Motion to Compel Answers

 Like before this is not legal advice. Mr. Gaffney is refusing to answer the Interrogatories. I have asked the Courrt to compel Mr. Gaffney's answer. It is curious how Mr. Gaffney, a licensed attorney, seems to have misread Rule 33.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      COMMCOMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

                                                                                                                                                                     WORCESTER,          SS                                                          

SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                      16-0288 B

                                                          

********************************                                                                                                                                      

Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff                      *

                                                                     * 

                             Vs.                                   * 

                                                                     *

Gordon T. Davis                                       *                                                                                                      

Defendant                                                   *

                           Vs.                                       *

InCity Times                                                            *

Rosalie Tirella                                            *

Defendants                                                 *                                                                                                                                                                 *

********************************

                                                                 

DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES

The Pro Se Defendant Gordon T. Davis respectfully requests this Court to compel the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney to answer the interrogatories served upon him by the Defendant.

Background

1.   On February 23, 2016 the Plaintiff filed with this Court a one million dollar complaint for defamation.  (Exhibit 1)

2.   On the same day the Plaintiff informed the news media of his complaint. (Exhibit 2)

3.   The Plaintiff has not as of the date of this motion served the complaint to the Defendant per the authorized agents described in the Court rules.

4.   On March 8, 2016 the individual Defendant Gordon T. Davis answered the complaint. (Exhibit 3)

5.   On March 19, 2016 Defendant Mr. Davis served the Plaintiff with a set of interrogatories. (Exhibit 4).

6.   On March 25, 2016 the Plaintiff refused to provide answers to the interrogatories. The Plaintiff asserted that the complaint was not served and therefore the interrogatories are premature. (Exhibit 5)

Argument

7.   Rule 33 of the Civil Court allows the Plaintiff to be served interrogatories without leave of Court after the commencement of the action by the Defendant.

Civil Procedure Rule 33: Interrogatories to Parties

(a) Availability: Procedures for Use.

(1)  In General. 

Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party.[1]

8.   On April 2, 2016 Defendant Mr. Davis attempted to engage in a 9c conference with the Plaintiff. (Exhibit 6)

9.   As of the date of this motion the Plaintiff has not responded to the request for the 9c conference.

Conclusion

          Rule 33 allows without leave, the Defendant Mr. Davis to serve interrogatories upon the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enforce Rule 33 and compel the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney to answer the Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

        The Defendant Mr. Davis served the interrogatories on March 19, 2016 and respectfully requests the Court to use that date as the beginning of the 45 days that the Plaintiff is normally allowed without enlargement to answer the interrogatories.

          The Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney is a licensed attorney and he should not be rewarded for misreading Rule 33 or for missing a deadline.

 Respectfully submitted

Gordon T. Davis

Pro Se Defendant

---

[1]  Bold print done  by writer for emphasis

Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Discovery

This is not legal advice

A party will try sometimes to hurry matters up and cause some sort of error. The other party can ask the Court for more time.         

                 COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

WORCESTER,           SS

SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          C.A.  No. 1685CV00217 D

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                          

********************************                                                                                                                                     

GORDON T. DAVIS, Plaintiff                  

                                                                       

                             Vs.                                   

                                                                     

TURTLEBOY SPORTS INC.,                                                                                                                             

AIDEN KEARNEY,                                       

                                                                                                                                               *

Defendants                                                

********************************

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LONGER RESPONSE TIME FOR DISCOVERER

Background

1.     The Plaintiff has filed this Complaint against the Defendants for defamation. (Exhibit 1)

2.     After filing the Complaint Defendant continued to defame the Plaintiff in their publications and the Complaint was amended to include the additional defamation. ( Exhibit 2)

3.     The Defendants moved for dismissal for which there is a Hearing on April 19, 2016. (Exhibit 3)

4.     The Defendants sent to the Plaintiff Request for Production of Documents  and interrogatories on March 8, 2016. (Exhibit 4)

5.     The Plaintiff sent the Defendant a Motion for a Protective Order on March 21, 2016 (Exhibit 5)

6.     The Defendants on March 28, 2016 sent the Plaintiff a revised Request for Documents. (Exhibit 6)

Motion

     The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to allow a longer time to respond to the discovery requests than is routinely allowed in Rules 34 and 33. Rule 34 and Rule 33 permit the Court to change the time to respond to discovery. The Plaintiff respectfully moves to extend discovery to 45 day after the ruling on the Motion for Protective Order.

Argument

7.     The Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss might make discovery a moot issue.

8.     Some of the information demanded by the Defendants is confidential, privileged, and private. The Defendants and their attorney have a history of using such information to harass, oppress, and annoy other parties including private person. (Exhibit 7)

The Protective Order would prevent the misuse of such information and prevent it dissemination to the public.

9.     Much of the information and many of the documents are not held by the Plaintiff, such as information regarding the MCAD. This information or documents cannot be obtained in the normal time limits of Rule 34.

10.  The complaint is only six weeks old. The discovery can go on for 24 months;  there is no urgency preventing the enlargement of time of the response.

Conclusion

     Given the evidence and arguments above, there is good cause to allow an enlargement of time to respond to Rules 33 and 34 to 45 days after the ruling on the Protective Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                                                     Pro se Plaintiff                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Worcester MA 01604                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gordon T. Davis, pro se Plaintiff do here by certify that I have served the a copy of the Motion to Enlargement time to respond to Defendants’ Requests for Interrogatories and Production of Documents by mean of first class mail to their attorney at

     Margaret M. Melican, Esq.

     2 Foster St.

     Worcester MA 01608

 __________                                           ________

Gordon T. Davis                                    Date