Preview
Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 1881CV02603
D
79
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
C.A. No.: 18-2603
______________________________
WENDALL TANG, M.D., as )
Representative of the Estate of )
LUKE TANG, )
) 3/28/2024
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, )
LICSW, )
Defendant. )
______________________________)
DEFENDANT, MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, LICSW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
REGARDING SUICIDES AT HARVARD WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANT
MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, LICSW WAS NOT INVOLVED
Now comes the Defendant, Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW (hereinafter, “Ms. Northrop”
or “defendant”), and hereby respectfully moves this Honorable Court in limine to preclude
Plaintiff, his attorney, and his witnesses from entering evidence regarding other student suicides
at Harvard University with which the defendant had no connection. The defendant anticipates that
Plaintiff will seek to introduce evidence regarding suicides that occurred while a student was
enrolled or while a student was on a leave of absence, where the defendant had no connection to
the person who committed suicide.
As grounds for this motion, the defendant submits that such evidence is in no way related
to the sole issue in in this case: whether the defendant was negligent in her care and treatment of
Luke Tang. Not only would such evidence be irrelevant to the issues of the case, but also it would
shift the focus from the relevant question of the defendant’s alleged actions or inactions, to a trial
1
mr
Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 1881CV02603
against her employer, for whom summary judgment already has entered and who is not a party in
this upcoming trial. Accordingly, the evidence would be unduly prejudicial to the defendant and
is completely irrelevant with respect to the issue of whether she acted as a reasonable case manager
in this instance. In further support of her motion, the defendant states as follows:
This is a medical malpractice action which arises out of the defendant’s involvement as a
case manager for Plaintiff’s decedent, Luke Tang. Luke Tang was a freshman at Harvard
University when he attempted suicide in the spring of 2015. Ms. Northrop was a case manager in
the Counseling and Mental Health Service, within the Harvard University Health Services at that
time. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Northrop failed to adhere to the standard of care required of the
average licensed qualified social worker practicing in Massachusetts in 2015 and that as a result
of this purported negligence, Luke Tang committed suicide in September, 2015.
Evidence regarding Harvard students (enrolled or otherwise) who have attempted or
completed suicide at Harvard University, and with whom Ms. Northrop was not involved, are not
in any way related to the claims in this case and therefore Plaintiff must be precluded from
presenting the evidence on the grounds of relevance.
To be relevant, evidence must tend to “prove some issue in the case on trial.”
Commonwealth v. Deschamps, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 3 (1972) (citing Commonwealth v. Durkin, 257
Mass 426 (1926)). The evidence must have a “rational tendency to prove an issue in the case.”
Commonwealth v. Chretien, 383 Mass. 123, 136 (1981) (citing Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373
Mass 700 (1977)). The concept of relevance has two components: evidence must have some
tendency to prove a particular fact, and that particular fact must be material to an issue in the case.
Harris-Lewis v. Mudge, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 480, 485, (2005). Here, any evidence related to the
actions of third-party individuals, with whom the defendant was not involved, does not have any
2
Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 1881CV02603
“rational tendency to prove” any issue about Luke Tang’s care and treatment and is not material
to any issue in the case. It has no bearing on whether Ms. Northrop was negligent in her care of
Luke Tang. Accordingly, Plaintiff must be precluded from introducing any evidence regarding
other student suicides at Harvard University on the grounds of relevance.
Moreover, the introduction of such evidence should be precluded as it would be unfairly
prejudicial to the defendant, who had no contact with these students. See Mass. R. Evid. 403.
Relevant evidence must be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of prejudice. Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (1998) (citing proposed
Mass.R.Evid. 401 and 403). Evidence that others attempted or completed suicide while at Harvard
University does not have any probative value to the issue here: whether Ms. Northrop was
negligent in her care of Luke Tang. However, there is a great risk of unfair prejudice to Ms.
Northrop if such evidence were to be admitted and a correspondingly high risk of confusion of the
issues by the jury. Were evidence regarding others who attempted or completed suicide at Harvard
admitted, a jury could not help but weigh evidence of those actions as going against Ms. Northrop’s
actions or character, although she was not involved in such cases. Further, a jury potentially could
see Ms. Northrop’s case as a way to pass judgement on Harvard University which is not a
defendant in this trial. Moreover, the introduction of evidence regarding the actions of others at
Harvard, with whom Ms. Northrop was not involved, would be confusing to the jury. Accordingly,
even if this issue could be found to bear some marginal relevance, that relevance would be
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore it should be excluded.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW., respectfully
requests that the Court issue an order precluding Plaintiff, his attorney, and his witnesses from
making reference to other student suicides at Harvard.
3
Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 1881CV02603
Respectfully Submitted,
Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW
The Defendant
By her Attorneys,
/s/ Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand
William J. Dailey, III, BBO#558837
Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, BBO#697060
SLOANE AND WALSH, LLP
One Boston Place
201 Washington Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02108
617-523-6010
Fax: 617-227-0927
WdaileyIII@sloanewalsh.com
vgoetz@sloanewalsh.com
Dated: March 8, 2024
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, Esq., hereby certify that on March 8, 2024, I served a true
copy of the foregoing document upon the following parties of record, via e-mail to:
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:
David W. Heinlein, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Beeler, Esq.
HEINLEIN, BEELER, MINGACE
AND HEINEMAN, P.C.
