The AG Opposition Memo to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents

                    

The AG Opposition Memo to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents

The AG office Opposition Memo consists largely of a claim that the Court has no jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff has no claim. Tje AG is asking the Court to rule on these issue before the Court compels the production of document. 

Although anything can happen in Court, the Statute gives the Court jurisdiction. It seems that the AG Office is playing a delay game.

The AG Opposition Memo is seen below.

__________________________________________________
 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GORDON T. DAVIS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

 Defendants, the Massachusetts Human Resources Division ("HRD") and Office of the Attorney General, hereby oppose Plaintiff Gordon T. Davis's motion to compel Defendants to produce documents ("PL's Mot. Compel"), for the same reasons previously stated by the Defendants in their motion for a protective order and/or to stay discovery pending this Court's resolution of their motion to dismiss. See Defs.' Mot. Protective Order and/or to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Mot. Dismiss (attached as Exhibit 5 to PL's Mot. Compel). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss with this Court on August 21, 2017. See Docket nos. 8-8.3. That motion addresses jurisdictional bars to Mr. Davis's claims, as well as significant pleading deficiencies. In these circumstances, where a dispositive motion is pending that asserts, as a threshold matter, that the Court lacks jurisdiction and at least one of the state defendants is immune from suit, a protective order is necessary to shield Defendants from the undue burden and expense of responding to Plaintiffs discovery requests. PL's Mot. Compel, Ex. 5. "Without 1 jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Fortunato v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., 34 Mass, L. Rptr. 78, 2017 WL 716356, at *4 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2017) (Salinger, J.) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)). In addition, Mr. Davis asserts, without any explanation or support, that the documents that he has requested the Defendants to produce in this matter "may be dispositive" in his pending wrongful termination suit against the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which is proceeding to trial, as well as in a union grievance proceeding. PL's Mot. Compel at 2-3; see also Davis v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, No. 1185CV00036 (Worcester Sup.). To the extent that Mr. Davis seeks documents from Defendants that are purportedly germane to another pending lawsuit, much less "dispositive" of that suit, the appropriate avenue to obtain those documents was through the discovery proceedings that were afforded to him in that matter, not through this separate action that Mr. Davis initiated against Defendants on the eve of trial in his wrongful termination suit. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 45 (specifying procedures for seeking discovery from non-parties to a case); Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 (permitting discovery of any non-privileged material that is relevant to the pending action). Thus, this action appears to be a belated and improper attempt to obtain discovery that Mr. Davis either failed to pursue in his wrongful termination suit or was not entitled to receive. Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons stated in Defendants' motion for a protective order and/or to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, the Defendants request that this Court deny Mr. Davis's motion to compel the production of documents.