|
Date Filed
|
#
|
Docket Text
|
| June 9, 2003 |
1
|
COMPLAINT against Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law Filing fee: $ 150, receipt number 48058, filed by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered:
06/12/2003)
|
| June 9, 2003 |
|
Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Alexander for any future reference. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: June 12, 2003)
|
| June 9, 2003 |
|
Summons Issued as to Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: June 12, 2003)
|
| August 15, 2003 |
2
|
STIPULATION extending time to file responsive pleading to 8/29/03 by Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Joseph Rodi, Southern New England School of Law. (Johnson, Jay) (Entered:
08/19/2003)
|
| August 29, 2003 |
3
|
MOTION to Dismiss by Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law. c/s(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 5, 2003)
|
| August 29, 2003 |
4
|
MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law.
c/s(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 5, 2003)
|
| August 29, 2003 |
5
|
AFFIDAVIT of Nancy Fitzsimmons Hebert re 3 MOTION to Dismiss. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 5, 2003)
|
| September 12, 2003 |
6
|
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Southern New England School of Law.c/s (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 26, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
7
|
OPPOSITION to Motion re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Joseph Rodi. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
8
|
AFFIDAVIT of Joseph Rodi re 7 Response to Motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
9
|
AFFIDAVIT of Peter A. Garcia re 7 Response to Motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
10
|
AFFIDAVIT of Joseph P. Costanza re 7 Response to Motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
11
|
AFFIDAVIT of John Reilly re 7 Response to Motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 18, 2003 |
12
|
AFFIDAVIT of Nicola Corea re 7 Response to Motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 30, 2003)
|
| September 30, 2003 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered granting 3 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. "Allowed, for substantially the
reasons outlined in defendants' memorandum of law." (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: October 2, 2003)
|
| October 2, 2003 |
13
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : ORDER entered ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: October 2, 2003)
|
| October 17, 2003 |
14
|
MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Order Dismissing Case by Joseph Rodi.c/s (proposed order attached)(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered:
10/20/2003)
|
| October 23, 2003 |
15
|
RESPONSE to Motion re 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Order
Dismissing Case filed by Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law. (David, Allen) (Entered: October 23, 2003)
|
| October 24, 2003 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. (Gertner, Nancy) (Entered: October 24, 2003)
|
| November 4, 2003 |
16
|
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Reconsideration by Joseph Rodi. Filing fee $ 105, receipt number 51432. Appeal Record due by 11/24/2003. c/s(Filo,
Jennifer) (Entered: November 4, 2003)
|
| November 6, 2003 |
17
|
Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 16 Notice of Appeal (Ramos, Jeanette) Additional
attachment(s) added on 3/23/2004 (Ramos, Jeanette). (Entered: November 6, 2003)
|
| November 7, 2003 |
18
|
USCA Case Number 03-2502 for 16 Notice of Appeal filed by Joseph Rodi. (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: November 7, 2003)
|
| March 19, 2004 |
|
Filing fee: $ 150.00, receipt number 54695 regarding Appeal (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: March 22, 2004)
|
| March 24, 2004 |
19
|
Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 16 Notice of Appeal, filing fee paid receipt additional
$150.00 (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: March 24, 2004)
|
| November 19, 2004 |
20
|
USCA Judgment as to Notice of Appeal 16 filed by Joseph Rodi. This cause came on to be submitted on the briefs and original
record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Upon consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows: The judgment
of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion issued this day. Two-thirds costs are taxed in favor of the
plaintiff. (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: November 19, 2004)
|
| December 9, 2004 |
21
|
MANDATE of USCA as to 16 Notice of Appeal filed by Joseph Rodi. Upon consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged and
decreed as follows: The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion issued this day. Two-thirds
costs are taxed in favor of plaintiff. (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: December 9, 2004)
|
| December 9, 2004 |
|
Case Reopened (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 15, 2005)
|
| December 21, 2004 |
22
|
USCA TAXATION OF COSTS re 16 Notice of Appeal: Costs in favor of appellant Joseph Rodi are taxed as follows: Docket Fee: $250.00
Reproduction of Appellant's Brief: $142.10 Reproduction of Appellant's Reply Brief: $76.30 Reproduction of Appendix: $96.95 TOTAL: $376.90 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 39 (d)(3), the
district court is directed to add this taxation of costs to the mandate issued on December 3, 2004. (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: December 21, 2004)
|
| December 22, 2004 |
23
|
ANSWER to Complaint by Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, Southern New England School of Law.(David, Allen) (Entered: December 22, 2004)
|
| June 21, 2005 |
24
|
NOTICE of Scheduling Conference: Scheduling Conference set for 7/8/2005 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Nancy Gertner. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: June 21, 2005)
|
| July 1, 2005 |
25
|
PLEASE DISREGARD, DOCUMENT FILED IN THE WRONG CASE. JOINT STATEMENT of counsel RULE 16.1. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) Modified on 7/1/2005 (Filo, Jennifer). (Entered: July 1, 2005)
|
| July 1, 2005 |
26
|
JOINT STATEMENT of counsel RULE 16.1. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: July 1, 2005)
|
| July 1, 2005 |
28
|
NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan D. Plaut on behalf of Joseph Rodi (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: July 8, 2005)
|
| July 1, 2005 |
29
|
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss, filed by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: July 8, 2005)
|
| July 6, 2005 |
27
|
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO RULE 16.1(D)(3) by Allen N. David on behalf of Southern New England School of Law. (David, Allen) (Entered: July 6, 2005)
|
| July 8, 2005 |
|
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Nancy Gertner : Scheduling Conference held on 7/8/2005. Joint Statement Adopted; mtn for sgm due on 3/1/06; response 3/14/06;
reply 3/21/06, see joint statement for details. (Court Reporter none.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: July 8, 2005)
|
| July 8, 2005 |
30
|
CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: July 8, 2005)
|
| July 20, 2005 |
31
|
MOTION for Order to COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO CONSENT TO RELEASE OF PLAINTIFF'S BAR EXAMINATION RESULTS BY CONNECTICUT BAR EXAMINING COMMITTEE by Southern New England School of Law, Francis
J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) (Entered: July 20, 2005)
|
| August 1, 2005 |
32
|
MOTION to Reassign Case by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: August 4, 2005)
|
| August 1, 2005 |
33
|
Opposition re 31 MOTION for Order to COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO CONSENT TO RELEASE OF PLAINTIFF'S BAR EXAMINATION RESULTS BY
CONNECTICUT BAR EXAMINING COMMITTEE filed by Joseph Rodi. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: August 4, 2005)
|
| August 4, 2005 |
34
|
Opposition re 32 MOTION to Reassign Case filed by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.
(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: August 4, 2005)
|
| September 2, 2005 |
|
ELECTRONIC NOTICE SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE:CONFERENCE set for 9/14/2005 03:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Nancy Gertner. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: September 2, 2005)
|
| September 14, 2005 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 32 Motion to Reassign Case: This Court presided over the instant case, as
well as two other cases against Southern New England School of Law, 03-11159, 03-11305. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in each of the cases, on a less than adequate
opinion. 03-1159 and 03-11305 were affirmed, the instant case was reversed. Plaintiff seeks reassignment pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(K)(2). The Local Rule gives the Court discretion not
to reassign the case, following reversal, if substantial time would be saved without transfer and that time would be saved if the case remains in this Court. I so find: This Court is
familiar with the background and procedural history of the instant case. Moreover, plaintiff filed the instant motion eight months after the appellate decision, and after the July, 2005
status conference. To the extent that the reassignment rule is effectively a rule of disqualification, nothing about this Court's initial rule suggests a different result. This Court's
initial decision was based on the claimed insufficiency of the complaint on its face, a conclusion with which the First Circuit disagreed. Clearly, in the light of this record, the
plaintiff has a right to fully litigate the claim, to garner discovery, and to seek to prove the allegations. (Gertner, Nancy) (Entered: September 14, 2005)
|
| September 14, 2005 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered denying 31 Motion to Compel (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 15, 2005)
|
| September 14, 2005 |
|
Electronic clerk's notes for proceedings held before Judge Nancy Gertner: Status conference (lobby) held on 9/14/2005; The parties report the status of the case; Discovery is ongoing; The
court denies the motion to compel and motion to reassign case. (Court Reporter None.) (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: September 15, 2005)
|
| October 11, 2005 |
35
|
Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: October 11, 2005)
|
| December 30, 2005 |
36
|
Expert disclosures by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: January 4, 2006)
|
| January 10, 2006 |
37
|
MOTION for a ruling on the sufficiency of his 30 day demand letter or in the alternative for leave to send a traditional 30 demand letter by Joseph Rodi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: January 17, 2006)
|
| January 10, 2006 |
38
|
MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: January 17, 2006)
|
| January 26, 2006 |
39
|
Opposition re 38 MOTION to Compel Discovery and For Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery filed by Southern New England
School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(David, Allen) (Entered: January 26, 2006)
|
| January 26, 2006 |
40
|
Opposition re 37 MOTION for a ruling on the Legal Sufficiency of Demand Letter filed by Southern New England School of
Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (David, Allen) (Entered: January 26, 2006)
|
| January 27, 2006 |
41
|
MOTION to Strike The Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) (Entered: January 27, 2006)
|
| January 31, 2006 |
42
|
Supplement by Joseph Rodi re 38 MOTION to Compel Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: February 3, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
43
|
MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
44
|
MOTION for Summary Judgment by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
45
|
MEMORANDUM in Support re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David
M. Prentiss. (Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
46
|
AFFIDAVIT in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Houlding]. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P(1)# 17 Exhibit P(2)# 18 Exhibit P(3)# 19 Exhibit P(4)# 20 Exhibit P(5)# 21 Exhibit P(6)# 22 Exhibit P(7)# 23 Exhibit P(8)# 24 Exhibit Q# 25 Exhibit R)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
47
|
AFFIDAVIT in Support [Affidavit of Nancy FitzsimmonsHebert]. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
48
|
AFFIDAVIT of David M. Prentiss by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 10, 2006 |
49
|
AFFIDAVIT of Robert W. Ward, Jr. by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B(1)# 3 Exhibit B(2))(Houlding, Elizabeth A.)