276 Union Avenue
Framingham, MA 01702
dheinlein@hbmhlaw.com
jbeeler@bbmhlaw.com
(Plaintiff)
/s/ Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand
Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, BBO#697060
SLOANE AND WALSH, LLP
One Boston Place
201 Washington Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: 617-523-6010
Fax: 617-227-0927
vgoetz@sloanewalsh.com
4
Preview
Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 1881CV02603 D 79 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. C.A. No.: 18-2603 ______________________________ WENDALL TANG, M.D., as ) Representative of the Estate of ) LUKE TANG, ) ) 3/28/2024 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, ) LICSW, ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) DEFENDANT, MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, LICSW’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING SUICIDES AT HARVARD WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANT MELANIE NORTHROP, MSW, LICSW WAS NOT INVOLVED Now comes the Defendant, Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW (hereinafter, “Ms. Northrop” or “defendant”), and hereby respectfully moves this Honorable Court in limine to preclude Plaintiff, his attorney, and his witnesses from entering evidence regarding other student suicides at Harvard University with which the defendant had no connection. The defendant anticipates that Plaintiff will seek to introduce evidence regarding suicides that occurred while a student was enrolled or while a student was on a leave of absence, where the defendant had no connection to the person who committed suicide. As grounds for this motion, the defendant submits that such evidence is in no way related to the sole issue in in this case: whether the defendant was negligent in her care and treatment of Luke Tang. Not only would such evidence be irrelevant to the issues of the case, but also it would shift the focus from the relevant question of the defendant’s alleged actions or inactions, to a trial 1 mr Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 1881CV02603 against her employer, for whom summary judgment already has entered and who is not a party in this upcoming trial. Accordingly, the evidence would be unduly prejudicial to the defendant and is completely irrelevant with respect to the issue of whether she acted as a reasonable case manager in this instance. In further support of her motion, the defendant states as follows: This is a medical malpractice action which arises out of the defendant’s involvement as a case manager for Plaintiff’s decedent, Luke Tang. Luke Tang was a freshman at Harvard University when he attempted suicide in the spring of 2015. Ms. Northrop was a case manager in the Counseling and Mental Health Service, within the Harvard University Health Services at that time. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Northrop failed to adhere to the standard of care required of the average licensed qualified social worker practicing in Massachusetts in 2015 and that as a result of this purported negligence, Luke Tang committed suicide in September, 2015. Evidence regarding Harvard students (enrolled or otherwise) who have attempted or completed suicide at Harvard University, and with whom Ms. Northrop was not involved, are not in any way related to the claims in this case and therefore Plaintiff must be precluded from presenting the evidence on the grounds of relevance. To be relevant, evidence must tend to “prove some issue in the case on trial.” Commonwealth v. Deschamps, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 3 (1972) (citing Commonwealth v. Durkin, 257 Mass 426 (1926)). The evidence must have a “rational tendency to prove an issue in the case.” Commonwealth v. Chretien, 383 Mass. 123, 136 (1981) (citing Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373 Mass 700 (1977)). The concept of relevance has two components: evidence must have some tendency to prove a particular fact, and that particular fact must be material to an issue in the case. Harris-Lewis v. Mudge, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 480, 485, (2005). Here, any evidence related to the actions of third-party individuals, with whom the defendant was not involved, does not have any 2 Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 1881CV02603 “rational tendency to prove” any issue about Luke Tang’s care and treatment and is not material to any issue in the case. It has no bearing on whether Ms. Northrop was negligent in her care of Luke Tang. Accordingly, Plaintiff must be precluded from introducing any evidence regarding other student suicides at Harvard University on the grounds of relevance. Moreover, the introduction of such evidence should be precluded as it would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, who had no contact with these students. See Mass. R. Evid. 403. Relevant evidence must be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice. Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (1998) (citing proposed Mass.R.Evid. 401 and 403). Evidence that others attempted or completed suicide while at Harvard University does not have any probative value to the issue here: whether Ms. Northrop was negligent in her care of Luke Tang. However, there is a great risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Northrop if such evidence were to be admitted and a correspondingly high risk of confusion of the issues by the jury. Were evidence regarding others who attempted or completed suicide at Harvard admitted, a jury could not help but weigh evidence of those actions as going against Ms. Northrop’s actions or character, although she was not involved in such cases. Further, a jury potentially could see Ms. Northrop’s case as a way to pass judgement on Harvard University which is not a defendant in this trial. Moreover, the introduction of evidence regarding the actions of others at Harvard, with whom Ms. Northrop was not involved, would be confusing to the jury. Accordingly, even if this issue could be found to bear some marginal relevance, that relevance would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore it should be excluded. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW., respectfully requests that the Court issue an order precluding Plaintiff, his attorney, and his witnesses from making reference to other student suicides at Harvard. 3 Date Filed 3/28/2024 1:22 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 1881CV02603 Respectfully Submitted, Melanie Northrop, MSW, LICSW The Defendant By her Attorneys, /s/ Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand William J. Dailey, III, BBO#558837 Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, BBO#697060 SLOANE AND WALSH, LLP One Boston Place 201 Washington Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02108 617-523-6010 Fax: 617-227-0927 WdaileyIII@sloanewalsh.com vgoetz@sloanewalsh.com Dated: March 8, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, Esq., hereby certify that on March 8, 2024, I served a true copy of the foregoing document upon the following parties of record, via e-mail to: PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: David W. Heinlein, Esq. Jeffrey S. Beeler, Esq. HEINLEIN, BEELER, MINGACE AND HEINEMAN, P.C. 276 Union Avenue Framingham, MA 01702 dheinlein@hbmhlaw.com jbeeler@bbmhlaw.com (Plaintiff) /s/ Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand Victoria C. Goetz Berlyand, BBO#697060 SLOANE AND WALSH, LLP One Boston Place 201 Washington Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-523-6010 Fax: 617-227-0927 vgoetz@sloanewalsh.com 4