Case: Rosie D. v. Romney

3:01-cv-30199 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Oct. 31, 2001

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 31, 2001, the Center for Public Representation, the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and a private law firm filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396, against the Governor of Massachusetts and other state officials, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Rosie D. and eight other Medicaid-eligible children, aged 6 to 15, who were hospitalized or at risk of hospitalization due to a lack of home-based services. The class they sought to represent included tens of thousands of children in Massachusetts who were eligible for Medicaid (MassHealth) and had emotional, behavioral, or psychiatric disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had failed to provide medically necessary services as required under the federal Medicaid Act, and that it had failed to inform parents and children that they were entitled to these covered services.

On December 19, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2002, the district court (Judge Michael A. Ponsor) denied the motion to dismiss and certified the case as a class action. The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss. On November 7, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the defendants’ appeal, holding that children had an enforceable right under the Medicaid Act to medically necessary treatment. 310 F.3d 230.

The district court issued an order compelling the defendants to produce requested documents for the plaintiffs on April 14, 2003. 256 F. Supp. 2d 115.

On December 16, 2004, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 25, 2005, the district court denied the motion for summary judgment, and the case headed for trial.

The case went through a six-week trial in the spring of 2005. On January 26, 2006, the court issued a 98-page decision that found that Massachusetts had violated the EPSDT provisions of the federal Medicaid Act (requirements for “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment” services) by failing to provide home-based services to thousands of children across the state. 410 F. Supp. 2d 18. The result of this failure was that thousands of Massachusetts children with serious emotional disturbance were forced to endure unnecessary confinement in residential facilities or to remain in costly institutions far longer than their medical conditions required.

As a result of the judgment, the parties entered into negotiations to create a remedial plan. After six months of negotiations that failed to produce agreement, both sides presented separate plans to the court. On February 22, 2007, the court approved a modified version of the defendants’ plan. 474 F. Supp. 2d 238. The court’s adopted plan sought to restructure the children's mental health system by incorporating intensive home-based services, including behavioral health screenings, assessments, case management, crisis intervention, and in-home therapeutic supports. The plan’s strict timelines required full implementation by June 2009. The court also appointed a monitor to oversee the implementation, to mediate disputes between the parties, and to determine compliance with the court’s order.

On January 16, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to modify the judgment and to give them until July 1, 2010 to implement the plan. On February 27, 2009, the district court granted some extra time to the defendants, allowing them until December 1, 2009, to fully implement the remedial plan.

Both parties submitted periodical implementation reports on the remedial plan. On November 29, 2011, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to insure timely access to remedial services. The court ordered the defendants to propose a new plan for standards governing enrollment in Intensive Care Coordination, and a new timetable for implementation of these standards. The court also ordered that the defendants must appear before it every 60 days to report on their compliance progress.

Over the next few years, both parties continued to submit status reports, and the court proceeded to extend the monitor’s role in six-month increments and endorsed the parties’ agreement regarding the monitor’s budget.

On February 7, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to terminate monitoring. It noted that despite “persistent prodding from the court, Defendants are still grossly failing” to bring themselves into compliance with the remedial plan. Specifically, the defendants had failed to demonstrate they could provide “reasonably prompt” care to a substantial portion of the plaintiffs, which was defined as offering an initial appointment within fourteen days after initial contact. Citing this, and the defendants’ apparent lack of effort at compliance, the court retained its power to continue its supervision.

The defendants appealed this decision to the First Circuit on March 11, 2019. On March 13, the court denied the plaintiffs’ two outstanding motions, “in light of the general rule that…the filing of an appeal deprives a district court of the power to act substantively in a case until proceedings on appeal conclude.” The same day, the case was reassigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns.

On July 1, 2019, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the appointment of the court monitor, subject to the First Circuit’s ruling on appeal.

On May 4, 2020, the First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court. It held that because the parties’ agreement had provided for the monitor’s appointment to conclude on December 31, 2018, the district court had improperly extended the monitor’s appointment. On remand, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to show “good cause” to modify the agreement by extending the monitor’s appointment; the district court should analyze the question in light of Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 958 F.3d 51

The First Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing en banc (before the entire court, rather than the typical 3-judge panel) on June 17, 2020. As of August 2020, further proceedings are pending in the district court.


3:01-cv-30199 1:10-cv-30073 19-01262 19-01767	Docket [PACER]	July 28, 2020	July 28, 2020 Docket
1 3:01-cv-30199	Complaint Rosie D. v. Swift	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 Complaint
9 3:01-cv-30199	Protective Order Rosie D. v. Swift	Dec. 13, 2001	Dec. 13, 2001 Order/Opinion
3:01-cv-30199	Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Rosie D v. Swift	Dec. 18, 2001	Dec. 18, 2001 Pleading / Motion / Brief
02-01604	Appellate Decision Rosie D. v. Swift U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	Nov. 7, 2002	Nov. 7, 2002 Order/Opinion 310 F.3d 230
67 3:01-cv-30199	Memorandum and Order with Regard to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel	April 14, 2003	April 14, 2003 Order/Opinion 256 F.Supp.2d 115
3:01-cv-30199	Joint Motion to Amend Protective Order	Dec. 1, 2003	Dec. 1, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
157 3:01-cv-30199	Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment	Dec. 16, 2004	Dec. 16, 2004 Pleading / Motion / Brief
331 3:01-cv-30199	Memorandum of Decision	Jan. 26, 2006	Jan. 26, 2006 Order/Opinion 410 F.Supp.2d 18
3:01-cv-30199	Plaintiffs' Final Remedial Plan	Aug. 18, 2006	Aug. 18, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
	Oct. 31, 2001	Summons issued for Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring (mef)
1	Oct. 31, 2001	Complaint filed. Case assigned to Judge: Michael A. Ponsor. Receipt #: 304684. Amount: $150.00. Filing Fee: Paid. CF, LR 4.1, notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons to Counsel. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)	RECAP
2	Oct. 31, 2001	Motion by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. to proceed by pseudonym filed. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)	RECAP
3	Oct. 31, 2001	Memorandum by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [2-1] motion to proceed by pseudonym, filed. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)	RECAP
4	Oct. 31, 2001	Exhibits by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. [2-1] motion to proceed by pseudonym (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)	RECAP
	Oct. 31, 2001	Summons Issued
	Nov. 2, 2001	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [2-1] motion to proceed by pseudonym . [EOD Date 11/2/01] cc/cl (mgl)
	Nov. 2, 2001	Description not available
5	Nov. 13, 2001	Return of service executed as to Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring w/s/o 11/5/2001 filed. Answer due on 11/25/01 for Wendy E. Warring, Stephen P. Crosby, Robert Gittens, Jane M. Swift (mef) (Entered: 11/13/2001)	RECAP
6	Nov. 13, 2001	Ps' Consent to Trial by Magistrate filed. (mef) (Entered: 11/13/2001)	RECAP
7	Dec. 10, 2001	Joint motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., for a scheduling order, filed. . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/10/2001)	RECAP
8	Dec. 10, 2001	Joint motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., to adopt protective order, filed. . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/10/2001)	RECAP
	Dec. 13, 2001	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting in part [7-1] joint motion for a scheduling order, Reply memoes will be filed by 1/25/02, A pretrial conference and oral argument on the motions to dismiss and certify will be 1/30/02 at 2:30 PM. . [EOD Date 12/13/01] cc/cl (mgl)
	Dec. 13, 2001	Description not available
	Dec. 13, 2001	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [8-1] joint motion to adopt protective order . [EOD Date 12/13/01] cc/cl (mgl)
9	Dec. 13, 2001	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered. See order for details. [EOD Date 12/13/01] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/13/2001)	RECAP
10	Dec. 19, 2001	Notice of appearance of attorney for Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring by Stephanie S. Lovell, Daniel J. Hammond, timothy M Jones, Bart Q. Hollander, Deirdre Roney, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)	RECAP
11	Dec. 19, 2001	Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to dismiss, and to stay disclosure and discovery and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)	RECAP
12	Dec. 19, 2001	Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring for leave to file oversize memorandum of law, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)	RECAP
13	Dec. 21, 2001	Pltfs' Motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	RECAP
14	Dec. 21, 2001	Memorandum in support of [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	RECAP
15	Jan. 4, 2002	Joint motion by Rosie D., Jane M. Swift to adopt amended protective order, filed. . (mgl) (Entered: 01/04/2002)	RECAP
	Jan. 9, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [15-1] joint motion to adopt amended protective order . [Date 1/9/02] cc/cl (mgl)
	Jan. 9, 2002	Description not available
16	Jan. 9, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered . See order for details, [EOD Date 1/9/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)	RECAP
17	Jan. 9, 2002	Notice of change of address filed by timothy M Jones by Jane M. Swift . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)	RECAP
18	Jan. 18, 2002	Memorandum by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in opposition to [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/18/2002)	RECAP
19	Jan. 18, 2002	Assented to Motion by Rosie D., et al., for leave to file memorandum in excess of twenty pages, filed. c/s (mgl) Modified on 01/22/2002 (Entered: 01/22/2002)	RECAP