(Entered: February 10, 2006)
|
| February 16, 2006 |
50
|
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer)
(Entered: February 24, 2006)
|
| February 16, 2006 |
51
|
Supplement to Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures, and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures by Joseph Rodi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit Two# 3 Errata Three)(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: February 24, 2006)
|
| February 24, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has one month from the date of Judge Gertner's ruling on the motion to compel to respond to
the summary judgment motion. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: February 24, 2006)
|
| February 24, 2006 |
52
|
Opposition re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Houlding, Elizabeth
A.) (Entered: February 24, 2006)
|
| February 27, 2006 |
53
|
MOTION to Strike Supplement to Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered:
02/27/2006)
|
| April 5, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered:
04/05/2006)
|
| April 14, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 37 Motion For a Ruling on the Sufficiency of Plaintiff's 30-Day Demand
Letter: Plaintiff has asked for a ruling on the sufficiency of his demand letter. While Plaintiff maintains that the letter is sufficient, if this Court should rule otherwise, Plaintiff
would seek to withdraw the earlier letter, send an additional demand letter and, should there be no response, bring a 93A action 30 days later. Defendant argues that the sufficiency of
the demand letter should be addressed on summary judgment. Defendant, in fact, has briefed the issue in its summary judgment moving papers, to which the Plaintiff has not yet responded
because of outstanding discovery issues. The better procedure is the one suggested by Defendant -- to consider the Plaintiff's letter in the context of the facts and circumstances of the
case, as well as in the light of the applicable law, or as part of the summary judgment consideration. Moreover, considering this issue as part of the consideration of summary judgment
gives the Plaintiff an opportunity to respond more fully to the issues raised in Defendant's papers. (Gertner, Nancy) (Entered: April 14, 2006)
|
| April 14, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 38 Motion to Compel Discovery and For Leave To Conduct Additional
Discovery: Plaintiff's motion asks the Court (1) to order Defendant to provide the documents they agreed to produce but have not yet produced, (2) to order Defendant to produce other
relevant documents requested by Plaintiff, and (3) to permit Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery including additional depositions. WITH RESPECT TO 1 : Plaintiff contends that although Defendant originally agreed to comply with
Request Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Defendant has failed to do so. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that, while Defendant has produced the documents, it has refused to identify
which of the documents Defendant has produced correspond to each discovery request. Defendant contends that over 3000 pages of documents obtained from the SNESL's files were properly
produced to Plaintiff, in the order that they were kept in the usual course of business. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires that '[a] party who produces documents for inspection shall produce
them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.' Id. The rule is structured to prevent the
deliberate mixing of 'critical documents with others in the hope of obscuring significance.' Rule 34, Advisory Committee Note (1980 Amendment, Subdivision (b)). Where documents are
produced in the order that they are kept in the usual course of business, there is no such deliberate mixing. See Doe v. District of Columbia, 231 F.R.D. 27, 36 (D.D.C. 2005). WITH
RESPECT TO 2 : Plaintiff seeks the production of documents in response to Requests Nos. 5, 10, 18, and 19. Defendant contends
that some of the information (No. 5, 10,18) is confidential and/or unrelated to Plaintiff's claims. (Defendant has answered Request No. 19). I agree with the Defendant; no further
discovery will be ordered in response to these requests. WITH RESPECT TO 3 : Plaintiff's motion also requests that the Court
allow Plaintiff to conduct additional depositions and to submit additional requests for discovery of documents. It is unclear upon what legal basis Plaintiff relies concerning Plaintiff?s
request for leave to conduct additional discovery, as Plaintiff does not cite a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or any case law. Because Defendant's motion for summary judgment is pending
[doc. #45], Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct additional discovery could be treated as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(f), which permits the Court to suspend consideration of
summary judgment pending the completion of further discovery. Id. A party making a motion under Rule 56(f) must satisfy four requirements. The party must: (1) articulate some plausible
basis for the party's belief that specified 'discoverable' material facts likely exist which have not yet come in from the cold. There also must be shown (2) some realistic prospect that
the facts can be obtained within a reasonable (additional) time, and (3) will, if obtained, suffice to engender an issue both genuine and material. Last (4) the litigant must demonstrate
