On February 06, 2023 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Srinivasan, Adriana,
and
Cambridge Health Alliance,
for Torts
in the District Court of Middlesex County.
Preview
Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
12.2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 2831CV00374
___________________________________
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN :
Plaintiff :
V. : 06/27/2023
CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, :
Defendant_______ :
AFFIDAVIT OF MARK D. STERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
SRINIVASAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RULE 37(C)(2) SANCTIONS.
I Mark D. Stern swear under the pain and penalty of perjury that the following
statements are true, accurate, complete, and known to me personally unless otherwise
indicated to be known on information and belief only.
1. I am co-counsel for the Plaintiff in this action.
2. On May 30, 2023 Alan Jay Rom and I held a Rule 9C Conference with Asha A.
Santos and Alexa Esposito (“CHA Counsel”) on Zoom regarding Srinivasan’s Motions to
Compel Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories.
3. In no instance regarding the twenty-four times CHA indicated it declined to
produce documents did its Counsel suggest it ever did any search whatsoever.
4. During the Conference I pointed out to CHA Counsel that the several hundred
documents they produced for us were not produced in compliance with the mandates of
Rule 34: namely, that they were not titled what they would be titled as they are ordinarily
kept in the course of business, and that none of the documents were identified by the
request to which the production responded.
5. CHA Counsel were not responsive to the first matter, but agreed that the
production did not comply with the requirement that CHA identify to which requests
ac
Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
each document was responsive, and promised they would, after the conference, provide
such identifications.
6. In the month since that promise was made, CHA Counsel have not identified to
which requests any one of those hundreds of documents was responsive.
7. Instead, on June 16, 2023, CHA Counsel produced hundreds more documents
without identifying as to any one of them to which requests each document was
responsive.
8. Nor to date have the documents produced been ascribed the titles they had in the
ordinary course of business as records of CHA.
9. More importantly, none were ascribed to the particular Document Request made.
10. All Alan Jay Rom and I have are directories that are impossible to review for a
determination of what has been produced in regard to which requests.
11. Approximately two weeks ago I served CHA Counsel with a series of Motions to
Produce Documents and a Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories in a
different format from the current motions, that is, in a format to make it easy to review
them. In those documents, the requests and responses were included in the bodies of the
motions, and the arguments regarding each objection and response inserted after each
one.
12. Per our discussion at the Rule 9C Conference, Alan Jay Rom and I invited CHA
Counsel to tell us if they agreed to withdraw any one or more of the several hundred
objections they made, to provide any of the twenty four categories of documents they
“declined to produce,” and/or modify CHA’s responses in any way, including but not
limited to identifying which documents were responsive to which requests.
Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
13. In the time between when those motions were provided and the present CHA
Counsel has not advised us as to whether they will withdraw any of the several hundred
objections they made, to provide any of the twenty-four categories of documents they
“declined to produce,” and/or to modify CHA’s responses in any way.
14. Finally, in CHA’s responses to numerous Requests CHA asserts that it is not
providing privileged documents responsive to the request. However, those responses
were not accompanied by any privilege log. This matter was brought up at the Rule 9C
Conference by Attorney Rom and me. No privilege log has been received in the month
since that conference.
Signed,
ss: // Mark D. Stern //
Dated: June 27, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Mark Stern swear that I served the above document on Asha A. Santos, at
asantos@littler.com, Alexa Esposito, aesposito@littler.com and Matthew Lynch,
mlynch@littler.com on the above date by email.
Signed,
//ss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Per Superior Court Rules 9A and 9C, this Affidavit is in 12 point, double spaced.
Signed,
//ss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
Document Filed Date
June 27, 2023
Case Filing Date
February 06, 2023
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 12.2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT NO. 2831CV00374 ___________________________________ ADRIANA SRINIVASAN : Plaintiff : V. : 06/27/2023 CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, : Defendant_______ : AFFIDAVIT OF MARK D. STERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SRINIVASAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RULE 37(C)(2) SANCTIONS. I Mark D. Stern swear under the pain and penalty of perjury that the following statements are true, accurate, complete, and known to me personally unless otherwise indicated to be known on information and belief only. 1. I am co-counsel for the Plaintiff in this action. 2. On May 30, 2023 Alan Jay Rom and I held a Rule 9C Conference with Asha A. Santos and Alexa Esposito (“CHA Counsel”) on Zoom regarding Srinivasan’s Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories. 3. In no instance regarding the twenty-four times CHA indicated it declined to produce documents did its Counsel suggest it ever did any search whatsoever. 4. During the Conference I pointed out to CHA Counsel that the several hundred documents they produced for us were not produced in compliance with the mandates of Rule 34: namely, that they were not titled what they would be titled as they are ordinarily kept in the course of business, and that none of the documents were identified by the request to which the production responded. 5. CHA Counsel were not responsive to the first matter, but agreed that the production did not comply with the requirement that CHA identify to which requests ac Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 each document was responsive, and promised they would, after the conference, provide such identifications. 6. In the month since that promise was made, CHA Counsel have not identified to which requests any one of those hundreds of documents was responsive. 7. Instead, on June 16, 2023, CHA Counsel produced hundreds more documents without identifying as to any one of them to which requests each document was responsive. 8. Nor to date have the documents produced been ascribed the titles they had in the ordinary course of business as records of CHA. 9. More importantly, none were ascribed to the particular Document Request made. 10. All Alan Jay Rom and I have are directories that are impossible to review for a determination of what has been produced in regard to which requests. 11. Approximately two weeks ago I served CHA Counsel with a series of Motions to Produce Documents and a Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories in a different format from the current motions, that is, in a format to make it easy to review them. In those documents, the requests and responses were included in the bodies of the motions, and the arguments regarding each objection and response inserted after each one. 12. Per our discussion at the Rule 9C Conference, Alan Jay Rom and I invited CHA Counsel to tell us if they agreed to withdraw any one or more of the several hundred objections they made, to provide any of the twenty four categories of documents they “declined to produce,” and/or modify CHA’s responses in any way, including but not limited to identifying which documents were responsive to which requests. Date Filed 6/27/2023 4:37 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 13. In the time between when those motions were provided and the present CHA Counsel has not advised us as to whether they will withdraw any of the several hundred objections they made, to provide any of the twenty-four categories of documents they “declined to produce,” and/or to modify CHA’s responses in any way. 14. Finally, in CHA’s responses to numerous Requests CHA asserts that it is not providing privileged documents responsive to the request. However, those responses were not accompanied by any privilege log. This matter was brought up at the Rule 9C Conference by Attorney Rom and me. No privilege log has been received in the month since that conference. Signed, ss: // Mark D. Stern // Dated: June 27, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Mark Stern swear that I served the above document on Asha A. Santos, at asantos@littler.com, Alexa Esposito, aesposito@littler.com and Matthew Lynch, mlynch@littler.com on the above date by email. Signed, //ss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Per Superior Court Rules 9A and 9C, this Affidavit is in 12 point, double spaced. Signed, //ss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern