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.

	Document
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	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
	Summons Issued	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 PACER
1	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)	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 RECAP
2	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)	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 PACER
3	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)	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 PACER
4	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)	Oct. 31, 2001	Oct. 31, 2001 PACER
	Description not available	Nov. 2, 2001	Nov. 2, 2001 PACER
5	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)	Nov. 13, 2001	Nov. 13, 2001 PACER
6	Ps' Consent to Trial by Magistrate filed. (mef) (Entered: 11/13/2001)	Nov. 13, 2001	Nov. 13, 2001 PACER
7	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)	Dec. 10, 2001	Dec. 10, 2001 PACER
8	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)	Dec. 10, 2001	Dec. 10, 2001 PACER
	Description not available	Dec. 13, 2001	Dec. 13, 2001 PACER
9	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered. See order for details. [EOD Date 12/13/01] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/13/2001)	Dec. 13, 2001	Dec. 13, 2001 PACER
10	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)	Dec. 19, 2001	Dec. 19, 2001 PACER
11	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)	Dec. 19, 2001	Dec. 19, 2001 PACER
12	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)	Dec. 19, 2001	Dec. 19, 2001 PACER
13	Pltfs' Motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	Dec. 21, 2001	Dec. 21, 2001 PACER
14	Memorandum in support of [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)	Dec. 21, 2001	Dec. 21, 2001 PACER
15	Joint motion by Rosie D., Jane M. Swift to adopt amended protective order, filed. . (mgl) (Entered: 01/04/2002)	Jan. 4, 2002	Jan. 4, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	Jan. 9, 2002	Jan. 9, 2002 PACER
16	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered . See order for details, [EOD Date 1/9/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)	Jan. 9, 2002	Jan. 9, 2002 PACER
17	Notice of change of address filed by timothy M Jones by Jane M. Swift . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)	Jan. 9, 2002	Jan. 9, 2002 PACER
18	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)	Jan. 18, 2002	Jan. 18, 2002 PACER
19	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)	Jan. 18, 2002	Jan. 18, 2002 PACER
20	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)	Jan. 18, 2002	Jan. 18, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	Jan. 22, 2002	Jan. 22, 2002 PACER
21	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)	Jan. 25, 2002	Jan. 25, 2002 PACER
22	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)	Jan. 25, 2002	Jan. 25, 2002 PACER
23	Reply Memorandum of law by Jane M. Swift in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/25/2002)	Jan. 25, 2002	Jan. 25, 2002 PACER
24	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)	Jan. 25, 2002	Jan. 25, 2002 PACER
25	Nine Pltf's Rule 16.1 Certifications filed . (jcs) (Entered: 02/15/2002)	Feb. 15, 2002	Feb. 15, 2002 PACER
26	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	March 28, 2002	March 28, 2002 PACER
27	Rule 16.1 Certification of Kevin Sullivan. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	March 28, 2002	March 28, 2002 PACER
28	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Wendy E. Warring . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)	March 28, 2002	March 28, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	March 29, 2002	March 29, 2002 PACER
29	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)	March 29, 2002	March 29, 2002 PACER
30	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)	April 1, 2002	April 1, 2002 PACER
31	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)	April 1, 2002	April 1, 2002 PACER
32	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)	April 29, 2002	April 29, 2002 PACER
33	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)	April 29, 2002	April 29, 2002 PACER
34	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)	April 29, 2002	April 29, 2002 PACER
35	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)	April 29, 2002	April 29, 2002 PACER
36	Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring . (mef) (Entered: 05/01/2002)	May 1, 2002	May 1, 2002 PACER
	Docket Annotation	May 2, 2002	May 2, 2002 PACER
37	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)	May 2, 2002	May 2, 2002 PACER
	Appeal Transcript Order Form	May 9, 2002	May 9, 2002 PACER
	Docket Annotation	May 9, 2002	May 9, 2002 PACER
38	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)	May 20, 2002	May 20, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	May 23, 2002	May 23, 2002 PACER
	Docket Annotation	May 23, 2002	May 23, 2002 PACER
	Full Record on Appeal Sent to USCA	May 28, 2002	May 28, 2002 PACER
39	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)	May 28, 2002	May 28, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	May 29, 2002	May 29, 2002 PACER
	USCA Case Number	June 6, 2002	June 6, 2002 PACER
	Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA	June 7, 2002	June 7, 2002 PACER
40	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)	July 15, 2002	July 15, 2002 PACER
41	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
42	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
43	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
44	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
45	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
46	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)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002 PACER
47	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)	Aug. 2, 2002	Aug. 2, 2002 PACER
48	Affidavit of Cathy E. Costanzo, re: [47-1] opposition response, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 08/02/2002)	Aug. 2, 2002	Aug. 2, 2002 PACER
	Description not available	Aug. 7, 2002	Aug. 7, 2002 PACER
49	Order of the US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal...the Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)	Nov. 12, 2002	Nov. 12, 2002 PACER
50	Opinion of the Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal entered. AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)	Nov. 12, 2002	Nov. 12, 2002 PACER
	Appeal Record Returned	Dec. 5, 2002	Dec. 5, 2002 PACER
51	Mandate of US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal affirming the judgment of the district court. (jr) (Entered: 12/05/2002)	Dec. 5, 2002	Dec. 5, 2002 PACER
52	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)	Dec. 16, 2002	Dec. 16, 2002 PACER
53	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)	Dec. 18, 2002	Dec. 18, 2002 PACER
54	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Procedural Order entered re: Pretrial/Trial; . [EOD Date 12/19/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2002)	Dec. 18, 2002	Dec. 18, 2002 PACER
55	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)	Dec. 23, 2002	Dec. 23, 2002 PACER
56	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)	Feb. 26, 2003	Feb. 26, 2003 PACER
57	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)	March 5, 2003	March 5, 2003 PACER
58	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)	March 5, 2003	March 5, 2003 PACER
59	Motion by Rosie D., et al., to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)	March 5, 2003	March 5, 2003 PACER
60	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)	March 5, 2003	March 5, 2003 PACER
61	(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)	March 5, 2003	March 5, 2003 PACER
	Description not available	March 7, 2003	March 7, 2003 PACER
62	Dft's and non-party agencies Response by Mass Division of DMA in opposition to [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/19/2003)	March 19, 2003	March 19, 2003 PACER
63	Response by Mass Division of DMA in opposition to [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/19/2003)	March 19, 2003	March 19, 2003 PACER
64	Judge Michael A. Ponsor . ORDER entered: referral to Mag. Judge Kenneth P. Neiman . : [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, [52-1] joint motion to amend [30-1] pretrial Scheduling order . Purpose: Ruling Special Instructions: None . (laf) (Entered: 03/20/2003)	March 20, 2003	March 20, 2003 PACER
65	Plaintiff's Reply brief by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/24/2003)	March 24, 2003	March 24, 2003 PACER
66	Plaintiff's Reply brief by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/24/2003)	March 24, 2003	March 24, 2003 PACER
	Terminate Documents	March 31, 2003	March 31, 2003 PACER
	Add and Terminate Judges	April 14, 2003	April 14, 2003 PACER
67	Mag. Judge Kenneth P. Neiman . Memorandum and Order entered. The Pltfs' motions to compel - [59-1], [57-1] are ALLOWED. Defts., are to produce the requested docs. forthwith; cc/cl. [EOD] Date 4/14/03] (mef) (Entered: 04/14/2003)	April 14, 2003	April 14, 2003 PACER
68	Notice of appearance of attorney for Jane M. Swift by Adam Simms, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/28/2003)	April 28, 2003	April 28, 2003 PACER
69	Notice of withdrawal of counsel by attorney Samantha J. Morton for Jerry N., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Shaun E., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Nathan F., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Anton B., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Devin E., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Sheena M. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 05/13/2003)	May 13, 2003	May 13, 2003 PACER
	Description not available	May 15, 2003	May 15, 2003 PACER
70	Answer by Mass Division of DMA to complaint, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 05/15/2003)	May 15, 2003	May 15, 2003 PACER
71	ANSWER to Complaint by (EOHHS)the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 05/20/2003)	May 20, 2003	May 20, 2003 PACER
72	ANSWER to Complaint by Eric Kriss.(Stuckenbruck, John) (Entered: 05/20/2003)	May 20, 2003	May 20, 2003 PACER
73	MOTION for establishment of deadlines for discovery, responses and production and for a scheduling conf. filed by the Pltfs.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/02/2003)	June 2, 2003	June 2, 2003 PACER
74	MEMORANDUM in Support re 73 Ps' motion for establishment of deadlines for discovery, responses and production and for a scheduling conf. filed.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/02/2003)	June 2, 2003	June 2, 2003 PACER
75	EXHIBIT re 74 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. by Anton B., Joshua D., Rosie D., Devin E., Shaun E., Nathan F., Tyriek H., Sheena M., Jerry N.. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/02/2003)	June 2, 2003	June 2, 2003 PACER
76	ANSWER to Complaint by Jane M. Swift./Mitt Romney deemed substituted as Dft. for former Governer Jane Swift. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/04/2003)	June 3, 2003	June 3, 2003 RECAP
77	Judge Michael A Ponsor : ORDER entered REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman Referred for: Scheduling Conf(French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/05/2003)	June 5, 2003	June 5, 2003 PACER
78	NOTICE of Scheduling Conference, ISSUED, cc:cl. Scheduling Conference set for 7/10/2003 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 06/06/2003)	June 6, 2003	June 6, 2003 PACER
79	JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 116.5(C) by Anton B., Stephen P. Crosby, Joshua D., Rosie D., Devin E., Shaun E., EOHHS, Nathan F., Robert Gittens, Tyriek H., Eric Kriss, Sheena M., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Wendy E. Warring filed.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 07/08/2003)	July 8, 2003	July 8, 2003 PACER

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