Making the Attorney General Produce Documents
The Massachusetts Attorney General has refused to product documents in Discovery. When this happens the opposing party has to move the Court to compel the non complying party to compel the non complying party to produce the documents requested.
The Court makes the non complying party produce the documents by issuing a Court Order. Assuming the Court orders the Attorney General to produce the documents, non compliance to that order would mean that the Attorney General is in Contempt of the Court and would face Sanctions.
Below is a draft of the Motion to Compel the Attorney General to produce the requested documents.
***************************************************
COMMONWEALTH
OF
WORCESTER,
SS SUPERIOR COURT 1785CV00873-D
********************************
Gordon T. Davis, Plaintiff
Vs.
Massachusetts Attorney General Office
Massachusetts Human Resources Division
Defendants
********************************
PLAINTIFF GORDON T. DAVIS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
The Pro Se Plaintiff Gordon T.
Davis respectfully requests this Court to compel the Defendant Massachusetts
Human Resource Division (HRD) and Defendant Massachusetts Attorney General Office
(AG) to produce documents in accordance with Court rules.
Background
1. The Defendants have not, as of
the date of this Motion produced documents as requested by the Plaintiff as a
part of discovery procedures. (Exhibit 1)
2. The Request for Documents was
served on the Defendants on July 5, 2017. The document production was due on
August 5, 2017 and is now untimely and out of compliance with Rule 34 (Exhibit
1).
3. The Defendants’ counsel is in the
process of filing a Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants have refused to produce
the documents as requested; instead they are in the process of filing a Motion
for a protective order. The Defendants are moving the Court to stay any
discovery until after the Court rules on their Motion to Dismiss. (Exhibit 2)
4. The Plaintiff has opposed the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit 3). The Motion to Dismiss is fragile and
due to an error of material fact made by defense counsel that Motion to Dismiss
is likely to be quashed.
5. The error made by the defense
counsel is found in the Demands made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff requested
in his Complaint a copy of his personnel record in the custody of the HRD. The
defense counsel in the Motion to Dismiss wrongly states that the Plaintiff
requested his MCAD file. This error permeates the entire Motion to Dismiss and nullifies
the Motion. (Exhibit 4)
6. The Court has granted the
Defendants a delay in their Pleadings to the Complaint.
7. The Defendants are seeking a
further delay in Discovery by seeking a Protective Order. (Exhibit 5 )
8. The documents requested by the
Plaintiff may be dispositive in his action against the MCAD. The documents may
also be dispositive in the union grievance proceedings.
Argument
Mass. Civil Procedure Rule 34
requires that the Defendants produce documents as requested by the Plaintiff by
30th day after service of the Request for the Production of Documents.
The Defendants as of the date of this
Motion have not complied with Rule 34.
The Court is able to compel the production
of the documents as requested in this instant Motion to Compel the Production
of Documents.
Conclusion
The Plaintiff respectfully requests
that this Court order the Defendants to produce the documents as he has
requested in Discovery,
The documents may be dispositive in
this instant Complaint and other legal actions. The documents use by the
Plaintiff is time sensitive.
The Defendants have been granted one
delay in its Pleadings and they are seeking a second delay in the initiation of
Discovery. The Court has been more than fair to the Defendants. The delaying
tactics of the Defendants should not be allowed to continue.
Respectfully submitted
___________
Gordon T. Davis
Date
Pro Se Plaintiff
No comments:
Post a Comment