Preview
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
90.1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1877CV00506
WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
PFS CORPORATION D/B/A PFS TECO,
Defendant,
and
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN SERVED VIA EMAIL
GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY
MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT
MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR
CONCEPTS, LLC, N/K/A AMC BUILDERS, LLC D/B/A AMC
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCKWAY,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
Vv.
MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, RANDALL G.
WELLS D/B/A ALL IS WELLS CONSTRUCTION, and JUSTIN
BROWN D/B/A JUSTIN BROWN CARPENTRY,
Third-Party Defendants.
CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 1977CV1161
WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
Vv.
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN
GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY
MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT
MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR
CONCEPTS, LLC, D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
and BRIAN BROCKWAY,
Third-Party Defendants.
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATING THE DEPOSITION NOTICES
ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS FOR SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC AND
SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC. AND FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC (“Signature”) and Summit Modular
Builders, Inc. (“Summit”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this memorandum of law
in support of their Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Relevant Procedural History
On March 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Signature
(“First Notice”). See First Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The First Notice contained 102
topics, the majority of which were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and sought information
irrelevant to the issues in this litigation. The First Notice was issued ten (10) business days prior
to the close of discovery at that time, and after the parties had just scheduled depositions of four
(4) of Signature’s former or current employees. On March 22, 2023, Signature objected to the
First Notice, noting its problematic last-minute timing, the unreasonably voluminous topics, their
overly broad and irrelevant nature, and the undue burden placed on Signature to address such
topics and designate witnesses. See Objection to First Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Approximately six (6) months later, on September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs re-served the
identical Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Signature (“Second Notice”), containing the exact
same 102 topics, noticing the deposition eight (8) business days later, and issued only fifteen
(15) business days prior to the close of discovery at that time. See Second Notice, attached hereto
as Exhibit C. On September 12, 2023, Signature objected to the Second Notice on the same
grounds. See Objection to Second Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit D. The parties engaged in a
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
Rule 9(c) conference, wherein Plaintiffs agreed to narrow the scope of the 102 topics. However,
Plaintiffs failed to do so.!
On October 10, 2023, despite Plaintiffs’ failure to narrow the topics, Plaintiffs’ counsel
asked to schedule the Signature 30(b)(6) deposition in November 2023. Undersigned counsel
responded as follows:
“I cannot commit to a deposition date for Signature’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
unless/until my objections to the notice are addressed. It is impossible for Signature
to adequately prepare one or more witnesses in compliance with its Rule 30(b)(6)
objection based on the prior notice. If we can agree on a reasonable list of topics, I
can then identify and prepare one or more witnesses accordingly, and we can
schedule the deposition.”
See Email hereto as Exhibit E. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond.
On November 30, 2023, the parties participated in a Rule 16 Conference at the Essex
Superior Court in Lawrence. The Court endorsed the following schedule, which included a
March 31, 2024 discovery deadline:
Fact discovery completed: March 31, 2024
Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures: April 15, 2024
Motions for Summary Judgment served: April 30, 2024
Defendants’ expert disclosures: May 15, 2024
Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment: July 1, 2024
Motions for Summary Judgment Filed: July 16, 2024
MSJ Hearing: July 22, 2024
Final Pre-Trial Conference: August 22, 2024
Final Trial Conference/Motions in Limine Hearing: September 30, 2024
Trial: October 8, 2024
As of November 30, 2023, Plaintiffs were on notice that discovery closed on March 31,
2024. Plaintiffs were also on notice of Signature’s numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule
30(b)(6) deposition notice. Plaintiffs elected to remain silent on their 30(b)(6) deposition
' Plaintiffs appear to have used the First Notice and the Second Notice as a tool to force an
extension to the case deadlines in March 2023 and September 2023.
3
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
notice from October 10, 2023 until March 12, 2024 when Plaintiffs re-noticed the Signature
30(b)(6) deposition and noticed the Summit 30(b)(6) deposition.”
Plaintiffs “Amended” Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (“Third Notice”) to Signature was
yet again issued on the eve of discovery, thirteen (13) business days prior to its close, and
provides Signature only eight (8) business days’ notice to identify and prepare witnesses to
testify on its behalf. See Third Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit F. Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice to Summit (“Summit Notice”) was served at the same time as the Third Notice,
and provided twelve (12) business days to identify and prepare witnesses. See Summit Notice,
attached hereto as Exhibit G. The parties again held a Rule 9(c) conference in which Plaintiffs
refused to reduce the number or narrow the scope of the topics in either notice. Defendants’
counsel issued formal objections to both deposition notices on March 21, 2024. See Exhibit H.
On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that he would not withdraw the deposition
notices. See Exhibit 1, attached to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions. As
such, Defendants are forced to proceed with filing this Motion on an emergency basis.
B. The Deposition Notice:
The overwhelming majority of the topics contained in the Third Notice are identical to
the topics listed in the First and Second Notices, none of which were ever addressed following
Signature’s two prior objections. Despite having almost one full year since the First Notice was
issued to reasonably narrow the scope of the topics, Plaintiffs took no action. Instead of making
? During a Rule 9(c) conference on March 14, 2024, defense counsel asked Plaintiffs why they
waited until two weeks prior to the close of discovery to notice Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of
Defendants PFS, Signature, and Summit. Plaintiffs’ attorney Warren Hutchison responded “this
is not a deposition and we don’t have to reveal to you our strategy.” Clearly, the “strategy” is to
harass the defendants and disrupt the case schedule and the defendants’ opportunity to file
motions for summary judgment.
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
any reasonable effort to narrow the scope of the deposition, Plaintiffs “packed 10 pounds of stuff
into a 5 pound box” by combining 102 topics into 52 lengthy, and at times unintelligible,
paragraphs in an illusory attempt to narrow the scope. The same issues are present in the Summit
Notice. As stated in Signature’s and Summit’s voluminous objections to their respective Notices,
the topics are objectionable on many grounds.
