Preview
Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
14
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 2831CV00374
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN,
RECEIVED
Plaintiff
06/28/2023
Vv.
CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DECLARE CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE’S
OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HER REQUEST FOR ISSIONS
NOS. 1, 2-5, 7-8, 13-15, 19-22, 24-47, 49-51, 53-56, 9, 61, 63-64, 68-72, , 81 & 83-84
INSUFFICIENT, AND ISSUE ORDERS APPROPRIATE THERETO
Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan (“Srinivasan”) moves this Honorable Court for
relief pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 36(a) (“Rule 36”) and Rule 37(a)(4) and in regards to
the objections and responses given by Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”)
to Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan’s first set of requests for admission (“Requests”)
generally, and to Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-8, 13-15, 19-22, 24-47, 49-51, 53-56, 9, 61, 63-64, 68-
72, 74-79, 81 & 83-84. She moves for relief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Mass. R. Civ. P
(“Rule 37”) as is specified below. Where she seeks to compel admissions which CHA
failed to provide in conformity with Rules 26 and 36, she requests that:
1 Srinivasan be granted relief under Rule 37(a) as to some of the admissions;
ii. CHA be Ordered to provide further answers to interrogatories as to other of
the admissions no later than July 17, 2023; and/or
iii. She be granted any other relief under Rule 37(a)(2) the Court deems just.
In any event she requests that she be granted an award of attorney’s fees for
having to obtain said relief under Rule 37(a)(4).
ac
Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
NATURE OF THE CASE
This case concerns CHA’s refusal to accommodate Srinivasan’s disabilities.
Srinivasan alleges that an accommodation to her disabilities was possible without
causing the CHA to suffer any hardship, much less any undue hardship, which is the
legal standard. Her requests for documents sought to establish this fact.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan (Srinivasan”) served admission requests pursuant
to Mass. R. Civ. P. 36 (“Rule 36”). Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) on
or about April 28, 2023. CHA provided responses on June 6, 2023. Appendix to
Memorandum. On or about June 26, 2023 Srinivasan conferred with CHA’s Counsel
regarding its responses.
APPLICABLE RULES OF THE COURT
Rule 36 provides in relevant part:
A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and
when good faith requires that a party qualify his answer or deny only a
part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so
much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering
party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for
failure to admit or deny unless he states that he has made reasonable
inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him is
insufficient to enable him to admit or deny.
Rule 36(a) (emphasis added). The requesting party may move for an order with
respect to any objection to or other failure to admit a request in the form permitted
under Rule 36 pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Mass. R. Civ. P., which respectively
provide in relevant parts:
(a) Motion for order compelling discovery
Upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, a party
may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:
Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
(1) Appropriate Court. An application for an order to a party may be
made to the court in which the action is pending,
(2) Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For purposes of this subdivision
an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.
(3) Award of Expenses of Motion. If the motion is granted, the court
may, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney
advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including
attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion
was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award
of expenses unjust.
In support thereof Srinivasan provides an Appendix setting forth the Requests,
and Objections and Denials thereto, a Memorandum of Law in which she will specify the
precise relief to which she believes she is entitled to with regard to each separate request
enumerated therein, and the Affidavit of Mark D. Stern.
Srinivasan respectfully requests a hearing on these requests.
Respectfully submitted,
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, Plaintiff,
By her attorneys,
SS? // Mark D. Stern //
Mark D. Stern
BBO #479500.
34 Liberty Avenue
Somerville, MA 02144
Phone: 617-776-4020
Fax: 617 776 9250
Emai 1: attorneymarkdstern@comeast.net
Web: www.attorneymarkdstern.com
ss: // Alan Jay Rom //
Alan Jay Rom
BBO# 425960
Rom Law P.C.
P.O. Box 585
Chelmsford, MA 01824
617/776-0575-Tel.
978/455-9589-Tel.
617/209-7714-Fax
Email: alan@romlawoffice.com
Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
Web: www.romlawoffice.com
Dated: June 28, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9A
Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has served this Motion on Counsel for the
CHA Asha A. Santos and Alexa Esposito and Matthew Lynch on the above date by
email in accordance with Rule 9A.