good cause for failure to have conducted the discovery earlier. Plaintiff has not met this standard with respect to the proposed depositions of Mssrs. Desiderio, Greer, or Lubin, or the
additional documents sought (documents involving the financial condition of the school from 1996 to 1999; documents which evidence any efforts made to improve the school). (Gertner,
Nancy) (Entered: April 14, 2006)
|
| April 14, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 41 Motion to Strike Expert Disclosure, denying 53 Motion to Strike Supplement to Expert Disclosure: These are motions that are properly directed to evidentiary matters to be resolved
at trial, not through a motion to strike. (Gertner, Nancy) (Entered: April 14, 2006)
|
| April 26, 2006 |
54
|
MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compelby Joseph Rodi.(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: April 27, 2006)
|
| May 2, 2006 |
55
|
Opposition re 54 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Southern New England School of
Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: May 2, 2006)
|
| May 9, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration; no fees ordered. Plaintiff's opposition
to the defendant's motion for summary judgment is due May 14, 2006. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in unusual circumstances. Although the Court has the authority to
reconsider a motion at any time prior to final judgment, the interests of finality weigh against frequent reconsideration. Davis v. Lehane, 89 F. Supp. 2d 142, 147 (D. Mass. 2000). The
Court should grant such a motion only if the movant has shown '(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error of
law in the first order.' Id. ?Here, Plaintiff does not allege any change in the law or new evidence. Rather, he simply reiterates the arguments already raised in his earlier memoranda.
Where a party is 'simply rehash[ing] the arguments set forth in [the earlier pleading],' '[t]his is not enough to merit reconsideration.' Id. at 147-48. With respect to the motion to
compel: Plaintiff argues that the defendants have simply not complied with discovery requests. He states that defendants have not produced certain categories of documents, despite having
agreed to do so. Plaintiff argues that '[j]ust because the defendants claim that they complied with the requests does not make it so.' On the contrary; this is a system in which we trust
in a lawyer's word. Moreover, it is plaintiff's representations that are suspect. Plaintiff suggests that defendants have not produced a 'single page' of documentation relevant to these
requests. In response, defendants supplied a chart indicating the numbers of the documents responsive to each request. There appear to be at least ten documents responsive to each of the
first three requests and five documents responsive to the fourth request. Defendants state that they supplied this same chart to plaintiff and asked that plaintiff withdraw the motion for
reconsideration, but plaintiff did not do so. Based on this representation from plaintiff, I see no reason to grant the present motion for reconsideration on this ground. Plaintiff
requests time and leave to take one additional deposition ? that of Robert Desidario, who is currently Dean of the New Mexico School of Law. Plaintiff argues that he requested copies of
all contracts SNESL had entered with consultants regarding accreditation, but that defendants turned over no documents mentioning Desidario. Defendants state that no such documents
exist.?In my Order denying the motion to compel and for additional discovery, I stated that plaintiff?s motion to conduct additional depositions could properly be construed as a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) and that plaintiff had not met that standard. Plaintiff now argues that Desiderio may have discoverable, material facts that meet the standard
under Rule 56(f). In particular, plaintiff suggests that Desiderio believed that there was cause for pessimism regarding the accreditation process, but that the defendants denied that
such pessimism existed. Plaintiff also notes that the deposition could be taken within a month, and that he would have known of Desiderio earlier, had defendant Prentiss agreed to be
deposed prior to December, 2005, technically after the close of discovery. Plaintiff states that he first learned of Desiderio's involvement at Prentiss' deposition and therefore could
not have deposed Desiderio earlier.?Defendants respond by noting 1) that plaintiff?s arguments are identical to those rejected by the Court in the order denying the motion to compel and
2) that Desiderio's name had come up in depositions in October, 2005, which would have given plenty of time to depose Desiderio during the appropriate discovery period. During the
deposition of Defendant Larkin on October 14, 2005, Larkin mentioned that Desiderio had consulted with SNESL on the accreditation process. Plaintiff never responds to defendant's argument
that Desiderio's role was revealed in Larkin's October deposition. (Defendant's position on this is supported by defendant's original opposition to plaintiff's motion for discovery; that
opposition included an exhibit with Larkin's testimony about Desiderio's role as a consultant to SNELS.)?Plaintiff offers no excuse for his failure to act on the October information and