It is clear that the Plaintiffs issued these deposition notices shortly before the close of
discovery to harass Defendants and to disrupt the case schedule.? Even if the list of topics in
each Notice were reasonable (which they are not), the Notices afford Defendants insufficient
time to adequately prepare witnesses in compliance with their obligations under the Rules. In
light of the fact that the Plaintiffs have deposed numerous fact witnesses from Signature and
the founder and part owner of Summit (consisting of Craig Landri, Jay Bradley, Paul Marsala,
Vic DePhillips, and Jack Glancy), all of whom would likely be designated to testify as Rule
30(b)(6) witnesses for their respective corporations, noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Signature and Summit in which the Plaintiffs are expected to ask the same witness the same
questions and elicit the same testimony in response suggests that the deposition notice is
nothing more than an attempt to harass Signature and Summit and force them to incur
substantial additional expense.’ The purpose of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is to require a
corporate defendant to designate one of more individuals to testify on behalf of the company,
in part, so that the plaintiff is not forced to depose many different fact witnesses to obtain
3 Plaintiffs are clearly attempting to delay the close of discovery so that they may preserve a Rule
56F defense in response to forthcoming motions for summary judgment, which must be served
by the end of April.
4 The notice also purports to require “in person” attendance for the deposition. With the
exception of Jack Glancy, all of the Signature witnesses reside in Pennsylvania.
5
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
relevant discovery. Here, Plaintiffs have already taken the depositions of key fact witnesses at
both Signature and Summit. There is simply no need for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition where
Plaintiffs will simply obtain duplicative testimony from the same previously deposed fact
witnesses.
Given the unreasonable timing and scope of the deposition notice, its clear improper
purpose, and because Plaintiffs’ counsel refuses to withdraw the deposition notice or take the
deposition off the calendar, Defendants have been forced to file an Emergency Motion for a
Protective Order Vacating Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and for Sanctions.
Il. ARGUMENT
A A Protective Order Should Be Issued and the Notices Should be Vacated.
Mass R. Civ. P Rule 26(c) provides that, “for good cause shown,” the court “may make
an order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense ....” Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Among the factors “bearing
on the decision whether discovery imposes an undue burden or expense may include the
following: (1) whether it is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is
more convenient or less burdensome or expensive; (2) whether the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; and (3) whether the likely burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit of its receipt, taking into account the parties’
relative access to the information, the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the
importance of the issues, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.”
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)-(3).
Here, Plaintiffs’ deposition notices to Signature and Summit should be vacated and
Signature and Summit should be protected from deposition in this case.
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
First, the overwhelming majority of the topics are identical to the topics listed in the First
and Second Notices, none of which were ever addressed following Signature’s two prior
objections. Plaintiffs took no effort to narrow the scope of the topics at any time during the past
year. Instead, they strategically sandbagged Signature on the eve of the close of discovery
“condensing” 102 topics listed in the First and Second Notices into 52 substantively similar,
lengthy, and objectionable topics.
Second, the topics contained in the Notices are objectionable for many reasons: (1) they
concern construction projects and lawsuits wholly unrelated to the project at issue in this lawsuit,
(2) they purport to require Signature and Summit to read expert reports and offer opinions about
the content of those reports, (3) they purport to require Signature and Summit to offer legal
conclusions about the applicability and impact of various laws and regulations, and (4) they
purport to require Signature and Summit to meet with and confer with third parties to obtain facts
within the possession of third parties. Signature and Summit incorporates their objections to the
Notices. See Exhibit H.
Third, the Notices are clearly intended to harass Signature and Summit. For the third time
in less than a year, Plaintiffs intentionally noticed Signature’s 30(b)(6) deposition shortly before
the close of discovery, apparently in an attempt to leverage extensions to the case deadlines. The
Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith by purporting to force Signature and Summit to spend countless
hours preparing witnesses to testify on over 80 topics and appear for an in-person deposition
with less than 2 weeks’ notice. This case has been pending since 2018 and Plaintiffs have
deposed 6 Signature and Summit fact witnesses. Plaintiffs’ 11 hour deposition notices
constitute a deliberate effort to annoy, embarrass, oppress and unduly burden Defendants. A
protective order should be issued and the Notices should be vacated.
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
Finally, the Notices would result in duplicative and cumulative discovery, which is
unnecessary at this stage of the lawsuit. Courts will grant protective orders when depositions are
sought that are “duplicative and cumulative.” Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites.
Inc., 244 F.3d 189 (1st Cir. 2001); see also Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’I Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 543
(4th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court’s denial of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because it would
have been “cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing” where two
principals had already been deposed, would have been the 30(b)(6) designees, and possessed all
of the corporations’ knowledge of the subject matter at issue). Plaintiffs have already deposed
five (5) former and current employees of Signature over the course of six (6) days, including the
current and former presidents of Signature. All employees of Signature and Summit who have
been deposed to date are the same employees that Signature and Summit would identify as
corporate representatives. The handful of topics in the Notice that relate to fact issues in the
lawsuit have already been the subject of extensive deposition testimony. Even if the Notices
were whittled down to reasonable descriptions of relevant fact issues, questioning on these topics
would indisputably be cumulative and duplicative to six prior days of deposition questioning.
For all these reasons, Defendants request that the Court vacate the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notices issued to Signature and Summit and issue a protective order protecting them
from any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
B Sanctions are Warranted Where Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices and
Conduct Related Thereto Amounts to an Indefensible Abuse of the Discovery
Process.
Signature and Summit request that the Court award sanctions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P.
26 and 37, including an assessment of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this
Motion. Massachusetts Courts have recognized the inherent power of a trial court to impose
appropriate sanctions for misconduct in the context of litigation. Corsetti v. Stone, 396 Mass. 1,
8
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
26 (1985); see also Atlas Tack Corp. v. Donabed, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 221, 224 (1999) (A judge
has wide latitude to “make such orders in regard to the failure [to comply with a discovery order]
as are just.”); Iantosca v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. CIV. A. 08-0775-
BLS2, 2009 WL 981389, at *4 (Mass. Super. Nov. 25, 2008) (“Abuses in discovery may elicit
sanctions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 37.”). The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award
of expenses incurred in relation to a Motion for Protective Order. Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Mass.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) (“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...”).