20	Jan. 18, 2002	Response by Rosie D. in opposition to [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) Modified on 01/22/2002 (Entered: 01/22/2002)	RECAP
	Jan. 22, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [19-1] motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of twenty pages. [EOD Date 1/22/02] cc/cl (mgl)
	Jan. 22, 2002	Description not available
21	Jan. 25, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Notice of Hearing/conference: Motion hearing before Judge Michael A. Ponsor set for 2:30 3/29/02 for [13-1] motion to certify class action, [11-1] motion to dismiss, reset pretrial conference for 2:30 3/29/02 before Judge Michael A. Ponsor . (laf) (Entered: 01/25/2002)	RECAP
22	Jan. 25, 2002	Joint statement by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring for scheduling conference . (bah) (Entered: 01/25/2002)	RECAP
23	Jan. 25, 2002	Reply Memorandum of law by Jane M. Swift in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/25/2002)	RECAP
24	Jan. 25, 2002	Reply by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. to response to [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed, c/s. (bah) (Entered: 01/29/2002)	RECAP
25	Feb. 15, 2002	Nine Pltf's Rule 16.1 Certifications filed . (jcs) (Entered: 02/15/2002)	RECAP
26	March 28, 2002	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	RECAP
27	March 28, 2002	Rule 16.1 Certification of Kevin Sullivan. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	RECAP
28	March 28, 2002	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Wendy E. Warring . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	RECAP
	March 29, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor. Endorsed Order entered denying [11-1] motion to dismiss, and denying [11-2] motion to stay disclosure. DENIED. The arguments regarding 11th amendment immunity 1983 are contrary to the weight of persuasive authority. The rule 12(b)(6) arguments can be raised more effectively following discovery and may be addressed then, if appropriate. Note: motion to stay is DENIED as moot. [EOD Date 4/1/02] cc/cl (mgl)
	March 29, 2002	Description not available
	March 29, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [13-1] motion to certify class action . [EOD Date 4/1/02] cc/cl (mgl)
	March 29, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [12-1] motion for leave to file oversize memorandum of law [EOD Date 4/1/02] cc/cl (mgl)
29	March 29, 2002	Memorandum by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)	RECAP
30	April 1, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Pretrial Scheduling Order entered as follows: Assuming that dft's decide not to proceed with an interlocutory appeal, all non-expert discovery due 1/31/03, on or before 2/28/03 each side will convey to the other their rule 26 report, all expert deposition due 3/31//03, a final Pretrial conference is set for 2:00 P.M. on 4/11/03, in the event dft's decide to file an interlocutory appeal, a motion for stay pending appeal will be filed by 4/30/02, and opposition due on 5/17/02 [EOD Date 4/1/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)	RECAP
31	April 1, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor. Procedural Order entered re: Pretrial on 4/11/03/Trial; . [EOD Date 4/1/02] c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)	RECAP
32	April 29, 2002	Notice of appeal by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring filed. Fee Status: pd Fee Amount: $ 105.00 Receipt #: 304865 Appealing: [0-0] endorsed order. Appeal record due on 5/14/02 (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)	RECAP
33	April 29, 2002	Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)	RECAP
34	April 29, 2002	Memorandum of law by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in support of [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)	RECAP
35	April 29, 2002	Certificate of Consultation re: [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)	RECAP
36	May 1, 2002	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring . (mef) (Entered: 05/01/2002)	RECAP
	May 2, 2002	Transcript of 3/29/2002 motion hearing forwarded to the Appeals Clerk - [37-1]. (mef)
37	May 2, 2002	Volume I of Transcript of Hearing held on proceeding date: 3/29/2002 at 2:30 P.M. before Judge: Michael A. Ponsor filed. Court Reporter: Leigh B. Gershowitz. (mef) (Entered: 05/02/2002)	RECAP
	May 2, 2002	Docket Annotation
	May 9, 2002	Transcript Order Form returned to the Court for [32-1] appeal...Transcript of 3/29/2002 motion hearing and decision by Judge Ponsor ordered. (mef)
	May 9, 2002	Appeal Transcript Order Form
	May 9, 2002	Docket Annotation
	May 9, 2002	Transcript Order Form forwarded to the Appeals Clerk. (mef)
38	May 20, 2002	Motion to extend time to 5/28/02 to file opposition to motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal, filed.(assented to) (jcs) (Entered: 05/20/2002)	RECAP
	May 23, 2002	Original file and docket sheet forwarded to the Appeals Clerk. (mef)
	May 23, 2002	Description not available
	May 23, 2002	Docket Annotation
	May 23, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [38-1] motion to extend time to 5/28/02 to file opposition to motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal, Response to motion reset to 5/28/02 for [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2) . [EOD Date 5/24/02] (laf)
	May 28, 2002	Certified copy of docket and record on appeal forwarded to U.S. Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal. (jr)
39	May 28, 2002	Ps' Partial resp. in opposition to [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. (mef) (Entered: 05/28/2002)	RECAP
