Strahan v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs et al
| Richard Max Strahan, Max, Pro Se Party Richard Max Strahan and Pro Se Party Richard Strahan |
| Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA"), Arthur Sawyer, Center for Coastal Studies, John Haviland, Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Baystate Wind, LLC, MEOEEA, Vineyard Wind, LLC and David Pierce |
| Dr. Michael J. Moore |
| Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund |
| Peter Corkeron and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2019cv10639 |
| April 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Indira Talwani |
| Environmental Matters |
| 16 U.S.C. § 1538 Endangered Species Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 672 NOTICE by Richard Strahan re #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, 667 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 210 Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #615 Order Dismissing Case, 656 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, 670 Order on Motion for Recusal,,,,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,, #671 USCA Mandate, 220 Order,,,, 668 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,, MAXS NOTICE HIS SUCCESSFULLY GETTING THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN STRAHAN V. OREILLY, 22-CV-0052 (DIST. NH 2022) TO RECUSE ITSELF (Attachments: #1 Exhibit ORDER_RECUSE)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 671 MANDATE of USCA as to #315 Notice of Appeal, filed by Richard Strahan. Appeal #315 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 670 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Plaintiff Richard Strahans Second Motion for Recusal #669 for the reasons previously stated in the courts March 9, 2022 Memorandum and Order #638 .To the extent that Strahans motion concerns Strahan v. McKiernan et al., No. 22-cv-10364 (D. Mass. 2022), all such motions should be made on the correct docket. The court notes that Strahans assertion that he has not been granted ECF access in that action is contradicted by the record in that case. See Order, Strahan v. McKiernan et al., No. 22-cv-10364 (D. Mass. Mar. 13, 2022), ECF No. 7 (granting leave to file electronically). The clerk has confirmed that Strahan has had ECF access in the 2022 action since March 13, 2022.Finally, Strahan shall comply with Local Rule 83.5.5, which requires any document filed by a pro se litigant that requires a signature to also state the partys mailing address, telephone number (if any), and e-mail address (if any) and to inform the clerk and all parties in writing of any change of name, address, telephone number, or e-mail address within 14 days of the change. Any further noncompliant filings shall be stricken. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 669 Second MOTION for Recusal MAX PETITION TO RECUSE SHYTER PIG TALWANNA, Second MOTION to Compel SHYSTER TALWANA to RULE ON PETITION FOR ECF ACCESS IN MAX V WHALE KILLING BASTARDS, 22-cv-10364 (D. MASS 2022) ( Responses due by 5/31/2022) by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit MAX"s Opposition to Addendum 2, #2 Exhibit Shyster Lies)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 668 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Plaintiff Richard Strahans Second Request for Transcripts #664 and Second Request for Transcripts #665 . As the court previously explained, see Order #660 , where Strahan is seeking transcripts without payment of costs, the court must certify that his appeal is not frivolous. The court so certified only as to the question of Strahans standing. Strahans repeat filings provide no basis for any further appeal and accordingly are denied. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 667 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Plaintiff Richard Strahans Emergency Petition for an Indicative Ruling Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 #663 . This case is closed, and Strahan has provided no basis for this court to enter additional indicative rulings in this matter. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 666 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Plaintiff Richard Strahans Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) #662 . As the court previously explained in its April 12, 2022 Order #653 , it found that Strahan lacked Article III standing based on his testimony at trial. That Strahan has now taken actions to establish standing in future cases does cure his failure to prove standing in this closed case. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 665 Second MOTION M. A. X. SECOND PETITION FOR TALWANNA TO PROVIDE ME AT NO COST FOR USE ON APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL PRIOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT re #658 MOTION MAX WANNA TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL re #647 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SO DEAL WITH IT!!, #647 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #660 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief GIMMEE TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT DURING THE INSTANT ACTION by Richard Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 664 Second MOTION M. A. X. SECOND PETITION FOR TALWANNA TO PROVIDE ME AT NO COST FOR USE ON APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL PRIOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT re 659 Order on Motion for Recusal, #658 MOTION MAX WANNA TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL re #647 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SO DEAL WITH IT!!, #647 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, GIMMEE TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT DURING THE INSTANT ACTION by Richard Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 663 Emergency MOTION M. A. X.S EMERGENCY PETITION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 62.1 FOR AN INDICATIVE FINDING THAT STATE DEFENDANTS LICENSING OF FISHING GEAR IN STATE WATERS AND MY CURRENT ARTICLE III STANDING REPRESENT SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES FOR THE COURTS RESOLUTION DURING THE APPEAL re #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, #614 Order, #662 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order M. A. X. EMERGENCY PETITION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 62(D) FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO ENJOIN THE STATE DEFENDANTS LICENSING OF LOBSTER FISHING GEAR BEFORE 1 JUNE 2022 TO PREVENT THIS FISHING G, #654 Notice (Other), FRAP Rule 62.1 Petition for Indicative Ruling to Protect Right Whales Right Now by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#_30 November 2021 Indicative Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 662 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order M. A. X. EMERGENCY PETITION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 62(D) FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO ENJOIN THE STATE DEFENDANTS LICENSING OF LOBSTER FISHING GEAR BEFORE 1 JUNE 2022 TO PREVENT THIS FISHING GEAR FROM CATCHING RIGHT WHALES by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 30 November 2022 Indicative Court Ruling)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 661 USCA Judgment as to #315 Notice of Appeal, filed by Richard Strahan (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 660 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Richard Strahan's Request for Transcripts #658 . Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 659 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: denying Plaintiff's petition #657 for recusal. This matter is closed and jurisdiction lies with the court of appeals. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 658 MOTION MAX WANNA TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL re #647 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SO DEAL WITH IT!! by Richard Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 657 Fourth MOTION for Recusal COMMAND for EVIL Shyster Talwaana to Recuse Itself or Face Prosecution foir Crimes Against The Public Weal by Richard Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 656 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Emergency Motion to Consolidate Cases #655 where final judgment has already issued in the instant case. See Order of Dismissal #615 . (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 655 Emergency MOTION to Consolidate Cases _____________________________________________________ M. A. X. PETITION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 42(a)(2) TO CONSOLIDATE THE INSTANT ACTION WITH M. A. X. V. MCKIERNAN, 22-CV-10364-IT by Richard Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 654 NOTICE by Richard Strahan re #614 Order, #615 Order Dismissing Case M.A.X.'s NOTICE & DECLARATION on having Article III Standing and Sighting a Right Whale in April Off Sandwich MA Beach (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Richard Max Strahan Declaration of Article III Standing)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 653 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered: Plaintiff Richard Strahan's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief #651 is DENIED. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 652 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Strahan. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 651 Emergency MOTION for Injunctive Relief MAX's FRCP Rule 62 Petition to Shutdown Massachusetts Fishing Industry Pending Outcome of Appeal in 1st Circuit court of appeals by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 20 November ruling, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2 Judgement by DCD in CBD V Ross)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 650 USCA Case Number 22-1225 for #647 Notice of Appeal, filed by Richard Strahan. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 649 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #647 Notice of Appeal (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 648 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER striking pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1) the term "Whale Killing Bastards" from the caption of Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal #647 . (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 647 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #283 Scheduling Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,, 478 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #363 Scheduling Order, 178 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 538 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 484 Order on Motion for Leave to File,, 282 Order on Motion for Order, 566 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, 527 Order on Motion for Order, 391 Order on Motion to Quash,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 Order, 29 Order on Motion for TRO,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, #564 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 644 Order, #146 Order on Motion for Recusal, 218 Order on Motion for Leave to File, #251 Scheduling Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, 526 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 592 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Hearing (Other),, 370 Order on Motion for Protective Order, 568 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 93 Order, 162 Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,,,,,, 567 Order,,,,,,,,,,, 266 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 629 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,,, 13 Order on Motion for TRO, 189 Order on Motion to Strike, 153 Order on Motion for TRO,,, 483 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 397 Order on Motion to Compel, 477 Order on Motion in Limine,,,, 429 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, 565 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 522 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 307 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 476 Order on Motion in Limine,,,, #388 Order, Set Deadlines, Terminate Motions, #610 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, #309 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #614 Order, 502 Order, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 604 Order on Motion for Clarification,,,,,,, 105 Order on Motion to Correct, 34 Order, 24 Order on Motion for TRO,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Motion Hearing,,, Terminate Motions,,, Set Hearings,, 439 Order on Motion for Leave to File, #366 Order on Motion for Discovery, 534 Order on Motion to Quash, 46 Order,, 188 Order,,,, 471 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, 543 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, 625 Order, #584 Order on Motion to Produce,, #94 Scheduling Order, 184 Order,,, #234 Order to Show Cause, 220 Order,,,, #206 Memorandum & ORDER, 479 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, 240 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, #313 Order on Motion to Quash, 51 Order on Motion for Clarification,, 500 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #312 Order on Motion to Intervene, 264 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, 589 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 426 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, 104 Order, #399 Protective Order, 599 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, 613 Order on Motion to Strike, 440 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 548 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 499 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,, Terminate Hearings, 154 Order, #241 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 284 Order on Motion for Leave to File, #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, 475 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,, 498 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,, #127 Order to Show Cause, 210 Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 643 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,, 472 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,,,, 139 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 375 Order,,,,,,,,,,, #615 Order Dismissing Case, 18 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,, 525 Order,, #160 Memorandum & ORDER, 99 Order,, 192 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, #304 Scheduling Order, 474 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,, 630 Order,,, 330 Order,,, 32 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Set Deadlines, 303 Order on Motion for Order, 43 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, Order on Motion for Order,,, 58 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 223 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 360 Order,,,,,,,,,,,,, 514 Order,,,,,,,,, 208 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,,,, 98 Order,,,,, 171 Order,, 631 Order, 125 Order,, 341 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 147 Order,,, 503 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #8 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,, Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,, #6 General Order 09-1, 473 Order,,,,,, 121 Order,,, Terminate Motions,, #371 Protective Order, 470 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,, 83 Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,,,, Order on Motion for Order,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,, Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,,,, Scheduling Conference,,,,,, Set Scheduling Order Deadlines,,,,, 392 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 459 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, 258 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, 351 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 298 Order on Motion for Protective Order, 342 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 279 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 25 Order,,, #638 Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,,, Order on Motion for Recusal,,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,, 326 Order on Motion to Quash,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 244 Order on Motion to Stay,,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Status Conference,,,, Set Deadlines,,, 593 Order, 438 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 285 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 501 Order,,,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,, 291 Order on Motion for Leave to File,, 619 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 598 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, 233 Order on Motion for Leave to Appear, 23 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 300 Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, #497 Order on Motion in Limine,,,,, 174 Order,, 155 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, 510 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings,, 62 Order, 196 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 596 Order on Motion for Leave to File, #299 Protective Order, 524 Order on Motion in Limine, 166 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer by Richard Strahan 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 MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at #http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 4/14/2022. (Strahan, Richard) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2022: #1 Original Notice of Appeal *SEALED*) (Kelly, Danielle). (Main Document 647 replaced on 3/28/2022 pursuant to Electronic Order [#648]) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 646 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Strahan (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 645 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Strahan (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 644 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER striking pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1) the term "Whale Killing Bastards" from the caption of Plaintiff's Notice #642 . Further filings made by Plaintiff in this matter that include this caption will be stricken in their entirety. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 643 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Plaintiff's Renewed FRCP Rule 59 Petition for a New Trial. A Rule 59 motion "must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), and the court "must not extend the time to act under Rule.... 59(b)," Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Judgment entered in this case on December 1, 2021. See Order of Dismissal #615 . Accordingly, the Renewed FRCP Rule 59 Petition for a New Trial #641 is DENIED as untimely. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 642 NOTICE by Richard Strahan re #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, #615 Order Dismissing Case, #641 Second MOTION for Reconsideration re #615 Order Dismissing Case, #616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, f, #638 Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,,, Order on Motion for Recusal,,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,, #617 Memorandum in Support of Motion, MAX STRAHAN'S NOTICE OF His Booking a Trip to Go Whale Watching off the Massachusetts Coast on 7 April 2022 (Strahan, Richard) (Main Document 642 replaced on 3/16/2022) (Dore, Samantha). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/16/2022: #1 Document) (Dore, Samantha). |