Plaintiffs’ strategic decision to sandbag Signature and Summit days before the close of
discovery is apparent. It is another instance of the Plaintiffs harassing the individual and
corporate defendants in this case, > this time by purporting to require Signature and Summit to
spend countless hours on short notice (and at great expense) to meet the legal requirement of
adequately preparing Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on over 80 combined topics on less than 10
business days’ notice.
Plaintiffs have shown a propensity to deploy disruptive, argumentative, and abusive
discovery tactics throughout this case, including the following:
e refusing to sit for deposition until they completed their depositions of the
Defendants;
> Within the last 30 days, Plaintiffs (1) served two sets of interrogatories on each corporate and
individual defendant (one from Catherine and one from William in a clear effort to increase the
number of interrogatories), (2) served document requests on all individual and corporate
defendants, (3) deposed a state building inspector who wrote a 5 page report about the Project for
over 14 hours over three days (3) refused to allow the Defendants access to the Property with
their experts for an inspection unless the time was limited to 4 hours, a “written protocol” was
prepared, and each person signed a liability waiver.
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
substantively changing their deposition testimony in errata sheets;
harassing a Defendant (Gary Martin) with terminal cancer by attempting to force
him to travel to Boston for deposition, and failing to dismiss him from the lawsuit
after he died;
refusing to allow out-of-state residents to appear for deposition by Zoom;
providing intentionally evasive responses to requests for admission;
serving extensive interrogatories on all parties (one set from Catherine and one
from William to each Defendant) one month prior to the close of discovery;
refusing to allow Defendants and their experts the ability to inspect the Property
after receipt of a duly served Rule 34 request, and finally agreeing to allow a
limited inspection in accordance with an “inspection protocol” and forcing all
attendees to sign a “liability waiver and release”;
failing to produce documents in response to document requests for over a year,
and then producing documents in an unintelligible format; and
failing to respond to interrogatories for over a year.
Here, Plaintiffs want Signature and Summit to spend countless hours spinning their
wheels preparing fact witnesses on dozens of topics that have absolutely nothing to do with the
Plaintiffs or the Project at issue in this case. By way of example, the Plaintiffs include the
following topics in the notices (summarized):
e Signature’s payment of legal fees pursuant to a settlement agreement with a third
party in a civil action in the state of New Hampshire (which is entirely unrelated
to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature Topic 36.
Complaints to Signature and/or lawsuits Signature was involved in over the last
10 years with respect to four projects in Massachusetts and New Hampshire (all
of which are unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature
Topics 37-40.
Each instance where Signature used a form Master Purchase Agreement contract
on any/all projects over the past 10 years. Signature Topic 49.
10
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
The content of over a half dozen expert reports produced in this lawsuit, and a
witnesses opinion as to what Signature did to “determine its responsibility” for
each issue identified in the reports. Signature Topic 1.
Any complaints, deficiencies, violations, etc. identified by Massachusetts Public
Authorities on any Signature projects over the past 20 years (entirely unrelated to
the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature Topic 19.
The history of Signature’s used of polyurethane foam adhesive products.
Signature Topic 22.
Any judgment in any court or arbitration panel finding Signature or Summit
“responsible for defects in manufactured buildings/components and/or delivery or
installation of manufactured buildings/components from 2005 to the present”
(entirely unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Summit Topic 2.
Summit’s business operations and organizational structure (despite the fact that
Summit was not involved in the design, manufacturing, or construction of the
manufactured components in this case). Summit Topic, e.g., 7, 11-13.
Summit’s work for businesses other than Signature. Summit Topic 9.
These examples are illustrative of the Plaintiffs’ open and obvious decision to harass and
leverage the Defendants. The Court should put a stop to this.
Plaintiffs twice noticed Signature’s 30(b)(6) deposition on the eve of the close of
discovery with 102 topics, seeking to leverage an extension to the case deadlines. The third
notice comes days before the close of discovery in a clear attempt to unfairly burden Signature
and Summit and to thwart the filing of Summary Judgment Motions by April 30, 2024.°
Plaintiffs served these Notices for the improper purpose of harassing Defendants and forcing
them to spend countless hours and resources (and at great expense) responding to last minute
6 Throughout the course of the case, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly sought to eliminate or
obstruct the summary judgment process.
11
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
unreasonable deposition notices.’ When viewed in light of Plaintiffs’ repeated acts of
obstructing, delaying, and abusing the discovery process in this litigation, the Plaintiffs
continued insistence on proceeding with the Rule 30(b)(6) Notices warrants sanctions. See Long
Bay Mgmt. Co. v. Haese, LLC, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2015) (upholding trial court’s default
sanction, as well as entitlement to nearly $350,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, against defendant
and finding that default judge did not abuse her discretion where defendant engaged in
obstruction, procrastination, harassment, repeated failures to appear, and a years’ long pattern of
abusive discovery practices and manipulation of the rules of civil procedure to delay obfuscate
and mislead, including inappropriately subpoenaing individuals for deposition who were not
relevant to the pending action and seeking irrelevant information, failing to respond to discovery
requests, refusing to follow court orders, failing to produce metadata after using delay tactics and
excuses to avoid production, and potential spoliation).
iil. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The Defendants request that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion, vacate Plaintiffs
“Amended” Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Signature and Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice
to Summit, issue a Protective Order protecting Signature and Summit from attending Rule
30(b)(6) depositions, and order Plaintiffs to pay all costs and fees associated with Defendants’
bringing this Motion as a sanction for its abusive discovery tactics.
7Plaintiffs also require in-person attendance at their attorney’s office in Boston despite the fact
that they know the relevant witnesses reside in Pennsylvania. These witnesses were already
forced to travel to Boston for their depositions in 2023.
12
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
Respectfully submitted,
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA,
LLC, PAUL MARSALA, VICTOR
DEPHILLIPS, AND GARY MARTIN
By its attorneys,
/s/ Seth M. Pasakarnis
Seth M. Pasakarnis (BBO #669955)
spasakarnis@hinckleyallen.com
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
28 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-1775
Tel: (617) 345-9000
Dated: March 22, 2024
13
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Seth M. Pasakarnis, do hereby certify that on this 22"! day of March, 2024, I caused a
true copy of the foregoing document to be served electronically sending this document through
the court’s electronic filing system to all attorneys and to all other parties who have entered
electronic service contacts (email addresses) in this case. I am emailing copies to all other
interested parties.