	May 28, 2002	Full Record on Appeal Sent to USCA
	May 29, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2). ALLOWED, with the limitations and upon the conditions set forth in the conclusion of plaintiff's partial opposition. Dkt. 39 at 6-7. [EOD Date 5/29/02] cc/cl (mgl)
	May 29, 2002	Description not available
	June 6, 2002	US Court of Appeals Case Number assigned to [32-1] appeal: USCA NUMBER: 02-1604. (jr)
	June 6, 2002	USCA Case Number
	June 7, 2002	Transmitted supplemental record on appeal: re: [32-1] appeal Document numbers: 37 (jr)
	June 7, 2002	Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA
40	July 15, 2002	Certified Copy of Order of the US Court of Appeals dated re: [32-1] appeal. Under the circumstances, we think it preferable to temporarily stay the disclosure requirement in order to permit Defts. to raise thier concerns anent this requirement in the District Court. The disclosure requirement will be stayed for a period of ten days in order to permit the Govt. to file a motion for reconsideration in the District Court. If the Govt. files such a motion in a timely fashion, the disclosure requirement will be further stayed pending order of the District Court or this Court. If either side is dissatisfied with the District Court's ruling, it may seek further relief from this Court. (mef) Modified on 07/16/2002 (Entered: 07/15/2002)	RECAP
41	July 22, 2002	Ds' Motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
42	July 22, 2002	Ds' Memorandum in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order, filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
43	July 22, 2002	Ds' Affidavit of Laurie Ansorge Ball in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
44	July 22, 2002	Ds' Affidavit of Joan Mikula in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
45	July 22, 2002	Ds' Affidavit of Mary Ellen Bennard in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
46	July 22, 2002	Ds' Affidavit of Deirdre Roney in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	RECAP
47	Aug. 2, 2002	PLaintiffs' Response in opposition to [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 08/02/2002)	RECAP
48	Aug. 2, 2002	Affidavit of Cathy E. Costanzo, re: [47-1] opposition response, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 08/02/2002)	RECAP
	Aug. 7, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order. The discovery need not be provided during the pendency of the expedited appeal. Concern about maintaining the status quo is at present speculative. Pltfs. may move for specific discovery if concrete evidence of likely harm to the class emerges; cc/cl. [EOD Date 8/7/02] (mef)
	Aug. 7, 2002	Description not available
49	Nov. 12, 2002	Order of the US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal...the Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)	RECAP
50	Nov. 12, 2002	Opinion of the Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal entered. AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)	RECAP
	Dec. 5, 2002	Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals, re: [32-1] appeal. (jr)
51	Dec. 5, 2002	Mandate of US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal affirming the judgment of the district court. (jr) (Entered: 12/05/2002)	RECAP
	Dec. 5, 2002	Appeal Record Returned
52	Dec. 16, 2002	Joint motion by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to amend [30-1] pretrial Scheduling order, filed. . (mgl) (Entered: 12/16/2002)	RECAP
53	Dec. 18, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Pretrial Scheduling Order entered setting Discovery cutoff 10/31/03 Expert witness list due on 12/31/03 Pretrial conference at 3:00 P.M. on 1/8/04 . [EOD Date 12/19/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2002)	RECAP
54	Dec. 18, 2002	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Procedural Order entered re: Pretrial/Trial; . [EOD Date 12/19/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2002)	RECAP
55	Dec. 23, 2002	Notice of withdrawal of counsel by attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Joshua D., attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Tyriek H., attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Rosie D. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 12/23/2002)	RECAP
56	Feb. 26, 2003	Notice of appearance of attorney for Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. by Samantha J. Morton, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 02/26/2003)	RECAP
57	March 5, 2003	Motion by Rosie D., et, al., to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	RECAP
58	March 5, 2003	Memorandum by Rosie D., et al., in support of their [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	RECAP
59	March 5, 2003	Motion by Rosie D., et al., to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	RECAP
60	March 5, 2003	Memorandum of law by Rosie D., et al., in support of their [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	RECAP
61	March 5, 2003	(Assented to) Motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., to proposed scheduling dates, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	RECAP
	March 7, 2003	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Endorsed Order entered granting [61-1] motion to set a schedule re: motion to compel. Hearing, if necessary, to be scheduled once all filings have have been made; cc/cl.[EOD Date 3/7/03] (mef)
	March 7, 2003	Description not available

Case: Rosie D. v. Romney

3:01-cv-30199 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details