Opposition to Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents and Sanctions

 

Sometimes a counsel like myself is just plain ol' tired of foolish shenanigans by opposing counsel.  Tonight, a little after midnight, December 30th, was one of those times. Do not try to copy this opposition for your own use.  You might get into trouble.  If the judge's record was not so outrageous in this case, I might not have dared write it.   It can go either way. "Slick" judging, like "slick" counseling, is a disservice to the "bench, the bar, and the public."  My hat is off and my thanks are unstoppable to the unsinkable Judge Brown, who dared to holler and holler from the tower of the Appeals Court in Boston against hypocrisy and tricks.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS  ESSEX, SS.                                                           PROBATE & FAMILY COURT                                                                                  Docket No. 99W-1466-PA-1 --------------------------------- Brian Meuse                         Plaintiff  v.  Susan Pane                        Defendant  ---------------------------------   OPPOSITION TO  MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND SANCTIONS AND  MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND SANCTIONS

 

Now comes Plaintiff Brian Meuse and opposes Susan Pane's mo- tions to compel documents and answers to interrogatories and for sanctions.  As grounds for these oppositions, Meuse states that the motions have been brought in bad faith, are harassing, would be burdensome, and are wholly irrelevant to the instant case. The motions are also provocative, in that they are designed to lure this court into taking gender-based discriminatory action. Fur- ther, Judge Manzi, who appears to have taken exclusive jurisdiction over the case, has said that there would be no further hearings in it until Meuse himself appears in court.  Even more egregious and evidence of Pane's and Stults's bad faith is that the document requests and interrogatories were not even served on Meuse's counsel until eleven days after Meuse had taken the child and had already disappeared, to wit, on 11 October 2000. So to burden Meuse's counsel with the task of opposing the motions is the work of a perverse advocate. "`Judges do not like "slick.'" Britt v. Rosenberg, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 552, 554 (1996), quoting Commonwealth v. McMiller, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 392, 410 (1990), to express the higher courts' dislike of dilatory tactics, which "[do] a disservice to the bench, bar, and the public." Hodge v. Klug, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 746, 759-760 (1992).  Further, Pane's counsel, Rosalyn Stults, knows that this court has repeatedly chosen not to act on Meuse's many motions: amongst those motions are, for example, Meuse's three motions to compel Susan Pane to deposition . . . motions written when Meuse's presence was known to the court. (The motions were filed in August and September and marked for hearing on several occa- sions and then not heard by the court.)  Those motions were necessary because Stults was hiding that fact that Pane had left Florida with the child for parts unknown to Meuse, and that in so doing, Pane had violated the stipulation into which the parties had entered on 7 August 2000. See letters attached as exhibits to one of the motions. It was to bring Stults's misrepresentation to the court that Meuse's counsel subpoenaed to court on October 11th Stults's secretary, who contradicted her boss's letter to Meuse's counsel and admitted where Pane was. It was an abuse of discretion and error that Judge Manzi allowed Stults and Pane's Motion to Quash that subpoena. That allowance was highly prejudicial to Meuse and is further evidence of the gender discrimination in Judge Manzi's court.  [Most] [j]udges do not like slick conduct, and certainly abhor unethical conduct. The trial judge would have been well warranted in sanctioning defense counsel [in this case, Stults]. . . . "[G]amesmanship" . . . must stop."  Commonwealth v. Mayne, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 282, 290 (1995) (dissent, Brown, J.)  Also included amongst the repeatedly ignored motions is the motion Meuse filed and marked for hearing months ago is his motion to modify the child support order given that Pane does not have the child in custody.  Therefore, to act on Pane's motions to the exclusion of Meuse's would be unlawful gender-based discrimination, as well as a denial of procedural and substantive due process under the state and federal constitutions.  Rosalyn Stults knows -- as does the court -- that Meuse has asked the Supreme Judicial Court to recuse Judge Manzi from this case. Given the recent procedural history of the case, it would be prejudicial to Meuse for Judge Manzi to hear Pane's motions.  Pane's and Stults's bad faith is evident because they know that Meuse's counsel knows not where he is and cannot answer interrogatories without him and would not be in possession of the types of documents requested -- in fact, would have no reason to be in possession of them even if they existed.  With the above said, given that Pane does not have the child in custody, she has no need for child support. And given that she was never married to Meuse, she is not entitled to spousal support. She also has no reason to inquire into Meuse's financial condition. Pane lives rent-free, has the ability to work but chooses not to, was never married to Meuse, and therefore has no claim on any of his assets, no matter of few or many they may be. The law also does not require Meuse to be Pane's "meal ticket" because she bedded him for around two years outside of wedlock. If the law did so require, it would be, Meuse contends, unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions.  Therefore Meuse objects to each and every one of Pane's document requests, which are numbered D1 through D38, because they are irrelevant and immaterial. Meuse reserves the right to object at a later time to the document requests on other grounds.  Given that Meuse would have to answer and sign any and all answers to the interrogatories himself, it would be futile for counsel to spend time to object to them individually at this time until she would be able to confer with Meuse about them.  If [officers of the court] are unwilling or unable to adhere to the canons and disciplinary rules, as well as simple notions of fairness, "they should turn in their tickets." Commonwealth v. McMiller, 29 Mass.App.Ct. at 410, emphasis supplied.  WHEREFORE, Meuse prays this Honorable Court deny Susan Pane's motions to compel and for sanctions.                                                                        Respectfully submitted,                                                                        BRIAN MEUSE,                                                                        By his attorney,    30 December 2000                                    ____________________________                                                                        Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.                                                                        6 Appletree Lane                                                                        Andover, MA 01810-4102                                                                        978-474-0833      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE