Opposition Memo Against Turtleboy's Second Motion for Protective Order

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