Party Discovery: Christina, William et al vs. Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Date Filed 3/25/2024 5:03 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506
                                                                                                             91


                                              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 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 Defendant.


                                    DEFENDANT, PFS CORPORATION’S EMERGENCY MOTION
                                 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' RULE 30(B)(6)
                                                    DEPOSITION NOTICE

                               Defendant, PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS-TECO (“PFS”) hereby files this Emergency Motion

                  pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1) seeking the issuance of a Protective Order, pursuant to

                  Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c) for relief from Plaintiffs, Catherine and William Christina’s (“Plaintiffs”)
Date Filed 3/25/2024 5:03 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506




                  Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice and schedule of topics served on March 11, 2024.               As set forth in

                  detail in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, PFS submits that the issuance of a protective

                  order to quash and/or otherwise modify the Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice is necessary to prevent

                  the   inexcusably     delayed     and unnecessarily    broad,   vexatious,   and   improper   discovery   from

                  proceeding.       Plaintiffs sat on their hands for years and through multiple extensions of discovery

                  before serving the discovery in question with weeks left in the discovery period.             Despite having

                  agreed to revise their Rule 30(b)(6) schedule of topics from one issued in September 2023 — that

                   included more than 100 topics — Plaintiffs took no action until March                11, 2024 to pursue the

                  deposition further. When they did, the schedule of topics was even more broad, more vague, and

                  more objectionable than the first notice. The topics are objectionable where: (1) they improperly

                  seek to have a corporate designee explain legal contentions through multiple contention topics; (2)

                  they are so broad and so vague that neither PFS nor its counsel can reasonably prepare a designee

                  to be knowledgeable to testify as to the nature of the topics and are phrased with no particularity,

                   let alone reasonable particularity as required under Mass. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); (3) seek information

                  and testimony that is unreasonable burdensome (e.g. 20+ years of information) and duplicative;

                  (4) seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and

                  (5) seek information that is beyond the scope of discovery in that they plainly seek information

                  not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

                               The Parties have had multiple conferences, phone calls, and exchanges of emails on this

                   issue and undersigned          counsel   certifies that to the fullest extent possible that efforts were

                  undertaken to narrow the scope of the issues addressed in the instant Motion. Despite such efforts,

                  no agreement could be reached and, therefore, this motion was necessary in light of the current

                  tracking order deadlines and Plaintiffs’ conduct.
Date Filed 3/25/2024 5:03 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506




                               This dispute is one in a long line of disputes that have plagued virtually every element of

                  discovery and litigation throughout the life of case. Without intervention of the Court at this stage,

                  PFS faces a monumental and unduly burdensome task of interpreting the topics and preparing one

                  or more designees to testify as it understands the topics (as well as the 38 definitions offered by

                  Plaintiffs) and to travel from Wisconsin to Massachusetts to attend the deposition with the

                  backdrop        of discovery   in the case ending     later this month   and while   having to respond to

                  voluminous written discovery served by the Plaintiffs.            This situation was created entirely by the

                  Plaintiffs who seek judicial license to continue their vexatious discovery practices even after the

                  close of discovery.      This should not permitted.

                               WHEREFORE,        PFS respectfully requests this Court enter a protective order quashing

                  Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice or, in the alternative, enter an order: (1) striking topics 1 -11, 13-

                   14, 16 -23, 26-29, 31, 35, 36-41, 43-50; (2) extending all tracking order deadlines and continuing

                  trial; and (3) appointing a special discovery master to oversee the completion of any and all

                  remaining discovery in the case.


                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                             The Defendant,
                                                             PFS CORPORATION D/B/A PFS-TECO,
                                                             By its Attorneys,




                                                             Jdhn T. Hugo; BBO# 567262
                                                               seph S. Bussiere, BBO# 690868
                                                             MANNING Gross + MASSENBURG LLP
                                                              125 High Street — 6" Floor
                                                             Boston, MA     02110
                                                             T: (617) 670-8574
                                                             F: (617) 670-8774
                  Dated: March 25, 2024                      jbussiere@megmlaw.cor
Date Filed 3/25/2024 5:03 PM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 1877CV00506




                                             SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A CERTIFICATE
                          In accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1), I, Joseph S. Bussiere, Esq. counsel for
                  Defendant, PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS-TECO made good faith efforts to confer with opposing
                  counsel prior to the filing of this Motion including participating in a conference call on March 14,
                  2024 and exchanging correspondence thereafter. Notwithstanding such efforts, no agreement
                  could be reach amongst the parties and this motion was necessary in light of the current discovery
                  tracking orders.


                  Dated: 3/25/24
                                                                                     eph   S. Bui   ere, Esq.




                                                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
                               I, Joseph S. Bussiere, Esq., counsel for the Defendant, PFS Corporation d/b/a PFS TECO
                   in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that on this day, March 25, 2024, I served copies of
                  the foregoing document on all counsel of record via electronic mail only.


                  Dated: 3/25/24
                                                                                     eph   S. B     fere, Esq.