Catherine A. Pappas, Esquire Warren D. Hutchison, Esquire
pappaslaw@comceast.net whutchison@fmglaw.com
Pappas & Pappas Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
77 Central Street 60 State Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02109
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Andrew E. Goloboy, Esquire John T. Hugo, Esquire
goloboy@goloboylaw.com jhugo@mgmlaw.com
Goloboy Law LLC Joseph S. Bussiere, Esquire
900 Cummings Center, Suite 207-V jbussiere@mgmlaw.com
Beverly, MA 01915 Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP
Counsel for Advanced Modular Concepts, 125 High Street — 6" Floor
LLC & Brian Brockway Boston, MA 02110
Counsel for PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS
Teco
Joseph H. Aronson, Esquire David F. Hassett, Esquire
jaronson@kiernantrebach.com dhassett(@hassettdonnelly.com
Kiernan Trebach LLP John A. Girouard, Esquire
40 Court Street, 3" Floor jgirouard@hassettdonnelly.com
Boston, MA 02108 Hassett & Donnelly, P.C.
Counsel for Mark K. Finn d/b/a The Hunter 446 Main Street, 12" Floor
Group Worcester, MA 01608
Counsel for Justin Brown d/b/a Justin Brown
Carpentry
/s/ Seth M. Pasakarnis
Seth M. Pasakarnis
14
64554941 v1
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
Exhibit A
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1877CV00506
WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
PFS CORPORATION D/B/A PFS TECO,
Defendant,
and
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN
GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY
MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT
MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR
CONCEPTS, LLC, N/K/A AMC BUILDERS, LLC D/B/A AMC
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCK WAY,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
Vv.
MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, RANDALL G.
WELLS D/B/A ALL IS WELLS CONSTRUCTION, and JUSTIN
BROWN D/B/A JUSTIN BROWN CARPENTRY,
Third-Party Defendants.
CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 1977CV1161
WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
Vv.
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN
GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY
MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT
MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR
CONCEPTS, LLC, D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
and BRIAN BROCKWAY,
Third-Party Defendants.
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC
Please take notice that on April 24, 2023 at 10 a.m., at the office of Warren D. Hutchison,
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, 60 State Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02109, the Plaintiffs by
and through their attorney, will take the deposition upon oral examination of the Defendant
Signature Buildings Systems of PA, LLC (“Signature”) by one or more of its officers, directors,
managing agents, or other persons to be designated by Signature pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure to testify on Signature’s behalf concerning the matters
listed in the attached Schedule A. The oral examination will be conducted before a Notary
Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or before some other officer authorized
by law to administer oaths and will continue from day to day until complete.
You are invited to attend and cross examine.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM CHRISTINA and
CATHERINE CHRISTINA
By their attorneys,
/s/ Warren D. Hutchison
Warren D. Hutchison, BBO #246150
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
60 State Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: (617) 963-5967
whutchison@fmglaw.com
Dated: March 17, 2023
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Warren D. Hutchison, Esq., certify that on March 17, 2023, I served a copy of the
foregoing document by Email on all counsel of record.
Seth M. Pasakarnis, Esq. John T. Hugo, Esq.
Robert J. Kendall, Esq. Joseph S. Bussiere, Esq.
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP Manning Gross & Massenberg LLP
28 State Street 125 High Street, 6" Floor
Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110
Spasakarnis@hinckleyallen.com Jhugo@mgmlaw.com
rkendall@hinckleyallen.com Jbussiere@mgmlaw.com
Counsel for Signature Building Systems of Counsel for PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS
PA, LLC, John Glancy, Victor DePhillips, Teco
Paul Marsala, Gary Martin, Craig Landri,
Jay Bradley and Summit Modular Builders
Andrew E. Goloboy, Esq. Joseph Aronson, Esq.
Goloboy Law LLC Scott Fox, Esq.
900 Cummings Center, Suite 207-V Kiernan, Trebach, LLP
Beverly, MA 01915 40 Court Street, 3 Floor
goloboy@goloboylaw.com Boston, MA 02108
Counsel for Advanced Modular Concepts, Jaronson@kiernantrebach.com
LLC & Brian Brockway sfox@kiernantrebach.com
Counsel for Mark K. Finn d/b/a The Hunter
Group
Catherine A. Pappas, Esq.
Pappas & Pappas John Girouard, Esq.
Old Central Wharf David F. Hassett, Esq.
77 Central Street Hassett & Donnelly
Boston, MA 02109 446 Main Street, 12" Floor
Cpappaslaw@comcast.net Worcester, MA 01608
Pro Se jgirouard@hassettdonnelly.com
dhassett@hassettdonnelly.com
Counsel for Justin Brown d/b/a Justin
Brown Carpentry
/s/ Warren D. Hutchison
Warren D. Hutchison
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
SCHEDULE A
The person or persons designated by Signature pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the
Massachusettts Rules of Civil Procedure must be prepared to testify on Signature’s behalf
concerning the following subjects.
DEFINITIONS
1 “Christinas” shall mean the Plaintiffs in this action, William Christina and Catherine
Christina.
“Signature” shall mean the defendant Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC., in this
action, including but not limited to its owners, servants, employees, representatives, parent
companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors,
shareholders, owners and insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its
behalf, including Signature Building Systems of PA Inc. during the time it participated in the
Project and prior thereto and thereafter to the present.
“PFS” shall mean the defendant PFS Corporation D/B/A PFS TECO in this action and its
owners, shareholders, principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies,
affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and
insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf.
“AMC” shall mean defendant Advanced Modular Concepts, LLC, N/K/A AMC Builders,
LLC, also D/B/A AMC Construction Services in this action and its owners, shareholders,
principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries,
predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and insurers, or other
person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf.
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
“Summit” shall mean defendant Summit Modular Builders, Inc., in this action and its
owners, shareholder, principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies,
affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and
insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf.
“Complaint” shall mean the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in this
action and any other amended complaints filed by the Plaintiffs in connection with this civil
action including but not limited to the current Second Amended Complaint and any
consolidated actions and third-party complaints.
