This is not legal advice.
Below is the opposition sent to Court in response to Turtleboy's second Motion for a Protective Order.
===============================================
COMMONWEALTH
OF MASACHUSETTS
WORCESTER,
SS SUPERIOR COURT 16-0288 B
******************************** Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff *
Vs. *
*
Gordon T. Davis * InCity Times *
Rosalie Tirella *
Defendants * ********************************
DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ OPPOSSITION
MEMORANDUM TO MATERIAL WITNESSES’, AIDEN KEARNEY AND TURTLEBOY DIGITAL
MARKETING LLC, MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
The Pro Se Defendant Gordon T.
Davis respectfully requests this Court to Deny the Material Witnesses’ Motion
for a Protective Order. The testimonies and documents of the Witnesses are
relevant and reasonably likely to provide material evidence.
BACKGROUND
1. On August 3, 2016 the Witnesses’
attorney (Margaret Melican) filed an Emergency Motion for a Protective Order.
(Exhibit 1). The Court did not rule on that Emergency Motion.
2. On August 10, 2016 a deposition
was scheduled. The Witnesses nor their attorney appeared for the deposition.
The counsel for Witnesses never informed the Defendant that the Witnesses would
not appear.
However the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney
came to the scheduled deposition. The inference is that the Witnesses’ attorney
did not inform the Plaintiff that they would not appear at the scheduled
deposition.
3. On August 11, 2016 the Counsel
for the Witnesses sent an email to the Defendant asking for a copy of the
Transcript. She said that the Defendant should have known the Witnesses were
not appear because of Emergency Motion she filed. (Exhibit 2)
Defendant Davis responded by
email that because there was no ruling by the Court on the Emergency Motion the
implication is that the Witnesses should have appeared. (Exhibit 2)
4. On August 16, 2016 the Counsel
for the Witnesses filed a second Motion for Protective Order. That filing did
not have with it the Opposition Memo, even though it was not an emergency.
This second filing did not comply
with Rule 9A for the reasons seen in the Arguments below.
ARGUMENTS
There is
Reasonable Likelihood of Producing Material Evidence:
1.
On August 2,
2016 the Honorable Judge Richard T. Tucker ruled that the Plaintiff was
compelled to answer Defendant’s Interrogatory No.17 and No, 18. (Exhibit 3)
2.
Interrogatory
No. 17 deals with the Plaintiff’s relationship to the Witnesses and it employees.
Interrogatory No. 18 deals with conversations between the Witnesses and the
Plaintiff. (Exhibit 4).
3.
The inference
of Judge Tucker’s ruling is that the Witnesses, Aiden Kearney and Turtleboy
Sports have relevant and material evidence for this instant case.
Motion for Protective Order Does Not Comply with
Court Rules.
4.
The Counsel
for the Witnesses did not provide a copy of the Motion to the Defendant. This
has prevented the Defendant from writing a more relevant Opposition Memo.
5.
The Counsel for
the Witnesses did not provide a copy of her Memo of Law in Support of the
Motion.
6.
The Counsel
for the Witness did not provide a copy of her Affidavit of 9C compliance.
Counsel Melican and the Defendant Davis never spoke by phone or in-person
regarding this instant second Motion for a Protective Order.
7.
Counsel
Melican did not provide a copy of her Rule 9A Affidavit. This Rule 9A Affidavit
might be perjurious. Such an Affidavit requires the mention of the Opposition
Memo or the reason why it was not included in the filing.
The Notice of 9A Filing makes no mention of an Opposition
Memo. (Exhibit 5)
8.
Not one copy
of any of Counsel Melican’s documents sent to the Defendant has ever contained
a signature. This raise questions about the veracity of her correspondences and
document.
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF
The Defendant,
Gordon T. Davis, respectfully requests that the Court deny the movants’ Motion
for a Protective Order. The Court in a ruling by Judge Tucker has inferred the
relevance of the testimony of the Witnesses.
The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to order Counsel
Melican to comply all Court Rules regarding Motions going forward and to order
Counsel Melican to provide to the Defendants copies of the instant Motion, Memo
of Law, 9A Affidavit, and 9C Affidavit.
The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to order Counsel
Melican to provide to the Defendants signed copy of her documents relevant to
this case going forward.
Respectfully submitted
Gordon T. Davis
Pro Se Plaintiff