consequent failure to depose Desiderio within the proper discovery period. (Gertner, Nancy) (Entered: May 9, 2006)
|
| May 12, 2006 |
56
|
Opposition re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Joseph Rodi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: May 16, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
57
|
REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin,
David M. Prentiss. (David, Allen) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
58
|
MOTION to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Joseph Rodi by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
59
|
MOTION to Strike the Affidavit of Jonathan Plaut by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) Modified on 5/22/2006 to correct docket
text (Filo, Jennifer). (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
60
|
MOTION to Strike The Affidavits of Brian Tamborelli, Guilin Jolicoeur, John Reilly, Joseph Costanza, and Nicola Corea by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin,
David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
61
|
MOTION to Strike the Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure (RENEWED) by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(David, Allen) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
62
|
AFFIDAVIT of Allen N. David by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A)(David, Allen) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 19, 2006 |
63
|
AFFIDAVIT of Elizabeth A. Houlding (SUPPLEMENTAL) by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Houlding, Elizabeth A.) (Entered: May 19, 2006)
|
| May 26, 2006 |
64
|
Opposition re 58 MOTION to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Joseph Rodi, 59 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jonathan Plaut, 60 MOTION to Strike The Affidavits of Brian Tamborelli, Guilin Jolicoeur, John Reilly, Joseph Costanza, and Nicola Corea,
61 MOTION to Strike the Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure (RENEWED) filed by Joseph Rodi. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered:
05/31/2006)
|
| June 7, 2006 |
|
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on all pending Motions: 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 58 MOTION to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Joseph Rodi, 59 MOTION to
Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jonathan Plaut, 60 MOTION to Strike The Affidavits of Brian Tamborelli,
Guilin Jolicoeur, John Reilly, Joseph Costanza, and Nicola Corea 61 MOTION to Strike the Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure
(RENEWED): Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Nancy Gertner. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: June 7, 2006)
|
| June 12, 2006 |
65
|
Assented to MOTION to Continue July 6, 2006 Hearing on All Pending Motions by Southern New England School of Law, Francis J. Larkin, David M. Prentiss.(Houlding, Elizabeth A.)
(Entered: June 12, 2006)
|
| June 19, 2006 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : Electronic ORDER entered Granting 65 Motion to Continue Hearing RESET TO 8/3/2006 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2
before Judge Nancy Gertner. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: June 19, 2006)
|
| August 4, 2006 |
|
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Nancy Gertner : Motion Hearing held on 8/4/2006 re 44 MOTION for
Summary Judgment filed by Southern New England School of Law,, Francis J. Larkin,, David M. Prentiss. Motion taken under advisement, court adjourned. (Court Reporter O'Hara.) (Molloy,
Maryellen) (Entered: August 9, 2006)
|
| August 15, 2006 |
66
|
TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on August 3, 2006 before Judge Gertner. Court Reporter: Valerie A. O'Hara. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's
Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/737-2346 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: August 15, 2006)
|
| March 31, 2007 |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner : ORDER entered denying 58 Motion to Strike, denying 59 Motion to Strike, denying 60 Motion to Strike, denying 61 Motion to Strike (MacDonald, Gail) (Entered: April 3, 2007)
|
| March 31, 2007 |
67
|
Judge Nancy Gertner: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of DEFENDANTS against PLAINTIFF.(MacDonald, Gail) (Entered: April 3, 2007)
|
| April 26, 2007 |
68
|
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 67 Judgment by Joseph Rodi NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded
from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/clerks/transcript.htm MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Appeal Record due by
5/16/2007. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: May 8, 2007)
|
| April 26, 2007 |
69
|
Certificate that no transcript will be ordered by Joseph Rodi. (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: May 8, 2007)
|
| April 30, 2007 |
|
Filing fee: $ 455.00, receipt number 79761 for 68 Notice of Appeal (Filo, Jennifer) (Entered: May 8, 2007)
|
| May 15, 2007 |
70
|
Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 68 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1)(Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: May 15, 2007)
|
| May 21, 2007 |
71
|
USCA Case Number 07-1770 for 68 Notice of Appeal, filed by Joseph Rodi. (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: May 21, 2007)
|