“Property” shall mean the real estate and improvements thereon at 17 Bridle Spur Road,
Danvers, Massachusetts.
“Home” shall mean the manufactured units, components and systems comprising the
modular home for the Christinas’ project at the Property.
“Project” shall mean the design, planning, ordering, permitting, manufacture, inspection,
certification, delivery, sale, erecting, assembly, construction, building, repairing or other
physical work performed on the Home by any of the defendants and/or third party defendants
and/or other subc
Preview
Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 90.1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1877CV00506 WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA, Plaintiffs, Vv. PFS CORPORATION D/B/A PFS TECO, Defendant, and SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN SERVED VIA EMAIL GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR CONCEPTS, LLC, N/K/A AMC BUILDERS, LLC D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCKWAY, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, Vv. MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, RANDALL G. WELLS D/B/A ALL IS WELLS CONSTRUCTION, and JUSTIN BROWN D/B/A JUSTIN BROWN CARPENTRY, Third-Party Defendants. CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 1977CV1161 WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA, Plaintiffs, Vv. MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Vv. SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR CONCEPTS, LLC, D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCKWAY, Third-Party Defendants. 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATING THE DEPOSITION NOTICES ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS FOR SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC AND SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC. AND FOR SANCTIONS Defendants Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC (“Signature”) and Summit Modular Builders, Inc. (“Summit”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this memorandum of law in support of their Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Relevant Procedural History On March 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Signature (“First Notice”). See First Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The First Notice contained 102 topics, the majority of which were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and sought information irrelevant to the issues in this litigation. The First Notice was issued ten (10) business days prior to the close of discovery at that time, and after the parties had just scheduled depositions of four (4) of Signature’s former or current employees. On March 22, 2023, Signature objected to the First Notice, noting its problematic last-minute timing, the unreasonably voluminous topics, their overly broad and irrelevant nature, and the undue burden placed on Signature to address such topics and designate witnesses. See Objection to First Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Approximately six (6) months later, on September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs re-served the identical Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Signature (“Second Notice”), containing the exact same 102 topics, noticing the deposition eight (8) business days later, and issued only fifteen (15) business days prior to the close of discovery at that time. See Second Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit C. On September 12, 2023, Signature objected to the Second Notice on the same grounds. See Objection to Second Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit D. The parties engaged in a 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 Rule 9(c) conference, wherein Plaintiffs agreed to narrow the scope of the 102 topics. However, Plaintiffs failed to do so.! On October 10, 2023, despite Plaintiffs’ failure to narrow the topics, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked to schedule the Signature 30(b)(6) deposition in November 2023. Undersigned counsel responded as follows: “I cannot commit to a deposition date for Signature’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition unless/until my objections to the notice are addressed. It is impossible for Signature to adequately prepare one or more witnesses in compliance with its Rule 30(b)(6) objection based on the prior notice. If we can agree on a reasonable list of topics, I can then identify and prepare one or more witnesses accordingly, and we can schedule the deposition.” See Email hereto as Exhibit E. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond. On November 30, 2023, the parties participated in a Rule 16 Conference at the Essex Superior Court in Lawrence. The Court endorsed the following schedule, which included a March 31, 2024 discovery deadline: Fact discovery completed: March 31, 2024 Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures: April 15, 2024 Motions for Summary Judgment served: April 30, 2024 Defendants’ expert disclosures: May 15, 2024 Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment: July 1, 2024 Motions for Summary Judgment Filed: July 16, 2024 MSJ Hearing: July 22, 2024 Final Pre-Trial Conference: August 22, 2024 Final Trial Conference/Motions in Limine Hearing: September 30, 2024 Trial: October 8, 2024 As of November 30, 2023, Plaintiffs were on notice that discovery closed on March 31, 2024. Plaintiffs were also on notice of Signature’s numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Plaintiffs elected to remain silent on their 30(b)(6) deposition ' Plaintiffs appear to have used the First Notice and the Second Notice as a tool to force an extension to the case deadlines in March 2023 and September 2023. 3 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 notice from October 10, 2023 until March 12, 2024 when Plaintiffs re-noticed the Signature 30(b)(6) deposition and noticed the Summit 30(b)(6) deposition.” Plaintiffs “Amended” Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (“Third Notice”) to Signature was yet again issued on the eve of discovery, thirteen (13) business days prior to its close, and provides Signature only eight (8) business days’ notice to identify and prepare witnesses to testify on its behalf. See Third Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit F. Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Summit (“Summit Notice”) was served at the same time as the Third Notice, and provided twelve (12) business days to identify and prepare witnesses. See Summit Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit G. The parties again held a Rule 9(c) conference in which Plaintiffs refused to reduce the number or narrow the scope of the topics in either notice. Defendants’ counsel issued formal objections to both deposition notices on March 21, 2024. See Exhibit H. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that he would not withdraw the deposition notices. See Exhibit 1, attached to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions. As such, Defendants are forced to proceed with filing this Motion on an emergency basis. B. The Deposition Notice: The overwhelming majority of the topics contained in the Third Notice are identical to the topics listed in the First and Second Notices, none of which were ever addressed following Signature’s two prior objections. Despite having almost one full year since the First Notice was issued to reasonably narrow the scope of the topics, Plaintiffs took no action. Instead of making ? During a Rule 9(c) conference on March 14, 2024, defense counsel asked Plaintiffs why they waited until two weeks prior to the close of discovery to notice Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants PFS, Signature, and Summit. Plaintiffs’ attorney Warren Hutchison responded “this is not a deposition and we don’t have to reveal to you our strategy.” Clearly, the “strategy” is to harass the defendants and disrupt the case schedule and the defendants’ opportunity to file motions for summary judgment. 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 any reasonable effort to narrow the scope of the deposition, Plaintiffs “packed 10 pounds of stuff into a 5 pound box” by combining 102 topics into 52 lengthy, and at times unintelligible, paragraphs in an illusory attempt to narrow the scope. The same issues are present in the Summit Notice. As stated in Signature’s and Summit’s voluminous objections to their respective Notices, the topics are objectionable on many grounds. It is clear that the Plaintiffs issued these deposition notices shortly before the close of discovery to harass Defendants and to disrupt the case schedule.? Even if the list of topics in each Notice were reasonable (which they are not), the Notices afford Defendants insufficient time to adequately prepare witnesses in compliance with their obligations under the Rules. In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs have deposed numerous fact witnesses from Signature and the founder and part owner of Summit (consisting of Craig Landri, Jay Bradley, Paul Marsala, Vic DePhillips, and Jack Glancy), all of whom would likely be designated to testify as Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses for their respective corporations, noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Signature and Summit in which the Plaintiffs are expected to ask the same witness the same questions and elicit the same testimony in response suggests that the deposition notice is nothing more than an attempt to harass Signature and Summit and force them to incur substantial additional expense.’ The purpose of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is to require a corporate defendant to designate one of more individuals to testify on behalf of the company, in part, so that the plaintiff is not forced to depose many different fact witnesses to obtain 3 Plaintiffs are clearly attempting to delay the close of discovery so that they may preserve a Rule 56F defense in response to forthcoming motions for summary judgment, which must be served by the end of April. 4 The notice also purports to require “in person” attendance for the deposition. With the exception of Jack Glancy, all of the Signature witnesses reside in Pennsylvania. 5 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 relevant discovery. Here, Plaintiffs have already taken the depositions of key fact witnesses at both Signature and Summit. There is simply no need for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition where Plaintiffs will simply obtain duplicative testimony from the same previously deposed fact witnesses. Given the unreasonable timing and scope of the deposition notice, its clear improper purpose, and because Plaintiffs’ counsel refuses to withdraw the deposition notice or take the deposition off the calendar, Defendants have been forced to file an Emergency Motion for a Protective Order Vacating Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and for Sanctions. Il. ARGUMENT A A Protective Order Should Be Issued and the Notices Should be Vacated. Mass R. Civ. P Rule 26(c) provides that, “for good cause shown,” the court “may make an order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ....” Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Among the factors “bearing on the decision whether discovery imposes an undue burden or expense may include the following: (1) whether it is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is more convenient or less burdensome or expensive; (2) whether the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; and (3) whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit of its receipt, taking into account the parties’ relative access to the information, the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.” Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)-(3). Here, Plaintiffs’ deposition notices to Signature and Summit should be vacated and Signature and Summit should be protected from deposition in this case. 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 First, the overwhelming majority of the topics are identical to the topics listed in the First and Second Notices, none of which were ever addressed following Signature’s two prior objections. Plaintiffs took no effort to narrow the scope of the topics at any time during the past year. Instead, they strategically sandbagged Signature on the eve of the close of discovery “condensing” 102 topics listed in the First and Second Notices into 52 substantively similar, lengthy, and objectionable topics. Second, the topics contained in the Notices are objectionable for many reasons: (1) they concern construction projects and lawsuits wholly unrelated to the project at issue in this lawsuit, (2) they purport to require Signature and Summit to read expert reports and offer opinions about the content of those reports, (3) they purport to require Signature and Summit to offer legal conclusions about the applicability and impact of various laws and regulations, and (4) they purport to require Signature and Summit to meet with and confer with third parties to obtain facts within the possession of third parties. Signature and Summit incorporates their objections to the Notices. See Exhibit H. Third, the Notices are clearly intended to harass Signature and Summit. For the third time in less than a year, Plaintiffs intentionally noticed Signature’s 30(b)(6) deposition shortly before the close of discovery, apparently in an attempt to leverage extensions to the case deadlines. The Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith by purporting to force Signature and Summit to spend countless hours preparing witnesses to testify on over 80 topics and appear for an in-person deposition with less than 2 weeks’ notice. This case has been pending since 2018 and Plaintiffs have deposed 6 Signature and Summit fact witnesses. Plaintiffs’ 11 hour deposition notices constitute a deliberate effort to annoy, embarrass, oppress and unduly burden Defendants. A protective order should be issued and the Notices should be vacated. 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 Finally, the Notices would result in duplicative and cumulative discovery, which is unnecessary at this stage of the lawsuit. Courts will grant protective orders when depositions are sought that are “duplicative and cumulative.” Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites. Inc., 244 F.3d 189 (1st Cir. 2001); see also Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’I Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court’s denial of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because it would have been “cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing” where two principals had already been deposed, would have been the 30(b)(6) designees, and possessed all of the corporations’ knowledge of the subject matter at issue). Plaintiffs have already deposed five (5) former and current employees of Signature over the course of six (6) days, including the current and former presidents of Signature. All employees of Signature and Summit who have been deposed to date are the same employees that Signature and Summit would identify as corporate representatives. The handful of topics in the Notice that relate to fact issues in the lawsuit have already been the subject of extensive deposition testimony. Even if the Notices were whittled down to reasonable descriptions of relevant fact issues, questioning on these topics would indisputably be cumulative and duplicative to six prior days of deposition questioning. For all these reasons, Defendants request that the Court vacate the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices issued to Signature and Summit and issue a protective order protecting them from any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. B Sanctions are Warranted Where Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices and Conduct Related Thereto Amounts to an Indefensible Abuse of the Discovery Process. Signature and Summit request that the Court award sanctions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37, including an assessment of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this Motion. Massachusetts Courts have recognized the inherent power of a trial court to impose appropriate sanctions for misconduct in the context of litigation. Corsetti v. Stone, 396 Mass. 1, 8 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 26 (1985); see also Atlas Tack Corp. v. Donabed, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 221, 224 (1999) (A judge has wide latitude to “make such orders in regard to the failure [to comply with a discovery order] as are just.”); Iantosca v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. CIV. A. 08-0775- BLS2, 2009 WL 981389, at *4 (Mass. Super. Nov. 25, 2008) (“Abuses in discovery may elicit sanctions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 37.”). The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to a Motion for Protective Order. Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Mass. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) (“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...”). Plaintiffs’ strategic decision to sandbag Signature and Summit days before the close of discovery is apparent. It is another instance of the Plaintiffs harassing the individual and corporate defendants in this case, > this time by purporting to require Signature and Summit to spend countless hours on short notice (and at great expense) to meet the legal requirement of adequately preparing Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on over 80 combined topics on less than 10 business days’ notice. Plaintiffs have shown a propensity to deploy disruptive, argumentative, and abusive discovery tactics throughout this case, including the following: e refusing to sit for deposition until they completed their depositions of the Defendants; > Within the last 30 days, Plaintiffs (1) served two sets of interrogatories on each corporate and individual defendant (one from Catherine and one from William in a clear effort to increase the number of interrogatories), (2) served document requests on all individual and corporate defendants, (3) deposed a state building inspector who wrote a 5 page report about the Project for over 14 hours over three days (3) refused to allow the Defendants access to the Property with their experts for an inspection unless the time was limited to 4 hours, a “written protocol” was prepared, and each person signed a liability waiver. 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 substantively changing their deposition testimony in errata sheets; harassing a Defendant (Gary Martin) with terminal cancer by attempting to force him to travel to Boston for deposition, and failing to dismiss him from the lawsuit after he died; refusing to allow out-of-state residents to appear for deposition by Zoom; providing intentionally evasive responses to requests for admission; serving extensive interrogatories on all parties (one set from Catherine and one from William to each Defendant) one month prior to the close of discovery; refusing to allow Defendants and their experts the ability to inspect the Property after receipt of a duly served Rule 34 request, and finally agreeing to allow a limited inspection in accordance with an “inspection protocol” and forcing all attendees to sign a “liability waiver and release”; failing to produce documents in response to document requests for over a year, and then producing documents in an unintelligible format; and failing to respond to interrogatories for over a year. Here, Plaintiffs want Signature and Summit to spend countless hours spinning their wheels preparing fact witnesses on dozens of topics that have absolutely nothing to do with the Plaintiffs or the Project at issue in this case. By way of example, the Plaintiffs include the following topics in the notices (summarized): e Signature’s payment of legal fees pursuant to a settlement agreement with a third party in a civil action in the state of New Hampshire (which is entirely unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature Topic 36. Complaints to Signature and/or lawsuits Signature was involved in over the last 10 years with respect to four projects in Massachusetts and New Hampshire (all of which are unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature Topics 37-40. Each instance where Signature used a form Master Purchase Agreement contract on any/all projects over the past 10 years. Signature Topic 49. 10 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 The content of over a half dozen expert reports produced in this lawsuit, and a witnesses opinion as to what Signature did to “determine its responsibility” for each issue identified in the reports. Signature Topic 1. Any complaints, deficiencies, violations, etc. identified by Massachusetts Public Authorities on any Signature projects over the past 20 years (entirely unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Signature Topic 19. The history of Signature’s used of polyurethane foam adhesive products. Signature Topic 22. Any judgment in any court or arbitration panel finding Signature or Summit “responsible for defects in manufactured buildings/components and/or delivery or installation of manufactured buildings/components from 2005 to the present” (entirely unrelated to the Plaintiffs or the Project in this case). Summit Topic 2. Summit’s business operations and organizational structure (despite the fact that Summit was not involved in the design, manufacturing, or construction of the manufactured components in this case). Summit Topic, e.g., 7, 11-13. Summit’s work for businesses other than Signature. Summit Topic 9. These examples are illustrative of the Plaintiffs’ open and obvious decision to harass and leverage the Defendants. The Court should put a stop to this. Plaintiffs twice noticed Signature’s 30(b)(6) deposition on the eve of the close of discovery with 102 topics, seeking to leverage an extension to the case deadlines. The third notice comes days before the close of discovery in a clear attempt to unfairly burden Signature and Summit and to thwart the filing of Summary Judgment Motions by April 30, 2024.° Plaintiffs served these Notices for the improper purpose of harassing Defendants and forcing them to spend countless hours and resources (and at great expense) responding to last minute 6 Throughout the course of the case, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly sought to eliminate or obstruct the summary judgment process. 11 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 unreasonable deposition notices.’ When viewed in light of Plaintiffs’ repeated acts of obstructing, delaying, and abusing the discovery process in this litigation, the Plaintiffs continued insistence on proceeding with the Rule 30(b)(6) Notices warrants sanctions. See Long Bay Mgmt. Co. v. Haese, LLC, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2015) (upholding trial court’s default sanction, as well as entitlement to nearly $350,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, against defendant and finding that default judge did not abuse her discretion where defendant engaged in obstruction, procrastination, harassment, repeated failures to appear, and a years’ long pattern of abusive discovery practices and manipulation of the rules of civil procedure to delay obfuscate and mislead, including inappropriately subpoenaing individuals for deposition who were not relevant to the pending action and seeking irrelevant information, failing to respond to discovery requests, refusing to follow court orders, failing to produce metadata after using delay tactics and excuses to avoid production, and potential spoliation). iil. REQUEST FOR RELIEF The Defendants request that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion, vacate Plaintiffs “Amended” Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Signature and Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Summit, issue a Protective Order protecting Signature and Summit from attending Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and order Plaintiffs to pay all costs and fees associated with Defendants’ bringing this Motion as a sanction for its abusive discovery tactics. 7Plaintiffs also require in-person attendance at their attorney’s office in Boston despite the fact that they know the relevant witnesses reside in Pennsylvania. These witnesses were already forced to travel to Boston for their depositions in 2023. 12 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 Respectfully submitted, SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, PAUL MARSALA, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, AND GARY MARTIN By its attorneys, /s/ Seth M. Pasakarnis Seth M. Pasakarnis (BBO #669955) spasakarnis@hinckleyallen.com HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109-1775 Tel: (617) 345-9000 Dated: March 22, 2024 13 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Seth M. Pasakarnis, do hereby certify that on this 22"! day of March, 2024, I caused a true copy of the foregoing document to be served electronically sending this document through the court’s electronic filing system to all attorneys and to all other parties who have entered electronic service contacts (email addresses) in this case. I am emailing copies to all other interested parties. Catherine A. Pappas, Esquire Warren D. Hutchison, Esquire pappaslaw@comceast.net whutchison@fmglaw.com Pappas & Pappas Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP 77 Central Street 60 State Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02109 Counsel for the Plaintiffs Counsel for the Plaintiffs Andrew E. Goloboy, Esquire John T. Hugo, Esquire goloboy@goloboylaw.com jhugo@mgmlaw.com Goloboy Law LLC Joseph S. Bussiere, Esquire 900 Cummings Center, Suite 207-V jbussiere@mgmlaw.com Beverly, MA 01915 Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP Counsel for Advanced Modular Concepts, 125 High Street — 6" Floor LLC & Brian Brockway Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS Teco Joseph H. Aronson, Esquire David F. Hassett, Esquire jaronson@kiernantrebach.com dhassett(@hassettdonnelly.com Kiernan Trebach LLP John A. Girouard, Esquire 40 Court Street, 3" Floor jgirouard@hassettdonnelly.com Boston, MA 02108 Hassett & Donnelly, P.C. Counsel for Mark K. Finn d/b/a The Hunter 446 Main Street, 12" Floor Group Worcester, MA 01608 Counsel for Justin Brown d/b/a Justin Brown Carpentry /s/ Seth M. Pasakarnis Seth M. Pasakarnis 14 64554941 v1 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 Exhibit A Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1877CV00506 WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA, Plaintiffs, Vv. PFS CORPORATION D/B/A PFS TECO, Defendant, and SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR CONCEPTS, LLC, N/K/A AMC BUILDERS, LLC D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCK WAY, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, Vv. MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, RANDALL G. WELLS D/B/A ALL IS WELLS CONSTRUCTION, and JUSTIN BROWN D/B/A JUSTIN BROWN CARPENTRY, Third-Party Defendants. CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 1977CV1161 WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA, Plaintiffs, Vv. MARK K. FINN D/B/A THE HUNTER GROUP, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Vv. SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, JOHN GLANCY, VICTOR DEPHILLIPS, PAUL MARSALA, GARY MARTIN, CRAIG LANDRI, JAY BRADLEY, SUMMIT MODULAR BUILDERS, INC., ADVANCED MODULAR CONCEPTS, LLC, D/B/A AMC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES and BRIAN BROCKWAY, Third-Party Defendants. Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC Please take notice that on April 24, 2023 at 10 a.m., at the office of Warren D. Hutchison, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, 60 State Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02109, the Plaintiffs by and through their attorney, will take the deposition upon oral examination of the Defendant Signature Buildings Systems of PA, LLC (“Signature”) by one or more of its officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons to be designated by Signature pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure to testify on Signature’s behalf concerning the matters listed in the attached Schedule A. The oral examination will be conducted before a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths and will continue from day to day until complete. You are invited to attend and cross examine. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM CHRISTINA and CATHERINE CHRISTINA By their attorneys, /s/ Warren D. Hutchison Warren D. Hutchison, BBO #246150 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP 60 State Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 963-5967 whutchison@fmglaw.com Dated: March 17, 2023 Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Warren D. Hutchison, Esq., certify that on March 17, 2023, I served a copy of the foregoing document by Email on all counsel of record. Seth M. Pasakarnis, Esq. John T. Hugo, Esq. Robert J. Kendall, Esq. Joseph S. Bussiere, Esq. HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP Manning Gross & Massenberg LLP 28 State Street 125 High Street, 6" Floor Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110 Spasakarnis@hinckleyallen.com Jhugo@mgmlaw.com rkendall@hinckleyallen.com Jbussiere@mgmlaw.com Counsel for Signature Building Systems of Counsel for PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS PA, LLC, John Glancy, Victor DePhillips, Teco Paul Marsala, Gary Martin, Craig Landri, Jay Bradley and Summit Modular Builders Andrew E. Goloboy, Esq. Joseph Aronson, Esq. Goloboy Law LLC Scott Fox, Esq. 900 Cummings Center, Suite 207-V Kiernan, Trebach, LLP Beverly, MA 01915 40 Court Street, 3 Floor goloboy@goloboylaw.com Boston, MA 02108 Counsel for Advanced Modular Concepts, Jaronson@kiernantrebach.com LLC & Brian Brockway sfox@kiernantrebach.com Counsel for Mark K. Finn d/b/a The Hunter Group Catherine A. Pappas, Esq. Pappas & Pappas John Girouard, Esq. Old Central Wharf David F. Hassett, Esq. 77 Central Street Hassett & Donnelly Boston, MA 02109 446 Main Street, 12" Floor Cpappaslaw@comcast.net Worcester, MA 01608 Pro Se jgirouard@hassettdonnelly.com dhassett@hassettdonnelly.com Counsel for Justin Brown d/b/a Justin Brown Carpentry /s/ Warren D. Hutchison Warren D. Hutchison Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 SCHEDULE A The person or persons designated by Signature pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Massachusettts Rules of Civil Procedure must be prepared to testify on Signature’s behalf concerning the following subjects. DEFINITIONS 1 “Christinas” shall mean the Plaintiffs in this action, William Christina and Catherine Christina. “Signature” shall mean the defendant Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC., in this action, including but not limited to its owners, servants, employees, representatives, parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, owners and insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf, including Signature Building Systems of PA Inc. during the time it participated in the Project and prior thereto and thereafter to the present. “PFS” shall mean the defendant PFS Corporation D/B/A PFS TECO in this action and its owners, shareholders, principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf. “AMC” shall mean defendant Advanced Modular Concepts, LLC, N/K/A AMC Builders, LLC, also D/B/A AMC Construction Services in this action and its owners, shareholders, principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf. Date Filed 3/22/2024 5:02 PM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 1877CV00506 “Summit” shall mean defendant Summit Modular Builders, Inc., in this action and its owners, shareholder, principals, members, employees, representatives, parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, and insurers, or other person(s) or entities purporting to act on its behalf. “Complaint” shall mean the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in this action and any other amended complaints filed by the Plaintiffs in connection with this civil action including but not limited to the current Second Amended Complaint and any consolidated actions and third-party complaints. “Property” shall mean the real estate and improvements thereon at 17 Bridle Spur Road, Danvers, Massachusetts. “Home” shall mean the manufactured units, components and systems comprising the modular home for the Christinas’ project at the Property. “Project” shall mean the design, planning, ordering, permitting, manufacture, inspection, certification, delivery, sale, erecting, assembly, construction, building, repairing or other physical work performed on the Home by any of the defendants and/or third party defendants and/or other subc