Signed,
//ss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9C
Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has conferred with Counsel for the CHA
Matthew Lynch on June 23 ad 26, 2023 along with Srinivasan’s Co-Counsel Alan J.
Rom for all of the former and part of the latter meetings.
Signed,
/ss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
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 to the above addresses.
Signed,
/ss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
Preview
Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 14 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT NO. 2831CV00374 ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, RECEIVED Plaintiff 06/28/2023 Vv. CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, Defendant PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DECLARE CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HER REQUEST FOR ISSIONS NOS. 1, 2-5, 7-8, 13-15, 19-22, 24-47, 49-51, 53-56, 9, 61, 63-64, 68-72, , 81 & 83-84 INSUFFICIENT, AND ISSUE ORDERS APPROPRIATE THERETO Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan (“Srinivasan”) moves this Honorable Court for relief pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 36(a) (“Rule 36”) and Rule 37(a)(4) and in regards to the objections and responses given by Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) to Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan’s first set of requests for admission (“Requests”) generally, and to Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-8, 13-15, 19-22, 24-47, 49-51, 53-56, 9, 61, 63-64, 68- 72, 74-79, 81 & 83-84. She moves for relief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Mass. R. Civ. P (“Rule 37”) as is specified below. Where she seeks to compel admissions which CHA failed to provide in conformity with Rules 26 and 36, she requests that: 1 Srinivasan be granted relief under Rule 37(a) as to some of the admissions; ii. CHA be Ordered to provide further answers to interrogatories as to other of the admissions no later than July 17, 2023; and/or iii. She be granted any other relief under Rule 37(a)(2) the Court deems just. In any event she requests that she be granted an award of attorney’s fees for having to obtain said relief under Rule 37(a)(4). ac Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 NATURE OF THE CASE This case concerns CHA’s refusal to accommodate Srinivasan’s disabilities. Srinivasan alleges that an accommodation to her disabilities was possible without causing the CHA to suffer any hardship, much less any undue hardship, which is the legal standard. Her requests for documents sought to establish this fact. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan (Srinivasan”) served admission requests pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 36 (“Rule 36”). Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) on or about April 28, 2023. CHA provided responses on June 6, 2023. Appendix to Memorandum. On or about June 26, 2023 Srinivasan conferred with CHA’s Counsel regarding its responses. APPLICABLE RULES OF THE COURT Rule 36 provides in relevant part: A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless he states that he has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny. Rule 36(a) (emphasis added). The requesting party may move for an order with respect to any objection to or other failure to admit a request in the form permitted under Rule 36 pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Mass. R. Civ. P., which respectively provide in relevant parts: (a) Motion for order compelling discovery Upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, a party may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows: Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 (1) Appropriate Court. An application for an order to a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending, (2) Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer. (3) Award of Expenses of Motion. If the motion is granted, the court may, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. In support thereof Srinivasan provides an Appendix setting forth the Requests, and Objections and Denials thereto, a Memorandum of Law in which she will specify the precise relief to which she believes she is entitled to with regard to each separate request enumerated therein, and the Affidavit of Mark D. Stern. Srinivasan respectfully requests a hearing on these requests. Respectfully submitted, ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, Plaintiff, By her attorneys, SS? // Mark D. Stern // Mark D. Stern BBO #479500. 34 Liberty Avenue Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: 617-776-4020 Fax: 617 776 9250 Emai 1: attorneymarkdstern@comeast.net Web: www.attorneymarkdstern.com ss: // Alan Jay Rom // Alan Jay Rom BBO# 425960 Rom Law P.C. P.O. Box 585 Chelmsford, MA 01824 617/776-0575-Tel. 978/455-9589-Tel. 617/209-7714-Fax Email: alan@romlawoffice.com Date Filed 6/28/2023 5:49 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 Web: www.romlawoffice.com Dated: June 28, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9A Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has served this Motion on Counsel for the CHA Asha A. Santos and Alexa Esposito and Matthew Lynch on the above date by email in accordance with Rule 9A. Signed, //ss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9C Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has conferred with Counsel for the CHA Matthew Lynch on June 23 ad 26, 2023 along with Srinivasan’s Co-Counsel Alan J. Rom for all of the former and part of the latter meetings. Signed, /ss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern 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 to the above addresses. Signed, /ss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern