depositions.



                  ! She files this as an Emergency Motion because CHA has already had an extra month and a half to respond, and
                  then responded largely with objections, and by Exhibit B attached hereto suggests the motion should not be filed
                  until CHA has completed its very late and extremely limited production of documents, which CHA indicated in the
                  9C Conference on this matter might be several months down the road, if not later than that. This is precisely the
                  reason Srinivasan requested in opposition to CHA’s requests for extensions that it be ordered to disclose its
                  objections at an earlier date.
                                                                             1
Date Filed 6/6/2023 11:17 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374




                       4.      Hence, it was surprising and disappointing when CHA Counsel responded to Srinivasan’s
                  motion for leave to file a longer memorandum with the following statement:
                       We do not assent, and we will oppose this motion. We view this motion to compel as
                       premature because we have not yet provided our ESI production, which is currently under
                       review, and there are approximately 6 months remaining in the discovery period for this
                       case. Specifically, the discovery deadline in this case as provided by the court in its
                       tracking order is December 4, 2023. We do not view motion practice as a productive use
                       of the parties' and the courts' resources at this early stage.

                  Exhibit B to Motion
                               5        This response was in contravention of our agreement and, on information and
                  belief, would impede discovery in this case from proceeding in an orderly fashion.


                  Signed,

                  ss: // Mark D. Stern //

                  Mark D. Stern

                  Dated: June 6, 2023

                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
                               1 Mark Stern swear that I served the above document on Asha A. Santos at asantos@littler.com and Alexa
                  Esposito      aesposito@littler.com on the above date by email.
                               Signed,
                               Uss:markdstern//
                               Mark D. Stern