| Filing 641 Second MOTION for Reconsideration re #615 Order Dismissing Case, #616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, for a Partial New Trial, #636 MOTION for Leave to File, #638 Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,,, Order on Motion for Recusal,,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,, #617 Memorandum in Support of Motion, Man Against Xtinction's Renewed Incompetent and Self-Serving Representation and the Court's Unlawfully Refusing to Let Him Directly Prosecute the Defendants on His ESA claims and the Court's Refusal to Make Ruling on Article III Standing Prior to Start of Trial FRCP Rule 59 Petition to Hold Partial Trial Proceedings for Him to Demonstrate Article III Standing Owing to Attorney Incompetence by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Richard Maximus Strahan on His Article III Standing, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#1_MAX's_BC Law Journal Article, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#2_MAX's_Published-Thesis_Global-Mass-Extinction, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#3_MAX's_Expert-Witness-Declaration)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 640 NOTICE by Richard Strahan re #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, #638 Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,,, Order on Motion for Recusal,,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,, 630 Order,,, #632 Order on Motion to Amend, 631 Order, MAX STRAHAN'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE A CIVIL RIGHTS & BIVENS ACTION ON 21 MARCH 2022 AGAINST SHYSTER TALWANI FOR VIOLATIONS OF HIS FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED RIGHT TO PETITION THE USDC (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 639 ECF privileges for Plaintiff have now been enabled. (McLaughlin, Tracy) |
| Filing 638 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM & ORDER. See attached. 1. Strahan's Petition to Recuse [Doc. No. 634] is DENIED. 2. Strahan's Petition to Vacate [Doc. No. 635] is DENIED. 3. Strahan's Petition for Leave to File [Doc. No. 636] is DENIED.4. Strahan's Petition to Restore [Doc. No. 633] is ALLOWED, and Strahan is granted leave to file electronically in this matter. Pro se litigants must have an individual PACER account to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at #https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account.Pro se e-filing account Instructions #https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-se.htm. (Dore, Samantha) Modified on 3/11/2022: ECF privileges for Plaintiff have now been enabled (Dore, Samantha). |
| Filing 637 Opposition re #636 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 636 Plaintiff's Petition for Leave to File by March 15, 2022 to File Amended Rule 59 Motion by Richard Strahan. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 635 Plaintiff's Emergency Petition to Vacate Adam Keats Motion for leave to Withdraw as my Attorney by Richard Strahan. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 634 MOTION for Recusal by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 633 Plaintiff's Emergency MOTION To Restore His Ability To Make ECF Filings in the Instant Action by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Service Letter)(Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 632 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM & ORDERFor the foregoing reasons, Strahan's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 616] is DENIED. See attached. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 631 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: the court reminds Plaintiff that unless and until the court restores his ECF access, any documents he seeks to file shall be submitted for filing by United States mail or by hand delivery at the public counter in the Boston, Springfield or Worcester federal courthouses. Clerks' office and courtroom staff may not accept filings by email. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 630 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of Plaintiff's e-mail messages on March 2, 2022, directed to the courtroom deputy and clerk's office staff, Plaintiff is advised as follows. First, in light of Plaintiff's repeated threats of a personal lawsuit against clerk's office staff, the court directs the clerk's office staff that they need not respond to Plaintiff's emails. Second, Plaintiff is ordered that any further communication with the clerk's office in this matter shall be by mail only. Third, Plaintiff is reminded that a similar order remains in effect regarding communications with the courtroom deputy and docket clerk. See Electronic Order 220 . Finally, now that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he may request reinstatement of his ECF privileges. Any such request for ECF privileges, however, shall be by motion on the docket and not by harassing emails.(Talwani, Indira) |
| Filing 629 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney #622 by Attorney Adam Keats and Motion to Withdraw as Attorney #623 by Attorneys Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, and Laura Hayes of Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 628 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE pursuant to LR 5.2 by Richard Strahan re 626 Order, . (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 627 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE pursuant to LR 5.2 by Richard Strahan re #622 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Service on Richard Max Strahan. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 626 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Attorney Thomas M. Sobel shall promptly serve his firm's Motion to Withdraw #623 , all papers filed in support, and this Electronic Order on Plaintiff Max Strahan and shall file a certificate of such service with the court. Any objection to the withdrawal shall be filed no later than February 14, 2022. See Local Rule 83.5.2(d). (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 625 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Attorney Adam Keats shall promptly serve a copy of his Motion to Withdraw #622 and this Electronic Order on Plaintiff Max Strahan and shall a file a certificate of such service with the court. Any objection to the withdrawal shall be filed no later than February 14, 2022. See Local Rule 83.5.2(d). (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 624 MEMORANDUM in Support re #623 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 623 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP by Richard Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 622 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Richard Strahan.(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 621 Opposition re #616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, for a Partial New Trial filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 620 Opposition re #616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, for a Partial New Trial filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 619 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing #618 MOTION for Extension of Time to 01/24/2022 to Respond to ECF #616. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 618 MOTION for Extension of Time to 01/24/2022 to Respond to ECF # 616 by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 617 MEMORANDUM in Support re #616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, for a Partial New Trial filed by Richard Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 616 MOTION to Amend #612 Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Standing and Vacate Judgment of Dismissal or, Alternatively, for a Partial New Trial by Richard Strahan.(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 615 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 614 Judge Indira Talwani: INDICATIVE RULING AS TO LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 613 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying as moot the #588 MOTION to Strike #574 Proposed Findings of Fact. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 612 Judge Indira Talwani: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON STANDING AND ORDER ON INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PARTIAL FINDINGS. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 611 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs re #576 Proposed Document(s) submitted, #577 Proposed Findings of Fact Supplemental Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 610 Judge Indira Talwani: Memorandum and Order DENYING Intervenor-Defendant Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Funds Renewed Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings #571 . (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 609 NOTICE by Richard Strahan re #600 Proposed Findings of Fact (SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 608 NOTICE by Richard Strahan of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 607 Response by Richard Max Strahan to #603 Notice (Other) re Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority [and Partial Objection]. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 606 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs re 604 Order on Motion for Clarification,,,,,,, Joint Notice Regarding Status Reports (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 605 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce re #603 Notice (Other) ATTACHMENT to Doc # 603 (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 604 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: allowing Motion for Clarification on Whether Commonwealth Defendants Should Resume Filing Status Reports #601 . On October 8, 2020, the court ordered Defendants to file a report every 30 days outlining their efforts to comply with the courts order of April 30, 2020, concerning an application for an Incidental Take Permit. Elec. Courts Notes 244 . The court subsequently suspended the report requirement for August but directed that thereafter, to the extent the case is open, Defendants shall file status reports unless the courts decision is imminent. The court now clarifies that it does not anticipate issuing a decision prior to September 27, 2021, and accordingly, a status report is due on that date.Plaintiff agrees that a Status Report should be filed, but complains that the Status Reports filed thus far compris[ed] one-sided advocacy. Pl.s Resp. #602 . Plaintiff asks that the report be subject to the parties meeting and conferring beforehand. Id. However, the Status Report, as envisioned by the court, serves a reporting function, not an advocacy function, where Defendants are required to relay the steps they are taking to comply with the courts directive that they promptly seek an Incidental Take Permit. Accordingly, counsel are directed to confer. If Plaintiff waives any objection to the Commonwealth Defendants filing their monthly report without meeting and conferring regarding such reports, the Commonwealth Defendants shall file their report no later than September 27, 2021. If Plaintiff does not waive his objection, the parties shall jointly notify the court and the court will stay the report requirement. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 603 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce re #576 Proposed Document(s) submitted (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 602 RESPONSE to Motion re #601 MOTION for Clarification filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 601 MOTION for Clarification by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) (Main Document 601 replaced on 9/23/2021) (Kelly, Danielle). Modified on 9/23/2021: Replaced document due to original document being incorrectly filed (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 600 Proposed Findings of Fact by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 599 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #594 Motion for Leave to File a Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 598 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #595 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Nathaniel J. Hyman terminated. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 597 Opposition re #588 MOTION to Strike #574 Proposed Findings of Fact , portions thereof filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 596 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating #591 Motion for Leave to File as superseded by #594 Motion for Leave to File. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 595 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 594 MOTION for Leave to File CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW [Revised per Order at ECF 593 to include L.R. 7.1 Cert.]] by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 593 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff shall promptly file a 7.1 Certificate in regards to his #591 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 592 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Hearing held on 9/2/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel. The motion at #580 is granted; reconsideration denied. Court heard closing arguments from counsel in connection with the Bench Trial (06/24/2021). Deft. Comm. renewed motion for a directed verdict. Case taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 591 MOTION for Leave to File A CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 590 REPLY to Response to #580 MOTION filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 589 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #587 Assented to Motion for Leave to File Reply re Motion Requesting that Court Consider the 2022 Proposed List of Fisheries as an Adjudicative Fact. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 588 MOTION to Strike #574 Proposed Findings of Fact , portions thereof by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 587 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply re Motion Requesting that Court Consider the 2022 Proposed List of Fisheries as an Adjudicative Fact by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 586 NOTICE Resetting a Hearing. Hearing set for 9/2/2021 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. PLEASE NOTE change to earlier time. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 585 Opposition re #580 MOTION Requesting Court Consider Proposed List of Fisheries for 2022 as Adjudicative Fact filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 584 Judge Indira Talwani: Order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Supplemental Production Regarding Defendants Communications with NMFS #582 . The Clerk is instructed to convert the Commonwealth Defendants Notice Regarding Publication of Federal Register #580 to a motion requesting that the court consider the proposed List of Fisheries for 2022 as an adjudicative fact for the purposes of these proceedings. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the Commonwealth Defendants motion no later than August 20, 2021. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 583 NOTICE Resetting a Hearing. Hearing set for 8/19/2021 is RESET for 9/2/2021 02:15 PM before Judge Indira Talwani. This hearing may be held in Courtroom 9 or may be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov.(MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 582 MOTION to Produce Supplemental Production re Defendants' Communications with the National Marine Fisheries Service by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 581 Opposition re #571 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Renewed) filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 580 Motion requesting that the court consider the proposed List of Fisheries for 2022 as an adjudicative fact for the purposes of these proceedings by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) Modified on 8/16/2021: Changed event type and docket text pursuant to Order #584 . (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 579 APPENDIX/EXHIBIT re #570 Proposed Findings of Fact (Table of Authorities) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 578 ELECTRONIC NOTICE issued requesting courtesy copy for: #570 Proposed Findings of Fact #571 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Renewed) #572 MEMORANDUM in Support re #571 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Renewed) #573 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Confirmatory) #574 Proposed Findings of Fact #575 Proposed Document(s) submitted. Document received: Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment #576 Proposed Document(s) submitted. Document received: Commonwealth Defendants' Proposed Rulings of Law. #577 Proposed Findings of FactCounsel who filed this document are requested to submit a courtesy copy of this document (or documents) to the Clerk's Office by Friday, August 6, 2021. These documents must be clearly marked as a Courtesy Copy, contain appropriate (number/letter) tabs, reflect the document number assigned by CM/ECF, and be placed in a 3-ring binder. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 577 Proposed Findings of Fact by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 576 Proposed Document(s) submitted by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Document received: Commonwealth Defendants' Proposed Rulings of Law. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 575 Proposed Document(s) submitted by Richard Max Strahan. Document received: Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 574 Proposed Findings of Fact by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 573 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Confirmatory) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 572 MEMORANDUM in Support re #571 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Renewed) filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 571 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (Renewed) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 570 Proposed Findings of Fact by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 569 STATUS REPORT Tenth by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 568 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: Plaintiffs Motion to Admit Public Records #535 seeks to enter into the record three letters written by Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively the Letters). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.The Commission is comprised of three members, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 16 U.S.C. 1401(b)(1). Each member is selected from a list of individuals knowledgeable in the fields of marine ecology and resource management who are unanimously agreed to by [the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality], the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences. Id. By statute, the Commission is directed to undertake a review and study of the activities of the United States pursuant to existing laws and international conventions relating to marine mammals; to conduct a continuing review of... all applications for permits for scientific research, public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock [of marine mammals]; to conduct other studies as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with its assigned duties as to the protection and conservation of marine mammals; and to recommend to the Secretary and to other Federal officials such steps as it deems necessary or desirable for the protection and conservation of marine mammals.... 16 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4). Recipients of the Commissions letters, here NMFS, are required to respond to the Commission and explain their decisions for why any recommendations were not followed or adopted. 16 U.S.C. 1402(d). By law, the Commissions reports and recommendations are matters of public record. 16 U.S.C. 1402(c).As discussed further below, the Commissions Letters comprise three broad categories of information. First, the Letters contain the recommendations of the Commission. Second, the Letters include some underlying facts on which the Commission bases its recommendations. Third, the Letters include several arguments as to Commissions interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.Plaintiff initially offered the Letters during his case-in-chief and the Commonwealth Defendants and the Massachusetts Lobstermen Survival Fund (Fund) objected on hearsay grounds. The court sustained the objection to the extent Plaintiff offered the Letters to establish Defendants liability. However, the court reserved ruling as to the admissibility of the documents for the purposes of rebuttal or for the purposes of remedies. See June 11, 2021 Hrg Tr. 47 #553 . Plaintiffs motion seeks to admit the documents to rebut several topics raised in Defendants case-in-chief, including the Decision Support Tool, NMFS 2021 Final Biological Opinion, NMFS Environmental Impact Statement and, more generally, testimony regarding the Commonwealth Defendants efforts to obtain an incidental take permit from NMFS. Defendants do not disagree that the Letters rebut issues presented in the State Defendants case-in-chief, but renew their objection that the Letters are inadmissible hearsay. See State Defs. Oppn 1-2 #542 ; Fund Oppn 1-3 [#544]. In addition, the Fund argues that the Letters are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 since they have little or no probative value.First, to the extent that the Letters are offered as evidence of the recommendations of the Commission, the Letters are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The Commissions recommendations were issued pursuant to the Commissions statutory charge for purposes independent of this specific legislation. As such, they are entitled to a presumption of trustworthiness, United States v. Phoeun Lang, 672 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir. 2012), and the burden is on the opposing party to overcome the presumption by undermining the records reliability. See Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (revd on other grounds) (citing Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 143 (2d Cir. 2000)). Here, both the State Defendants and the Fund contend that the Commissions recommendations are not trustworthy where the Commission has a protective mission that is biased toward the protection of [North Atlantic right whales] by design. State Oppn 4 #542 ; Fund Oppn 3 #544 . But Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that the findings of an independent agency acting properly under the authority granted to the agency by law are untrustworthy for the very fact that Congress has tasked the agency with a specific mission. Indeed, this is an untenable premise that would render the reports and findings of most, if not all, independent agencies untrustworthy. Moreover, the State Defendants improperly compare the Letters to documents containing the positions of individual agency staff members and draft memoranda not ultimately accepted by the Agency. State Oppn 5-6 #542 . This comparison is inapposite where the Letters here are the statutorily mandated findings and recommendations of the Commission. Finally, the Funds argument that the Letters should not be admitted because they are not probative to this case (or that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay) is not persuasive as to the admissibility of the Commissions recommendations, where the recommendations may have relevance to the appropriate remedy, in the event that the court reaches that issue.Accordingly, the Commissions recommendations, while not relevant to establishing Defendants liability, are admissible in connection with the courts determination of the appropriate remedy if the court reaches that issue.Second, to the extent that the Letters are offered as evidence of underlying facts, the court will not accept those underlying facts for the truth of the matter asserted. By statute, the Commission is largely not a fact-finding agency but is instead charged with making recommendations based upon its continuing review of other material. 16 U.S.C. 1402(c)(2). For this reason, even if the facts relied upon by the Commission may be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), the court finds more probative the expert testimony and primary source material offered by both parties and finds that any facts referenced in the Letters is cumulative and potentially confusing with the facts already in the record. Indeed, Plaintiffs motion does not point to any factual assertions in the Letters that is not already in the record.Third, to the extent that the Letters are offered for their legal arguments relating to the proper interpretation of federal law, the Letters are inadmissible as irrelevant since resolving questions of law is the exclusive responsibility of the court and not the Commission. The parties may make any arguments as to the proper interpretation of the statutes in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 567 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: During the June 9, 2021 examination of Robert Glenn, a program manager for the Division of Marine Fisheries, Plaintiff offered into evidence Exhibit 594B, a 2018 Technical Memorandum issued by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Technical Memorandum was authored by five individuals associated with NMFS and NMFS describes these Technical Memoranda as constituting an irregularly issued series of reports typically including data reports of long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies. Exhibit 594B at CW001300. NMFS further states that all Technical Memoranda receive internal scientific review. Id. The Commonwealth Defendants objected to the admission of Exhibit 594B on hearsay grounds and the court reserved ruling on the objection.The court finds that the NMFS Technical Memorandum falls under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. As the Fifth Circuit wrote in United States v. Stone, the public records and reports hearsay exception is designed to allow admission of official records and reports prepared by an agency or government office for purposes independent of specific litigation. 604 F.2d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1979); see also United States v. Romero, 32 F.3d 641, 650 (1st Cir. 1994) (finding a State Department report admissible as it was a statement by a public agency setting forth a routine activity of that agency.). Because of the presumed trustworthiness of public documents prepared in the discharge of official functions, United States v. Phoeun Lang, 672 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir. 2012), [o]nce proffered, a public record is presumptively admissible, and the opponent bears the burden of showing it is unreliable. Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (revd on other grounds) (citing Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 143 (2d Cir. 2000)). Where, as here, Defendants have put forth no basis for questioning the reliability of the document and, indeed, Glenns testimony revealed that his office relied upon the Technical Memorandum in its normal course of business, see June 9, 2021 Tr. at 55, 58-70, Defendants have not carried their burden of showing a lack of trustworthiness of the public record. Accordingly, Exhibit 594B is admitted. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 566 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Plaintiffs Motion to Admit Exhibit 3013 #546 . Plaintiff seeks to admit ten summary maps that plot North Atlantic right whale sightings from 2015 to 2020. Plaintiffs counsel has represented that these summary maps plot data from records admitted during trial. Id. at 2 (citing Exhs. 3009, 1033). The Commonwealth Defendants do not object to the admission of Exhibit 3013, however they do reserve the right to challenge its probative value. The Fund objects to the admission of Exhibit 3013 on the basis that the exhibit was prepared by Plaintiffs counsel and [t]here is no evidence that the plots on the charts are accurate. Fund Oppn #547 . Plaintiff contends that the Fund has waived any such objection because the Fund failed to raise the objection several times at trial, see Pl.s Oppn #549 , and the Fund has responded that there was no waiver where the exhibits were not disclosed in advance of trial. Fund Reply 12 [550-1].The court finds no waiver where these summary maps were not presented in advance of trial. Nonetheless, the objection is overruled where the summary maps are being admitted for a limited purpose, namely, as a visual depiction of the underlying data that is in evidence, as discussed during trial on June 23, 2021. To the extent that the Commonwealth Defendants or the Fund contend that the summary maps are inaccurate, misleading or unreliable, or of limited probative value, those arguments may be raised in the post-trial brief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Admit Exhibit 3013 #546 is GRANTED as limited here. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 565 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #550 Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Motion to Admit Exhibit 3013. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 564 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting #563 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 07-28-2021 for Post-Trial Submissions. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 563 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 07-28-2021 for Post-Trial Submissions by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit [Proposed] Order)(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 562 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 561 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 11 held on June 24, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 560 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 10 held on June 23, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 559 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 9 held on June 22, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 558 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 8 held on June 21, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 557 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 7 held on June 17, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 556 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 6 held on June 16, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 555 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 5 held on June 15, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 554 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 4 held on June 14, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 553 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 3 held on June 11, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 552 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 2 held on June 10, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 551 Transcript of Bench Trial - Day 1 held on June 9, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 8/5/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/13/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 550 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Motion to Admit Exhibit 3013 by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Surreply)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 549 REPLY to Response to #546 MOTION to Admit Exhibit 3013 Into Evidence filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 548 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #545 Joint Motion to enter documents (Exhibits 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012) into evidence. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 547 Opposition re #546 MOTION to Admit Exhibit 3013 Into Evidence filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 546 MOTION to Admit Exhibit 3013 Into Evidence by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 3013)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 545 Joint MOTION to enter documents (Exhibits 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012) into evidence by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 3009, #2 Exhibit 3010, #3 Exhibit 3011, #4 Exhibit 3012)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 544 Opposition re #535 MOTION to Admit Public Records Into Evidence filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 543 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #541 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to July 7, 2021 to File Maps of Whale Sightings. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 542 Opposition re #535 MOTION to Admit Public Records Into Evidence filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 541 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to July 7, 2021 to File Maps of Whale Sightings by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 538 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #529 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Exhibit List. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 540 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 11; trial completed on 6/24/2021: Pltf cross of Daniel McKiernan cont'd; redirect by Comm of MA; MA Lobster Fund; Comm of MA; Pltf recross. Defense both rested. Plaintiff requested to call a video rebuttal witness - Capt. Belanger; both Defts. objected; request DENIED. Trial closed. July 2 deadline for filing aforementioned charts and briefs. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due 7/23/2021 and must include TOC and TOA. Status Report suspended for June but shall be included w/7/23/21 submission; August status report suspended. Exhs. Admitted: 1016, 1015, 1017. Hearing set for 8/19/2021 02:30 PM before Judge Indira Talwani. This hearing may be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.) (Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 7/1/2021 to correct text (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 539 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 10 held on 6/23/2021. Pltff moved to admit 3 exhs re reports from The Marine Mammal Commission to the Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service; court heard argument; Defts. may submit a written response re admissibility in terms of hearsay public records argument. Pltff moved to admit Consortium Data issue maps; court heard argument; counsel may produce a month and year showing what month year looks like, charges for all 60 months and give a the summary of the charts; agree on a key and provide to the court. ea side give the aggregation of what partiess want judge to see. Plaintiff rested. MA Lobst moved for a direct verdict, Comm of MA moved for directed verdict; rulings reserved. Fund called Capt. Ryan Drohan; witness sworn; exam by Comm of MA; cross by Pltff; witness stepped down. Comm of MA called Eric Lorentzen; witness sworn; Fund exam; add'l cross by Pltff; witness stepped down. Comm of MA called Daniel McKiernan; witness sworn; Fund exam; Pltff cross. Trial adjourned for the day. Exhs. Admitted: 1050, 1061, 1056, 1052, 1053, 1062, 1035, 1010 (Fig. 2 only), 1046, 1105. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 537 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 9 held on 6/22/2021. MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund requested recall of Amy Knowlton re rope strength question; Plaintiff objected/requested to also re exam; granted; parties to confer as to recall. Plaintiff called Michael J. Moore; witness sworn; Dr. Moore offered as an expert witness; Fund objs.; Comm objs; court qualified Dr. Moore as an expert only with regard to veterinary, antrop., and whale health. Further qualified by the court as a habitat expert. Amy Knowlton recalled to the stand and remained under oath; exam by Fund; cross by Pltiff.; redirect by Fund. Recess 1:30-3PM. Comm of MA & MA Lobsterman cross exam of Dr. Moore; Pltf redirect; witness stepped down. Exhs. 579, 3003 (Figs. 1, 2, 4), 3001B admitted subject to checking Ropes Database (native so no printout) (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 535 MOTION to Admit Public Records Into Evidence by Richard Max Strahan.(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 536 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 8 held on 6/21/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel; counsel to confer and report re: remaining witnesses. Comm of MA called Mark W. Ring.; MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund exam; Plaintiff cross; Deft. Redirect; witness stepped down. Comm of MA called Frank Rose; MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund exam; Pltf. Cross; witness stepped down. MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund called John E. Farrell; Comm of MA exam; witness stepped down. MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund called Tess Browne; exam by Comm. Of MA; Pltf. Cross; witness stepped down. Deft Comm of MA called Prof. Robert Griffin offered as an expert, no obj, allowed; Pltff. Cross; Comm. MA redirect; witness stepped down. Comm of MA called Seth Macinko; offered as an expert; no obj; allowed; Pltff cross; redirect by Comm of MA; witness stepped down. Trial adjourned for the day. Exhs. Admitted: 1124, 3004 Demonstrative (picture of Stanley Thomas boat); 1070; 3005, 3006, 3007; 1069; (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 534 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER supplementing Electronic Orders 501 , 514 , and 525 regarding non-party Peter Corkeron's Motion to Quash #493 . Plaintiff's counsel having advised the court that Plaintiff does not intend to make a further filing regarding this motion, the motion to quash is ALLOWED. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 529 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Exhibit List (Unopposed) by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Parties' Amended Combined Exhibit List, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 528 DOCKETED IN ERROR. Please disregard. (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 6/21/2021 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 533 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 7 held on 6/17/2021. Direct exam of Amy Knowlton by Defts cont'd; Pltfs cross; witness stepped down. Defts called Burton Shank (appeared by video); witness sworn; Pltff cross; no redirect; witness stepped down. Deft. Exam of Knowles resumed; redirect by Comm of MA. Trial adjourned for the day. Exhs. Admitted: 582, 1122, 1171, 3001A, 3002, 1169. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 7/1/2021 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 527 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Commonwealth Defendants Motion for Order to Grant Leave to Designate Additional Witness #496 , limited to testimony on the subjects set forth in Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) deposition notice. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 526 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Motion for Leave to Present Testimony of Captain Dean Belanger by Video Deposition at Trial #467 .(IT, law2) |
| Filing 525 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER supplementing Electronic Order 514 regarding non-party Peter Corkerons Motion to Quash #493 . If Plaintiff still seeks to call Corkeron to testify as a percipient witness, Plaintiff shall file no later than June 21, 2021, a brief reply setting forth counsel's recollection of whether the Decision Support Tool was discussed with Corkerons counsel, and if so, Plaintiffs proffer of the fact testimony he expects Corkeron to provide.(IT, law2) |
| Filing 524 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool #435 . The court has and will continue to address evidentiary issues relating to the Decision Support Tool at trial. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 523 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing. Due to the federal holiday, the Bench Trial set for 6/18/2021 is canceled. Trial will resume 6/21/2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 522 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence Regarding Enforcement of Environmental Regulations and the Commonwealth's ITP Application #420 . Plaintiff's Motion contends that the Commonwealth Defendants should be precluded from offering evidence at trial relating to two topics (1) the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs' ("EEA") enforcement of state regulations protecting endangered marine species, and (2) EEA's counsel's advice on and work product regarding the merits of the Commonwealth Defendants' application for an Incidental Take Permit ("ITP"). During the June 2, 2021 Final Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff stated that the Commonwealth Defendants' Opposition #448 mooted the second topic based on the Commonwealth Defendants' representation that they did not intend to put forth evidence related to EEA's counsels advice. As to the remaining issue, Plaintiff argues that because counsel for the Commonwealth Defendants instructed EEA's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Dean Belanger, to not answer several questions based on the law enforcement privilege and other times preemptively cautioned Belanger to not breach the privilege in his answers to questions, the Commonwealth Defendants cannot now introduce any evidence "inuring to its benefit" on the topic of EEA's enforcement policies. Pl.'s Mem. 4 #421 . Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Commonwealth Defendants should not be permitted to produce evidence of five Final Decisions showing, in Plaintiff's words, "prompt revocations of commercial lobster fishing licenses from Massachusetts lobstermen." Pl.'s Mem. 5 #421 . Plaintiff's argument that the "fairness doctrine" commands that the Commonwealth Defendants may not produce any evidence as to its enforcement procedures where it asserted a privilege as to certain aspects of those procedures is unpersuasive. "The considerations-which underlie 'the fairness doctrine'-aim to prevent prejudice to a party and distortion of the judicial process that may be caused by the privilege-holder's selective disclosure during litigation of otherwise privileged information." Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 244, 248 (D. Mass. 2013) (citing In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 1987)). Here, Plaintiff has identified no such "selective disclosure" that would result in the privilege holder painting an incomplete picture of the EEA's enforcement efforts. For example, there is no contention that the Commonwealth Defendants have only produced examples of Final Decisions that are favorable to the Commonwealth Defendants' case (indeed, the Final Decisions the Commonwealth Defendants seek to offer are public documents not subject to the privilege). Nor is there any argument that the Commonwealth Defendants have disclosed otherwise privileged policies and procedures where favorable while also selectively asserting a privilege to those policies and procedures that are unfavorable. Because the court finds that Commonwealth Defendants' introduction of the five Final Decisions would not distort the record, Plaintiff's request that the Commonwealth Defendants be precluded from offering any such evidence is denied. Plaintiff may renew his objection if the Commonwealth Defendants seek to introduce evidence at trial that falls within the law enforcement privilege or otherwise paints an incomplete or incorrect picture of the Commonwealth Defendants' enforcement efforts because of the assertion of the privilege. The court will resolve these objections on a case-by-case basis. Plaintiff also raises a cursory objection to the timeliness of the Commonwealth Defendants' production of the five Final Decisions they intend to offer at trial. See Pl.'s Mem. 2, 8 #421 . Where the referenced Final Decisions were publicly available and where Plaintiff identifies no prejudice for the assertedly late production, preclusion on timeliness grounds is not appropriate. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 532 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 6 held on 6/16/2021. Day 6: Court addressed witness arrangements. Robert Glen direct exam by Defts cont'd.; Pltf cross; witness stepped down. Defts. called Amy Knowlton (offered as an expert witness; no obj. allowed.) Trial adjourned for the day. Exh. Admitted: 116, 1031, 2001, 2002, 544, 562, 226, 232, 225, 1068 (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 531 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 5 held on 6/15/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy re: Status Report: 6/15/21 due date vacated; filing of further reports to be raised at the conclusion of trial when schedule will be set for the briefing of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Comm of MA cross of Dr. Sharp contd; MA Lobsterman Surv. Fund Cross; redirect by Pltff; recross by Comm of MA; recross by MA Lobst. Fund; reredirect; witness stepped down. MA Lobst. Fund moved for a directed verdict; taken under advisement. Comm of MA presented opening statement; then called Robert Glenn; witness sworn; direct exam by Comm of MA. MA Lobst. Fund moved for a directed verdict; taken under advisement. Exhs. Admitted: 578, 291, 1078 (Sarah Sharps email that starts at the bottom of pg 1); 1036 (Table 13 only); 115, 1135, 160, 1169, 1171, 86; 671; 419 (Table S1 only) (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 521 NOTICE Regarding Witness Testimony by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Dorchak, Gregory) Modified on 6/16/2021: Corrected docket text (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 530 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 4 held on 6/14/2021. Case called. Pltff called Dr. Sarah Sharp; witness sworn; Commonwealth cross exam. Trail day adjourned. Exh. Admitted: 580, 290, 286, 406 (Fig. 3 only); 422 (Fig. 18, 19, 23 only) (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans, James Andrew Black) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 520 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 3 held on 6/11/2021. Case called. Comm.'s cross exam of Mr. Strahan continued; no cross by MA Lobsterman, no redirect; witness stepped down. Exhs. Admitted: 1067, 1032 1033 1051. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 519 NOTICE of Appearance by James Andrew Black on behalf of Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (Black, James) |
| Filing 518 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 2 held on 6/10/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy w/counsel. Plaintiff's direct exam. of Robert Glenn continued; cross reserved; no redirect; witness stepped down. Pltf called Daniel McKiernan; witness sworn; direct exam; Comm. Reserved cross; MA Lobsterman crossed; no redirect; witness stepped down. Pltf called Richard Maximus Strahan; witness sworn; direct; cross. Exhs. Admitted: 513 & 514 (tables only), 530, 670, 1134528 (w/o email cover sheet), 101, 603, 233, 465,467, 468, 473, 587 (cover page only) Court adjourned for the trial day. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 516 STIPULATION OF EXPECTED TESTIMONY REGARDING CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES DOCUMENTS BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF, THE DEFENDANTS, AND THE INTERVENOR by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 517 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Bench Trial Day 1 held on 6/9/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel. Plaintiff called Robert Glenn; witness sworn. Exhibits Admitted: 1013, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 47, 48, 52, 55, 58, 62, 68, 73, 80, 84, 87, 90, 95, 104, 1087, 214, 219, 0547, 1042, 1087, 1088, 1092, 1112, 1173, 117, 1030, 109, 85 & 88 - Table 3 & Table 4 only (each), 3000 (new). Updated Exhibit list to be filed. Court adjourned for the trial day. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.) (Attorneys present: Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah W. Brennan, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Maryanne Reynolds, Olaf Aprans) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 7/1/2021 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 515 Notice of Filing of Parties' June 9, 2021 Amended Combined Exhibit List by Richard Max Strahan.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 514 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: Before the court is Non-Party Peter Corkeron's Motion to Quash #493 . The court previously granted the motion to quash to the extent that Plaintiff sought Corkeron's testimony as an expert witness and ordered Plaintiff to file a response setting forth the subject of Corkeron's anticipated testimony as a percipient witness. See Elec. Order 501 . Plaintiff's Opposition #508 states that he seeks Corkeron's testimony as a percipient witness as to two topics. First, Plaintiff states that he may call Corkeron to rebut the factual testimony of one of the Commonwealth's retained expert witnesses, Amy Knowlton. Second, Plaintiff asserts that Corkeron is a fact witness to the construction and use of the Decision Support Tool. As the Commonwealth Defendants set forth in their Response #511 to Plaintiff's opposition, Plaintiff's argument that Corkeron may be able to rebut Knowlton's testimony improperly seeks to impeach Knowlton through a collateral issue-whether certain data exist at the New England Aquarium. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge Knowlton's reliance on such data, he may do so through cross-examination of Knowlton. He may not call Corkeron for testimony as a percipient witness on this collateral issue.That leaves Corkeron's potential fact testimony about the construction and use of the Decision Support Tool. Per Corkeron's counsel's representation that Plaintiff did not raise the need for Corkeron's testimony about the Decision Support Tool in the meet and confer, see Corkeron Mem. 2 #494 , Plaintiff is granted leave to file a two-page reply setting forth his counsel's recollection of whether the Decision Support Tool was discussed. Assuming that Plaintiff raised his need for Corkeron's testimony on the Decision Support Tool during the meet and confer, it remains unclear (1) what, if any, percipient knowledge Corkeron may have, and (2) what relevance any testimony may have to the facts in dispute here. Accordingly, the court anticipates ruling on the remainder of the motion to quash after the Commonwealth has offered Burton Shank's testimony on the Decision Support Tool, and Plaintiff submits a proffer on the fact testimony he expects Corkeron to provide. Corkeron is also granted leave to file a short reply addressing this question. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 513 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Filing Designations of Deposition of MEOEEA 30(B)(6) Witness Captain Dean Belanger (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 512 Amended Witness List by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 511 RESPONSE to Motion re #493 MOTION to Quash (Response to Plaintiff's Opposition) filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 510 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying without prejudice Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings #506 . Under Rule 52(a), on an action tried on the facts without a jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. If the court enters partial judgment under Rule 52(c), the court must still enter findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a). Accordingly, the court anticipates declining to render any judgment until the close of evidence, as permitted under Rule 52(c). Any renewed motion for judgment under Rule 52(c) shall be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 509 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #496 MOTION for Order to Grant Leave to Designate Additional Witness filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 508 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #493 MOTION to Quash filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 507 MEMORANDUM in Support re #506 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (after Plaintiff's Opening Statement) filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 506 MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings (after Plaintiff's Opening Statement) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 503 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order denying Massachusetts Lobstermens Survival Funds (the Fund) Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Moore #460 and denying in part and granting in part the Commonwealth Defendants Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Michael Moore #462 . The Fund and the Commonwealth Defendants make several challenges to all or some of Dr. Moores anticipated expert testimony. The court addresses the challenges in turn below.First, the Funds argument that Dr. Moores testimony should be excluded, in limine, as improper expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in the June 3, 2021 Memorandum and Order #497 denying the Funds Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Dr. Sharp #400 . Second, the Fund and the Commonwealth Defendants argument that Dr. Moore may only testify to that which he has perceived because he did not submit an expert report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) confuses the limitation placed on individuals not disclosed as experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) (whose testimony is confined to the the witnesss knowledge of... events, see Elec. Order 500 (citing Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103, 113 (1st Cir. 2003)) and those experts who have been properly disclosed as experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) but are nevertheless not required to submit an expert report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) because they have not been retained or otherwise employed for the purposes of providing expert testimony. Here, Dr. Moore was disclosed as an expert under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and, pursuant to this disclosure, the court permitted the Fund and the Commonwealth Defendants to depose Dr. Moore on his anticipated expert testimony. See Elec. Order 391 . As the First Circuit noted in Downey v. Bob's Disc. Furniture Holdings, Inc., the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert report requirement is not triggered by the content of the testimony insomuch as by the role the witness has played in the case. 633 F.3d 1, 7 n.3 (1st Cir. 2011). That is, when an expert is retained or specially employed for the purpose of offering expert opinion testimony, an expert report is required. Id. at 6. But where an experts opinion testimony arises not from his enlistment as an expert but, rather, from his ground-level involvement in the events giving rise to the litigation, an expert may provide expert opinion testimony without the obligation to submit a report under Rule 26. Id. Here, Dr. Moores relevant expert opinions do not derive from this litigation. Indeed, Dr. Moore testified on May 20, 2021 (less than three weeks before trial) that he had not had any conversations with either Plaintiff or his counsel about his anticipated testimony in this case. See Moore Dep. 5 [461-3]. Accordingly, as Dr. Moore was not required to submit an expert report, his testimony beyond matters as to which he was a percipient witness will not be precluded for not submitting an expert report. Third, the Commonwealth Defendants contend that Dr. Moore should be precluded from testifying about the likelihood of entanglement in Massachusetts state waters. The basis for the Commonwealth Defendants position is not clear. To the extent that the Commonwealth Defendants contend that Dr. Moore is not qualified to opine on this subject under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because Dr. Moore does not collect or analyze data himself, Commonwealth Mot. 7 #462 , the argument is unfounded. For the reasons set forth in the June 3, 2021 Memorandum and Order 6 #497 , Fed. R. Evid. 702 does not require that the proposed expert specialize in every topic on which he expresses an opinion. Instead, the question is whether the experts knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may provide the expert with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge helpful to the court in resolving a fact in dispute. See Gaydar v. Sociedad Instituto Gineco-Quirurgico y Planificacion, 345 F.3d 15, 2425 (1st Cir. 2003). Here, Dr. Moore may have knowledge helpful to the court on the likelihood of entanglement in Massachusetts state waters, and the appropriate mechanism for the Commonwealth Defendants challenge is through cross-examination and the proffer of competing expert testimony. Finally, the Commonwealth Defendants contend that Dr. Moore should be precluded from testifying about the economics of lobster fishing. Although Dr. Moore has co-authored an article on this topic, he acknowledges that the division of labor on the project was such that his contributions to the paper were limited to the biology of entanglements. In response, Plaintiff does not contend that Dr. Moore has any expertise that would assist the trier of fact on the challenged topic, but instead contends that Dr. Moore should be able to read the article into the record pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) (the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule). However, as set forth in the Rule, a statement in a treatise may only be admitted where the article is relied on by the expert on direct examination. As stated in the advisory committee notes, this limitation requires the admitting expert to be on the stand and available to explain and assist in the application of the treatise. Because Dr. Moore is unqualified to explain any statements or opinions in the text pertaining to the economics of lobster fishing (nor to defend them on cross-examination), he may not read them into evidence under the learned treatise exception. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 502 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion for Leave to Designate Additional Fact Witness #496 no later than 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 2021. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 501 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Pending before the court is Peter Corkeron's Motion to Quash Subpoena #493 . To the extent that Plaintiff seeks Peter Corkeron's testimony as an expert witness, the court grants the motion to quash for the reasons set forth therein and because the disclosure of Peter Corkeron as an expert witness was untimely. See Commonwealth Defs.' Motion to Exclude #411 ; Order 500 . To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to call Peter Corkeron as a fact witness, the motion remains before the court. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the Motion to Quash #493 no later than 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 2021, setting forth the subject of Peter Corkeron's anticipated testimony as a percipient witness. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 500 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony #414 requests that the Commonwealth Defendants be precluded from offering expert testimony from Daniel McKiernan, Robert Glenn, Eric Lorentzen, Therese Savageau, Mark Ring, Frank Rose, Erin Burke, Jared Silva, Burton Shank, Kristy Long, Shannon Bettridge, Sean Hayes, Tessa Browne, Ryan Drohan, Kellen OMaley, John Francis, and John Farrell (the named individuals) because the Commonwealth did not disclose the named individuals as experts under either Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C). In a later filing, Plaintiff also asserts that he has added potential rebuttal witnesses should the court allow the Commonwealth Defendants to present expert testimony from these named individuals. See Pl.s Oppn Mot. Preclude Testimony #430 . The Commonwealth Defendants agree that the named individuals were not disclosed under either Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C) but explain that they were disclosed as witnesses. The Commonwealth Defendants state that the named individuals are not experts for the purposes of Rule 26 expert disclosures but are percipient witnesses about [the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries] actions and decisions. Defs. Oppn 3 #446 . The Commonwealth Defendants argue that the named individuals, as percipient witnesses to those actions and decisions, may testify about their bases for making certain determinations and recommending certain regulatory changes. Defs. Oppn 3 #446 . The Commonwealth Defendants further clarify that they will not elicit testimony from any of the above-listed individuals regarding research or expert opinions outside of the scope of their regular job responsibilities as government employees. Id. Despite not disclosing the named individuals as expert witnesses under Rule 26, the Commonwealth Defendants are permitted to elicit testimony from the named individuals that draws from their expert knowledge to the extent necessary for the named individuals to accurately describe relevant events to which they are percipient witnesses. As the First Circuit explained in Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, the requirements of Rule 26 do not apply to a percipient witness who happens to be an expert. 344 F.3d 103, 113 (1st Cir. 2003) (the triggering mechanism for application of Rule 26's expert witness requirements is not the status of the witness, but, rather, the essence of the proffered testimony). Put differently, so long as the Commonwealth Defendants anticipated questioning seeks only to elicit the witnesss knowledge of those events, the testimony will be permitted even though the testimony may include statements containing the named individuals expert opinions. Id. The Commonwealth Defendants Motion in Limine to preclude expert testimony of witnesses who were not timely disclosed #411 seeks to exclude Plaintiffs potential rebuttal witnesses. Plaintiff states he identified the potential rebuttal witnesses for the sole purpose of rebutting the named individuals testimony. Pl.s Oppn #430 . Since Plaintiff does not dispute that the named individuals were properly disclosed as fact witnesses, and since the Commonwealth Defendants were not obligated to disclose these individuals as experts under Rule 26, Plaintiff is not entitled to rebut their testimony with testimony of witnesses who were not timely disclosed. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Defendants Motion in Limine #411 is ALLOWED. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 499 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the court is the Commonwealth Defendants Motion in Limine to Preclude General Admission of Scholarly Articles #412 .The Commonwealth Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiff from generally admitting scholarly articles or publications other than in the manner provided in Fed. R. Evid. 803(18). Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) provides that a statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet may be admitted where the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the experts admission or testimony, by another experts testimony, or by judicial notice. However, the Rule contains an important limitation that the out-of-court statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit. Notwithstanding Rule 803(18), Plaintiff contends that it may be more efficient to accept certain academic articles-which experts rely on-into evidence as exhibits. Pl.s Oppn 4 #445 .As the Advisory Committee explained in its notes accompanying the introduction of Rule 803(18), even if the contents of learned treatises may have a high standard of accuracy that ameliorates concerns about the evidences reliability, there is a separate concern that the treatise may be misunderstood and misapplied without expert assistance and supervision. In light of this concern, the Rule permits the admission of learned treatises as substantive evidence, but only when an expert is on the stand and available to explain and assist in the application of the treatise. Tart v. McGann, 697 F.2d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 1982) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) Advisory Committee Note).At the same time, in the context of a bench trial and to avoid unnecessary delay, the court will receive exhibits that would be admissible if read into evidence, as follows. Counsel may identify those portions of articles (including specific paragraphs, figures, or tables) the party seeks to have admitted under Rule 803(18) and the expert through whom the portion of the article will be offered and who can be examined to explain and assist the court in understanding that portion of the article. If opposing counsel do not object to the admission of an exhibit containing the identified portion of the article in lieu of having the portion read, the expert need not read the portion of the article into evidence but must be made available to be examined regarding the portion of the article. If opposing counsel do object, the court may have the expert read the portion into the record, and as appropriate, charge the time to the opposing party. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 498 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order DENYING Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's ("the Fund") Motion to Dismiss #489 . The Fund's motion contends that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #68 should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis that Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Commonwealth Defendants as Plaintiff is required to seek his requested relief from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Fund's pretrial motion to dismiss, whether considered a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), is untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (c); see also Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, 708 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 2013); Wright and Miller, 5C Federal Practice and Procedure § 1361 (3d ed.).While the Fund has not waived the defense that the complaint fails to state a claim by failing to file a timely pretrial motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2), any trial or post-trial motion raising similar arguments to those raised in the Fund's Motion to Dismiss #489 must address the precedent in this Circuit regarding Endangered Species Act Section 9 claims against state regulatory agencies such as the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. See, e.g., Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1997). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 505 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 504 Transcript of Pretrial Videoconference held on June 2, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 6/24/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/6/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/1/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 497 Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying #400 Motion in Limine; denying #418 Motion in Limine; and granting in part and denying in part #415 Motion in Limine. Please see attached order. (IT, law2) (Main Document 497 replaced on 6/4/2021) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 496 MOTION for Order to Grant Leave to Designate Additional Witness by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 495 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #462 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Michael Moore, #460 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Moore (Daubert) filed by Richard Max Strahan. (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)(Brennan, Hannah) |
| Filing 494 MEMORANDUM in Support re #493 MOTION to Quash filed by Peter Corkeron. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Kelly, Sarah) |
| Filing 493 MOTION to Quash by Peter Corkeron.(Kelly, Sarah) |
| Filing 492 NOTICE of Appearance by Mariel T. Smith on behalf of Peter Corkeron (Smith, Mariel) |
| Filing 491 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah P. Kelly on behalf of Peter Corkeron (Kelly, Sarah) |
| Filing 490 MEMORANDUM in Support re #489 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 489 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 488 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Final Pretrial Conference held on 6/2/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel re: 6/9/2021 bench trial and pending motions. Parties report case may last 12 days. Counsel to confer re: order of witnesses. Masks must be worn by anyone in the courtroom who has not received the COVID-19 vaccination. Courtroom 4 allows up to 26 people in total. Commonwealth reserved the right to present an opening statement. Counsel to provide Excel version of updated exhibit list. Tabbed exhibit binders shall include label on spine listing exhibits contained; binders to be provided to the court on 6/7/2021. Orders to follow. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Hannah W. Brennan, Thomas M. Sobol, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Maryanne Reynolds, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Olaf Aprans) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 487 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (Expedited/Daily) by Richard Max Strahan for proceedings held on June 2, 2021 Judge Judge Indira Talwani.. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 486 Parties' Combined Amended Joint Exhibit List (Leave to file granted on June 2, 2021) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.. (Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 485 REPLY to Response to #435 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool As Well As the Associated Documentary Evidence filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 484 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Reply #482 , limited to the nine page proposed brief attached as part of Exhibit A [482-1]. The court denies leave to file exhibits attached thereto. See Exhibit A 15-42 [482-1]. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 483 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #466 Joint Motion for Leave to File Amended Joint Exhibit List. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 482 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool and Associated Documentary Evidence by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 481 TRIAL BRIEF by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 480 TRIAL BRIEF Commonwealth Defendants' Trial Brief by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 479 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert Amy Knowlton #422 contends that the Commonwealth's expert witness disclosures for Amy Knowlton are inadequate and that the Commonwealth therefore should be precluded from offering any expert testimony at trial from Ms. Knowlton.Plaintiff contends first that Ms. Knowlton should be precluded from testifying on the ground that the Commonwealth's disclosures were untimely. The record before the court does not support Plaintiff's demand to preclude Ms. Knowltons testimony in its entirety where the Commonwealth: provided a timely expert report with a list of cited references (10 out of 13 of which were directly available to Plaintiff); provided additional documents (which the Commonwealth contends were inadvertently omitted at the time of the disclosure) prior to Ms. Knowlton's deposition; provided aggregate summaries of the underlying data; and provided upon the entry of a protective order the underlying data. To the extent some of these disclosures occurred after the deadline set by the court, nothing in the record before the court suggests harm from the late disclosures that would justify the broad preclusion order sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's second concern--that the disclosures (timely or not) are, in any event, insufficient to support the opinion testimony that the Commonwealth anticipates offering from Knowlton--is a matter to be addressed through cross-examination of the witness, not through a preclusion order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 478 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Commonwealth Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence on Commonwealth Defendants' Enforcement Efforts #413 requests that the court preclude Plaintiff's evidence on (1) the Commonwealth Defendants' actions to enforce (as opposed to obey) the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA"); (2) the Commonwealth Defendants' obeyance of the ESA outside the scope of Count I of the Amended Complaint; and (3) the Commonwealth Defendants' actions to enforce or to obey the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act.Count I--the only remaining count--of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 18 #68 alleges that the Commonwealth Defendants have violated Section 9 of the federal ESA by promulgating a regulatory scheme that causes takes of endangered whales and sea turtles. This Count does not raise any claim under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Moreover, a claim regarding the Commonwealth Defendants' enforcement of or compliance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act would raise 11th Amendment concerns. Accordingly, the Motion is allowed as to the Commonwealth Defendants' actions to enforce or to obey the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act.The Commonwealth Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint does not put them on notice of any allegation that they have failed to enforce the ESA or that they have failed to comply with the ESA, except as alleged in Count I, and that it would unfairly prejudice the Commonwealth Defendants to allow Plaintiff to introduce such evidence. The court agrees that the question of liability under Section 9 of the ESA does not turn on whether the Commonwealth Defendants have undertaken adequate efforts to enforce the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the Motion is allowed as to evidence relating to the Commonwealth Defendants' actions to enforce the ESA and to obey the ESA (other than as to Section 9) offered to establish liability.However, if the court finds a Section 9 violation and the Commonwealth Defendants contend that the court should nevertheless decline to enjoin the Commonwealth's licensing scheme on the ground that an injunction would be inequitable where the Commonwealth is likely to obtain an Incidental Take Permit that would render any future incidental takes of endangered species lawful, the Commonwealth Defendants will open the door to Plaintiff putting forth rebuttal evidence that may tend to show that the Commonwealth is not likely to obtain, or be able to maintain, an incidental take permit for the fishery. Because the ESA conditions the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit on considerations such as the steps that the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the applicant's activity on endangered species and the funding available to implement such steps, see 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B), if the Commonwealth Defendants open the door, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to present evidence supporting the Plaintiff's position that the state is unlikely to be awarded such a permit. While any such evidence may overlap with questions of the States enforcement of the ESA, the testimony will not be precluded on this ground but will be limited to the question of whether an Incidental Take Permit is potentially forthcoming and the Defendants may object to any such evidence on the grounds that it is irrelevant to that question. (Kelly, Danielle) Modified on 6/4/2021: Corrected docket text (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 477 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Possible Economic and/or Social Impacts of Injunctive Relief #407 requests that the court exclude all witness and documentary evidence concerning any possible economic and/or social impacts that may result from an injunction against the Commonwealth Defendants' licensing scheme. Plaintiff argues that the court is prohibited from considering the balance of the hardships and/or the public interest in fashioning any equitable relief. For the reasons set forth in the court's February 12, 2021 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial #309 , the court concludes that, while Plaintiff may be entitled to a presumption that the balance of the hardships and the public interest tip in favor of the protection of endangered species (assuming he is able to establish the Commonwealth Defendants' liability under the Endangered Species Act), the court is still required, under law and principles of equity, to consider both factors before issuing any injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion #407 is DENIED. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 476 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Motion in Limine to Preclude Parrot Testimony #405 objects generally to Plaintiff offering expert witnesses "to talk about the scientific papers authored by others." Fund Mot. 1 #405 . The specific objection and relief requested by the Fund's motion is not clear. To the extent that the Fund's argument is that Plaintiff's experts should be precluded from discussing the significance of research, the fund's motion is baseless. Experts may rely on the out-of-court statements of others to form the opinions they present in court. See United States v. Luna, 649 F.3d 91, 105 (1st Cir. 2011). To the extent that the Fund's argument is that Plaintiff's experts' testimony may not consist of "the mere repetition of the out-of-court statements of others," see id., there appears to be no disagreement between the parties as to that proposition. See generally Pl.'s Opp'n #445 . Accordingly, the Fund's Motion in Limine #405 is DENIED. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 475 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Excessive Exhibits #406 complains that the over 600 exhibits identified in Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosure are irrelevant, cumulative, and a waste of time. Thus, the Fund argues, "each and every" of the exhibits should be excluded. The Fund's argument that all exhibits are cumulative is unhelpful. Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must put forward evidence in support of his claim. Once a fact is established, additional evidence may be cumulative. At this juncture, however, the argument is premature.The Fund's argument that entanglements in fishing gear at large is undisputed and irrelevant is also misplaced. If facts relating to entanglement in fishing gear are indeed undisputed, the parties may certainly seek to enter into stipulations to streamline the trial. However, that entanglements at large may prove to be insufficient to establish liability does not make evidence of those entanglements irrelevant. Notably, the Fund's motion makes no further effort to explain why Plaintiffs' proffered exhibits are not relevant to these proceedings. The Fund also complains that the sheer number of exhibits identified as part of Plaintiff's pretrial disclosure has hindered its ability to prepare for this trial. Where the Fund's late entrance into this proceeding is largely the result of the Fund's own delay in seeking intervention, that late entry does not provide a basis to require Plaintiff to limit his exhibits. See February 17, 2021 Mem. & Order #312 (discussing the timing of the Fund's intervention and concluding it would be untimely if conditions on the Fund's intervention were not put into place). At the same, to avoid a burden on all parties and the court, Plaintiff would be well-advised to reduce his list of trial exhibits to ensure an efficient presentation of his case in the time allotted for trial. Accordingly, the Motion in Limine #406 to exclude all of Plaintiff's exhibits is DENIED. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 474 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Motion in Limine to Preclude Entanglements of Other Species #404 contends that any evidence of entanglement of species other than the North Atlantic right whale and sea turtles should be precluded on the basis that other species are morphologically different from North Atlantic right whales and sea turtles and because the Commonwealth's regulations close lobstering when North Atlantic right whales aggregate in Massachusetts waters. As an initial matter, the Amended Complaint 18 #68 asserts a cause of action under the Endangered Species Act for the Commonwealth Defendants' alleged takes of all "Endangered Species of Whales and Sea Turtles" and does not limit liability to just the North Atlantic right whale. Accordingly, evidence of entanglement in Massachusetts waters of other whale species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act falls within the allegations of the Amended Complaint #68 .As to non--endangered whales, Plaintiff states that he will offer evidence of entanglements not to establish liability under the Endangered Species Act for those entanglements, but because, Plaintiff contends, such evidence is relevant for assessing the factual questions in dispute. For example, Plaintiff states that he will offer expert testimony that evidence of entanglements of non-endangered whales is "a reasonable proxy for... entanglements of North Atlantic right whales" and that the evidence is relevant, for example, to the disputed question of fact of whether weak rope requirements for commercial trap gear will eliminate the risk of future entanglements (of endangered whales). To the extent that the Fund contends that evidence of entanglements of non-endangered whales is irrelevant due to morphological differences or habitat differences between endangered and non-endangered whales, that issue should be addressed through cross-examination or the proffer of competing testimony. (Kelly, Danielle) Modified on 6/4/2021: Corrected docket text (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 473 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER regarding statute of limitations. The parties' motions in limine and related filings have raised a potential question of law that need not be resolved for purposes of the motions in limine but may nonetheless need to be addressed prior to trial. The Fund's Motion in Limine to Preclude Old Evidence 1 #403 points to a decision in a suit against the Commissioner of Maine Department of Marine Resources in which the court explained that "[b]ecause the Endangered Species Act does not prescribe a statute of limitations, courts apply the six-year statute of limitations for suits against the United States." Man Against Xtinction v. Comm'r of Me. Dep't of Marine Resources, 478 F.Supp. 3d 67, 70 n.2 (D.Me. 2020). The Commonwealth Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony and Evidence on Pre-2010 Entanglements #410 points to the same decision and states that "[f]or purposes of this motion," the Commonwealth Defendants "assume that the statute of limitations under the Endangered Species Act is six years." Id. at 3, n.4. Plaintiff's Opposition 3 #456 asserts that "the six-year limitation the Fund proposes is baseless" and the "fact that courts apply a six-year statute of limitations for ESA suits against the United States" is "irrelevant." To the extent that Plaintiff or the Commonwealth Defendants contend that the court should apply a different statute of limitations in this action than that suggested by the Fund, the objecting party shall promptly provide legal authority for that contention. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 472 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: ALLOWING in part and deferring until trial in part Commonwealth Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony and Evidence on Pre-2010 Entanglements #410 . The Motion #410 asks the court to limit testimony or evidence regarding events prior to January 1, 2010, to general background information about North Atlantic right whales and endangered sea turtles and to preclude evidence and testimony related to prior resolved litigations or specific entanglements of large whales and entangled sea turtles that occurred prior to 2010. Plaintiff argues that the pre-2010 evidence is more appropriately handled on a case-by-case basis at trial. The court finds a blanket deferral of this issue until trial inefficient and considers here the various categories of evidence raised by Plaintiff in his Opposition #456 .As the court explained in the April 30, 2020 Memorandum and Order #206 , any claim by Plaintiff that the Commonwealth Defendants are liable for a violation of the Endangered Species Act that took place prior to 2010 is barred by Plaintiff's prior litigation against these same defendants that resulted in a final judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff concedes this point, but nonetheless objects to limiting testimony concerning events prior to 2010 to general background information about the North Atlantic right whales and endangered sea turtles. Plaintiff suggests that he seeks to introduce evidence about "the decades-long cycle of the Commonwealth's licensing VBRs, causing entanglements of endangered species of whales and sea turtles, and then passing symbolic, ineffectual remedial measures to evade liability in ESA lawsuits." Pl.'s Oppn 2 #456 . To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to relitigate facts resolved against him in the earlier litigation, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so. Instead, facts at issue in the earlier litigation may be considered through requests for judicial notice of those decisions. Plaintiff asserts that he may seek to impeach the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses with prior statements of the Commonwealth that contradict or undermine the credibility of its witnesses. Impeachment of an individual's own prior testimony is permissible. Impeachment of a witness by prior statements of the Commonwealth will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.Plaintiff seeks to introduce NMFS's denial of the Commonwealth's 1996 ITP application. The court will address this evidence on a case-by-case basis.Plaintiff seeks to introduce pre-2010 scientific studies and government reports showing trends in population dynamics, migration patterns, and health status of species. The court does not understand the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to seek to preclude this background information, and in any event, the court will address this evidence on a case-by-case basis or in response to other motions in limine. Plaintiff seeks to introduce the legislative history of and Congressional intent underlying the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The court does not anticipate allowing this information to be introduced as trial evidence, and instead treats the issue of the proper interpretation of these laws to be matters of statutory construction addressed through attorney briefing with appropriate citation to legislative history. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 471 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Motion in Limine to Preclude Old Evidence #403 seeks to preclude all evidence that is outside of the statute of limitations. However, evidence of events that fall outside a statute of limitations does not become irrelevant because those events cannot, themselves, form the basis for liability. See Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 610 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2010) ("[E]vidence of events that fall outside the statute of limitations may still be admitted as relevant background evidence to show that discriminatory animus motivated the acts that occurred within the statute of limitations") (citing Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 62, 76 (1st Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff introduces evidence of entanglements prior to the statute of limitations for background evidence or context, to impeach a witness, or to show data trends (as Plaintiff states is his intention), the evidence is potentially relevant and admissible. Of course, "[w]hether such evidence is relevant depends, as in every case, on its probative force (or lack thereof)," Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 62, 76 (1st Cir. 2004), and stale evidence may be challenged at trial as irrelevant and thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 based on what the Plaintiff seeks to use that evidence to establish. However, any such rulings will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Fund's Motion #403 is DENIED without prejudice to renew at trial. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 470 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Motion in Limine to Preclude Portions of Government Reports #402 makes a generalized objection to the admission of government reports identified in Plaintiff's pretrial disclosures. While the Fund acknowledges that some of the reports may be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) even if they contain hearsay, the Fund contends that other reports should not be admitted because they contain hearsay within hearsay. However, the Fund does not identify which report(s) it finds objectionable but instead demands that Plaintiff identify those reports that it contends to be admissible. By disclosing the reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) as documents that Plaintiff expects to (or may) offer at trial, Plaintiff has taken the position that these documents are admissible. If the Fund objects to specific documents or portions of documents as containing hearsay within hearsay, the Fund needs to identify the objectionable document or portion of the document so that Plaintiff may respond to the objection. Accordingly, the Fund's motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewing its objection at trial to individual exhibits, or portions of individual exhibits, the Fund contends to be inadmissible. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 469 TRIAL BRIEF by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 468 MEMORANDUM in Support re #467 MOTION for Leave to Present Testimony of Captain Deal Belanger by Video Deposition at Trial filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 467 MOTION for Leave to Present Testimony of Captain Deal Belanger by Video Deposition at Trial by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 466 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Amended Joint Exhibit List by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit [Proposed] Order, #2 Exhibit Amended Joint Exhibit List)(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 465 NOTICE Resetting a Hearing. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/2/2021 02:30 PM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Indira Talwani. This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov.(MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 464 Opposition re #435 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool As Well As the Associated Documentary Evidence filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 463 EXHIBIT re #419 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, Exhibit B (filed separately due to technical difficulties and size constraints) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Strahan Expert Report, #2 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Strahan Expert Report, #3 Exhibit Ex. 3-1 to Strahan Expert Report, #4 Exhibit Ex. 3-2 to Strahan Expert Report, #5 Exhibit Ex. 3-3 to Strahan Expert Report, #6 Exhibit Ex. 4 & 5 to Strahan Expert Report)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Attachment 2 replaced on 6/1/2021 - removed blank pages) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 462 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Michael Moore by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 461 MEMORANDUM in Support re #460 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Moore (Daubert) filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 460 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Moore (Daubert) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 459 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #458 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to June 1, 2021 to File Trial Briefs. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 458 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to June 1, 2021 to File Trial Briefs by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 457 Opposition re #413 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Evidence on Commonwealth Defendants' Enforcement Efforts filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 456 Opposition re #410 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony and Evidence on Pre-2010 Entanglements, #403 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Old Evidence filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 455 Amended Opposition re #414 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 454 Opposition re #415 MOTION in Limine to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiff R. Strahan (Daubert) and to limit Plaintiff's presentation of evidence filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 453 Opposition re #404 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Entanglements of Other Species filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 452 Opposition re #406 MOTION in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Excessive Exhibits filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 451 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 450 Opposition re #402 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Portions of Govt. Reports filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 449 Opposition re #422 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert Amy Knowlton Based on the Commonwealth Defendants' Failure to Timely Produce Facts or Data Considered filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 448 Opposition re #420 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence Regarding Enforcement of Environmental Regulations and the Commonwealth's ITP Application filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 447 Opposition re #407 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Possible Economic and/or Social Impacts of Injunctive Relief filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 446 Opposition re #414 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 445 Opposition re #405 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Parrot Testimony, #412 MOTION in Limine to preclude general admission of scholarly articles filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 444 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #400 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Dr. Sarah Sharp (Daubert), #418 MOTION in Limine to Preclude in Part Dr. Sharp's Expert Testimony filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Brennan, Hannah) |
| Filing 443 Opposition re #407 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Possible Economic and/or Social Impacts of Injunctive Relief filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 2001)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 442 Objection by Richard Max Strahan to Commonwealth Defendants' and Intervenor's Witnesses. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 441 Parties' Combined Trial Exhibit List by Richard Max Strahan.. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 440 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing nunc pro tunc Defendant-Intervenor's #437 Unopposed Motion to Allow filing of Amended Pretrial Disclosure #431 . (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 439 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Plaintiff's Assented to Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Exhibit List #432 .Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 438 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #434 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to May 24, 2021 to File Joint Pretrial Memorandum and Responses to Motions in Limine. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 437 Assented to MOTION to Allow Filing of Amendment to Pretrial Disclosure re #431 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 436 MEMORANDUM in Support re #435 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool As Well As the Associated Documentary Evidence filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 435 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Expert and Lay Testimony on the Decision Support Tool As Well As the Associated Documentary Evidence by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 434 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 24, 2021 to File Joint Pretrial Memorandum and Responses to Motions in Limine by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 433 EXHIBIT re #432 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Trial Exhibit List (Unopposed) by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 432 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Trial Exhibit List (Unopposed) by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 431 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 430 Opposition re #411 MOTION in Limine to preclude expert testimony of witnesses who were not timely disclosed filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 429 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's ("Fund") Emergency Motion to Preclude Dr. Moore from Testifying at Trial #427 . The Fund has not shown cause to exclude Dr. Moore's trial testimony or to preclude the "white paper, and any facts and opinions contained therein" from being introduced at trial. Dr. Moore is not a retained expert in this matter. The court nonetheless denied his motion to quash the Commonwealth Defendants' subpoena seeking his deposition testimony because Plaintiff has disclosed Dr. Moore as a witness he may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. See Elec. Order 391 . Dr. Moore's counsel has given notice that an article by Dr. Moore will be published on June 3 (after the deposition, but in advance of trial), and that public dissemination in advance of that date is unauthorized. Dr. Moore's counsel has offered to provide that article in advance of Dr. Moore's deposition subject to an agreement to maintain its confidentiality until publication. The court finds that offer reasonable and no basis for the relief requested by the Fund.Accordingly, counsel for the Fund may proceed as follows. First, if the Fund's counsel is not willing to agree to the confidentiality provision, the Fund shall not be provided an advance copy of the article and shall be excluded from the deposition during questioning related to the article, but shall be provided a copy of the article and access to the deposition transcript on June 3, 2021; alternatively, the Fund shall agree to and abide by the confidentiality agreement, and then may receive a copy of the white paper and attend all portions of the deposition. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 428 RESPONSE to Motion re #427 Emergency MOTION to Strike Testimony of Dr. Moore (in whole or in part) filed by Michael J. Moore. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Oetheimer, Richard) |
| Filing 427 Emergency MOTION to Strike Testimony of Dr. Moore (in whole or in part) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 426 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #417 Motion for Extension of time to serve motion in limine with respect to documents produced by the Commonwealth on May 12, 2021. Any motion in limine related to the materials produced by the Commonwealth defendants on May 12, 2021, shall be filed no later than May 20, 2021. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 425 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 424 MEMORANDUM in Support re #422 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert Amy Knowlton Based on the Commonwealth Defendants' Failure to Timely Produce Facts or Data Considered filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 423 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan Filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Trial Exhibit List Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 269A)(3)(A) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) (Attachment 1 replaced on 5/17/2021 - replaced with corrected version from counsel) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 422 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert Amy Knowlton Based on the Commonwealth Defendants' Failure to Timely Produce Facts or Data Considered by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 421 MEMORANDUM in Support re #420 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence Regarding Enforcement of Environmental Regulations and the Commonwealth's ITP Application filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 420 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence Regarding Enforcement of Environmental Regulations and the Commonwealth's ITP Application by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 419 MEMORANDUM in Support re #415 MOTION in Limine to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiff R. Strahan (Daubert) and to limit Plaintiff's presentation of evidence filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (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)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 418 MOTION in Limine to Preclude in Part Dr. Sharp's Expert Testimony by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 417 MOTION for Extension of Time to May 20, 2021 to File Motion In Limine With Respect to Documents Produced by the Commonwealth on May 12, 2021 by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 416 MEMORANDUM in Support re #414 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 415 MOTION in Limine to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiff R. Strahan (Daubert) and to limit Plaintiff's presentation of evidence by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 414 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 413 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Evidence on Commonwealth Defendants' Enforcement Efforts by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A (Strahan Fact Depo. Tr.))(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 412 MOTION in Limine to preclude general admission of scholarly articles by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 411 MOTION in Limine to preclude expert testimony of witnesses who were not timely disclosed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 410 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony and Evidence on Pre-2010 Entanglements by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 409 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Com. Defendants' Amended Exhibit List)(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 408 MEMORANDUM in Support re #407 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Possible Economic and/or Social Impacts of Injunctive Relief filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 407 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Possible Economic and/or Social Impacts of Injunctive Relief by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 406 MOTION in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Excessive Exhibits by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 405 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Parrot Testimony by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 404 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Entanglements of Other Species by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 403 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Old Evidence by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 402 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Portions of Govt. Reports by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 401 MEMORANDUM in Support re #400 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Dr. Sarah Sharp (Daubert) filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 400 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Dr. Sarah Sharp (Daubert) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) (Main Document 400 replaced on 5/17/2021 - removed blank pages) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 399 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 398 STIPULATION and Protective Order by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 397 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying Motion to Compel Center for Coastal Studies #376 as moot in light of Commonwealth Defendants' reported resolution of the dispute. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 396 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing. Motion Hearing 05/12/2021 at 4:00 p.m. is canceled. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 395 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion #376 MOTION to Compel Center for Coastal Studies to Produce Unredacted Copies of Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network Case Pages: Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2021 04:00 PM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Indira Talwani. This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov.(MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 394 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 5/11/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel. Bench trial to begin 6/9/2021 in-person in Courtroom 4 and may proceed that way or may change to video conf. for the remainder of trial. Trial testimony of Dr. Moore will take place by video on 6/22/2021. Any motions in limine regarding Dr. Moore's testimony may be filed 5 days after his deposition. Court held colloquy on MLSF's Motion for Protective Order #355 . MLSF confirmed that witnesses will only testify as to the culture of lobster fishing and any cultural impacts that may result from restrictions/closures; based on that limitation on testimony, MLSF's motion granted as to discovery directed to witnesses financial circumstances and the plight of the right whale. MLSF is directed to respond to Plaintiff's request for witnesses' licenses dating back 5 years by producing the licenses or truthfully reporting that licenses cannot be found. Court discussed requirements for trial briefs, pretrial memos, and post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Deadline for findings of fact and conclusions of law will be set for approximately 2 weeks after close of trial; exact date to be determined. Unless resolved beforehand, a motion hearing will be set for 4:00 p.m. on 5/12/2021 by video to resolve Plaintiffs Motion to Compel #376 . Final pretrial conference set for 06/02/2021 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 4. Parties shall alert the court if another interim conference would be of assistance. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.) (Attorneys present: Hannah W. Brennan, Thomas M. Sobol, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Maryanne Reynolds, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Olaf Aprans, Richard A. Oetheimer) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 5/12/2021 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 393 Opposition re #376 MOTION to Compel Center for Coastal Studies to Produce Unredacted Copies of Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network Case Pages (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel) filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, Correspondence, #2 Exhibit 2, Correspondence, #3 Exhibit 3, Correspondence)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 392 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing Intervenor's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order #379 . As requested by Intervenor, the court treats the Motion for Leave to File #379 as Intervenor's operative Reply. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 391 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the court is Non-Party Michael Moore's Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena #345 and Defendant-Intervenor Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's (the "Fund") Cross-Motion #346 seeking to preclude Dr. Moore's testimony at trial. Dr. Moore is the Director of the Marine Mammal Center at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Plaintiff sought Dr. Moore's deposition during the period set by the court for fact discovery and Dr. Moore provided two depositions. First, in July 2020, in accordance with Dr. Moore's preference, Plaintiff deposed Dr. Moore by written questions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Then, in January 2021, Plaintiff deposed Dr. Moore by oral questions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. The Commonwealth Defendants cross-questioned Dr. Moore under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(5) and were permitted one hour for oral cross-examination under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Prior to the oral deposition, the Commonwealth Defendants sought confirmation from Plaintiff that Dr. Moores January 2021 deposition was as a fact witness and not as an expert and Plaintiffs response was somewhat elusive. In March 2021, during the period set by the court for expert discovery, Plaintiff served a Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure [345-2] identifying Dr. Moore as a witness Plaintiff may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Thereafter, the Commonwealth Defendants approached Dr. Moore about providing another three-hour deposition. Dr. Moore refused to sit for another deposition, at which point the Commonwealth Defendants subpoenaed Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore's Motion to Quash #345 and the Fund's Cross-Motion to Preclude #346 followed. As an initial matter, Dr. Moore is not required to submit a written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Fund argues that "[i]n the First Circuit, the triggering mechanism to provide a report, 'is not the status of the witness, but, rather, the essence of the proffered testimony.'" Fund Opp'n 4 #346 (quoting Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103, 113 (1st Cir. 2003)). The Fund misquotes the applicable law; in Gomez, "the essence of the proffered testimony" was the triggering mechanism "for application of Rule 26s expert witness requirements" generally, not the report requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Id. (emphasis added). The triggering mechanism for the report requirement is the status of the disclosed witness, as a report is required "if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Because Dr. Moore is not a retained expert or an employee of Strahan whose duties regularly involve giving expert opinion, Dr. Moore is not required to submit an expert report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). However, Plaintiff remains subject to the other applicable provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. This includes Plaintiff's duty to disclose the substance of Dr. Moore's testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). This required disclosure includes not only "the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence," but also "a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." Plaintiff's Initial Expert Disclosure [345-2] was facially deficient as it failed to set forth a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness was expected to testify, broadly asserting instead that "[t]he facts and opinions to which the witness will testify are set forth in his depositions, his expert declarations, his papers and writings, and the opinions he offered therein." Plaintiff's April 29, 2021 Amended Expert Disclosure 3-21 #384 resolves this deficiency to some degree by identifying ten "sets of facts and opinions" to which Dr. Moore is expected to testify. Accordingly, the Funds; Cross-Motion #346 is DENIED. Plaintiff's disclosure of Dr. Moore as an expert gives rise to Defendants' rights, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), to depose Dr. Moore regarding the facts and opinions that Plaintiff has now identified in the amended disclosure. Plaintiff's assertion that the July 2020 cross-questions and the January 2021 deposition could have provided Defendants with a sufficient basis for inquiring with Dr. Moore as to his expected testimony is misplaced where it was not Defendants' obligation to anticipate Plaintiff's later disclosure. And while Dr. Moore argues that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A) does not provide Defendants with a right to depose him because "he was an actor or viewer with respect to the transactions or occurrences", see Moore Mot. Quash 3 n.1 #345 , this argument is unpersuasive where the substance of Dr. Moore's anticipated testimony relates not to his observations of the events but to opinions he holds based on his lifetime of work in this field. The court is mindful that Dr. Moore is a non-party to this litigation and that he has already provided testimony. The court finds no basis to penalize Defendants, however, where it was Plaintiff's decision to depose Dr. Moore before disclosing him as an expert witness, and Defendants objected to proceeding with the oral deposition in advance of expert disclosures and expressly reserved their rights to take Dr. Moores deposition following such disclosures. For these reasons, Dr. Moore's Motion to Quash #345 is DENIED. The Commonwealth Defendants may depose Dr. Moore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), for up to three hours. The Commonwealth Defendants shall compensate Dr. Moore a reasonable fee for his deposition time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E). The parties shall be prepared to discuss the timing for Dr. Moore's deposition at today's conference. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 390 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of filing Joint Proposed Agenda for May 11, 2021 Intiial Pretrial Conference (Sobol, Thomas) (Main Document 390 replaced on 5/11/2021 - Replaced with corrected version from counsel) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 389 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION pursuant to LR 7.1 re #379 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order by Olaf Aprans on behalf of Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 388 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered ALLOWING #386 Joint Motion for Order for Entry of Proposed Amended Scheduling Order. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 387 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Filing of Plaintiff's Amended Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A)(3)(A) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 386 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Proposed Amended Scheduling Order by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 385 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #382 Notice (Other) re Dr. Michael Moore's Deposition and His Correspondence with Plaintiff (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 384 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Plaintiff's Amended Rule 26(A(2)(C) Disclosure and Summary of Expected Testimony of Non-Retained Expert Dr. Michael Moore (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Certificate of Service)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 383 Objection to #381 Notice (Other) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund . (Attachments: #1 Supplement Amended Moore Disclosure)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 382 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore AMENDED (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 381 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 380 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE pursuant to LR 5.2 by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund re #379 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order (Corrected). (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 379 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 378 NOTICE by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 377 MEMORANDUM in Support re #376 MOTION to Compel Center for Coastal Studies to Produce Unredacted Copies of Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network Case Pages filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 376 MOTION to Compel Center for Coastal Studies to Produce Unredacted Copies of Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network Case Pages by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 375 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: First, the Stipulation and [proposed] Protective Order #374 is ambiguous. The first page makes no mention of Defendants or Intervenor and states instead that the agreement is between Plaintiff and Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies ("CCS"), and that it shall bind and inure to the benefit of Plaintiff, CCS, and third parties who consent to be governed by its terms. The proposed Protective Order is nonetheless signed by counsel for Defendants and Intervenor. Any renewed Stipulation and [proposed] Protective Order shall clarify whether the Defendants and Intervenor are or are not parties to the Stipulation. Second, the Stipulation and [proposed] Protective Order #374 seeks a blanket sealing order for all purposes, including pretrial and trial proceedings. Blanket sealing orders are prohibited under Local Rule 7.2. Any motion requesting leave of court to file materials under seal must include a particularized showing for the need for impoundment. The court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a "presumptive" right of access to judicial documents, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)), "'only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.'" Id. (quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the public's presumptive right of access. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted") (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)); Miller v. City of Bos., 549 F. Supp. 2d 140, 141 (D. Mass. 2008) ("The proponent of a Protective Order bears the burden of establishing 'good cause' for its continuation" (internal citation omitted)). For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 60. Accordingly, the [proposed] Protective Order may require the parties to seek leave to file matters under seal, and may allow CCS an opportunity to provide a showing as to why the matter should be filed under seal, but may not purport to bind this court as to whether a particular document may or may not be filed under seal. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 374 STIPULATION (Stipulation and Protective Order) by Center for Coastal Studies. (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 373 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Plaintiff's Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A(3)(A) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 372 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 371 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Addendum I to Joint Protective Order: Confidential Information. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 370 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #368 Joint Motion for Protective Order (Addendum I to Joint Protective Order: Confidential Information) (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 369 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 368 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (Addendum I to Joint Protective Order: Confidential Information) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 367 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #355 MOTION for Protective Order by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 366 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. The Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents #337 is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 363 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 362 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #361 Joint Motion for Order to Amend Scheduling Order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 361 Joint MOTION for Order to Amend Scheduling Order by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order)(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 360 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: As set forth more fully on the record at the April 21, 2021 initial pretrial conference, Plaintiff shall amend (and file) his disclosures relating to testimony he seeks to elicit from Dr. Moore by April 29, 2021. The Commonwealth Defendants shall then file a notice, no later than May 6, 2021, setting forth whether the Commonwealth Defendants contend that the supplemental disclosure(s), in combination with Dr. Moore's earlier written answers to questions, and previous deposition testimony, are sufficient to provide the Commonwealth adequate notice of Dr. Moore's anticipated testimony without the need for a third deposition of a non-party witness. If so, the court anticipates allowing the Commonwealth Defendants an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Moore at trial to challenge his opinions; if not, the court anticipates ruling on Dr. Moore's Motion to Quash #345 on the papers at that time. As also discussed more fully on the record at the April 21, 2021 conference, the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Deem Admitted Responses to Requests for Admission and Compel Production of Documents #337 is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and REMAINS UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART as follows.Defendants' Document Requests Nos. 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25 concern documents in Plaintiff's possession or control supporting various contentions made in the complaint. Plaintiff does not dispute that Document Requests Nos. 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25 are relevant and does not assert that these requests are unduly burdensome. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the requests are moot since Plaintiff has disclosed every document that he will rely on at trial. This argument confuses Plaintiff's obligation to disclose his case with his obligation to produce relevant discovery of materials in his possession so that Defendants may evaluate Plaintiffs claims and make their case. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted as to these documents, and Plaintiff shall provide complete productions in response to requests Nos. 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25 no later than April 29, 2021.Defendants' Requests for Admission Nos. 4, 7, 8, and 19 concern allegedly false statements that Plaintiff has made either during this litigation or to the Commonwealth Defendants outside of this litigation. Plaintiff asserts that the Requests for Admission are irrelevant since, inter alia, Plaintiff's credibility is not at issue in this matter. However, Plaintiff has offered himself both as a fact witness and as an expert witness, and in either role, he will be testifying under oath and his credibility is properly considered by the court. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall respond to Requests for Admission Nos. 7 and 8, which concern his candor to the court in this proceeding, by April 26, 2021. At the same time, credibility is not properly attacked through contradictory statements on collateral matters and because Requests for Admission 4 and 19 go to collateral issues not directly involving this litigation, Defendants' motion to compel responses as to those requests are denied.Defendants also seek to compel responses to Document Requests Nos. 2-8 and 24 and documents related to statements Plaintiff made during his deposition. The motion to compel these responses remains under advisement. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 365 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 364 Transcript of Pretrial Conference held on April 21, 2021, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 5/13/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/24/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 359 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 4/21/2021. Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel. Jurisdictional challenge raised by Commonwealth Defendants should be described in Joint Pretrial Memorandum due 5/21/21. Bench trial set for 6/9/21-6/24/21, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (may change to full days) in Courtroom 4. NOTE change in courtroom. Pending motions taken under advisement. Regarding Motion to Quash #345 , by 4/29/21 Plaintiff to amend disclosures to specify what is sought from Michael J. Moore; defendants shall file a notice 1 week after as to whether the disclosure and the opportunity for cross-examination of Dr. Moore is sufficient. If not resolved, court will adjudicate motion. As to Commonwealth Defendants Motion to Deem Admitted Responses and Compel Production of Documents #337 , Plaintiff shall provide factual answer to Request for Admission 7 & 8 by 4/26/21 or must otherwise file an explanation. Furthermore, Plaintiff shall supplement document requests as set forth by the court by 4/29/21. Interim Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2021 03:15 PM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Indira Talwani. Pretrial Conference Final 6/2/2021 02:30 PM in Courtroom 4. The Interim Pretrial Conference will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Olaf Aprans, Hannah W. Brennan, Thomas M. Sobol, Rachel A. Downey, Laura G. Hayes, Adam F. Keats, Maryanne Reynolds, Nathaniel J. Hyman, Rachel M. Brown, James A. Sweeney, Richard A. Oetheimer) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 358 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Richard Max Strahan for proceedings held on April 21, 2021 Judge Judge Indira Talwani.. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 357 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Joint Proposed Agenda for April 21, 2021 Intial Pretrial Conference (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 356 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Plaintiff's Proposed Requests for Production Based on Fund's Third Amended Disclosures (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 355 MOTION for Protective Order by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 354 Opposition re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 353 Opposition re #337 MOTION for Discovery to Deem Admitted Responses to Requests for Admission and to Compel Document Production and Cross-Motion for Protective Order filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 352 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 351 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Rebuttal Expert Report #350 as follows. The time for completion of rebuttal expert disclosures in the Second Amended Scheduling and Pretrial Order #283 is extended to April 16, 2021. All further dates remain as set in that order, but the court anticipates granting a joint motion to amend the deadline for expert depositions if necessary. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 350 MOTION for Extension of Time to April 16, 2021 to Serve Rebuttal Expert Report by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 349 RESPONSE to Motion re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 348 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2021 02:30 PM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Indira Talwani. This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov.(MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 347 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Land on behalf of Michael J. Moore (Land, Christopher) |
| Filing 346 Opposition re #345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore and Cross Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 345 MOTION to Quash Deposition Subpoena directed to Dr. Michael J. Moore by Michael J. Moore. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2 Part 1 of 10, #3 Exhibit 2 Part 2 of 10, #4 Exhibit 2 Part 3 of 10, #5 Exhibit 2 Part 4 of 10, #6 Exhibit 2 Part 5 of 10, #7 Exhibit 2 Part 6 of 10, #8 Exhibit 2 Part 7 of 10, #9 Exhibit 2 Part 8 of 10, #10 Exhibit 2 Part 9 of 10, #11 Exhibit 2 Part 10 of 10)(Oetheimer, Richard) |
| Filing 344 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard A. Oetheimer on behalf of Michael J. Moore (Oetheimer, Richard) |
| Filing 343 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re 342 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, Defendants' Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 342 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendants' Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Rebuttal Expert Report #340 as follows. The time for completion of rebuttal expert disclosures in the Second Amended Scheduling and Pretrial Order #283 is extended to April 13, 2021. All further dates remain as set in that order, but the court anticipates granting a joint motion to amend the deadline for expert depositions if necessary.Rebuttal expert disclosures concern "evidence [that] is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under [Fed. R. Civ. Proc.] 26(a)(2)(B) or (C)." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(D). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 341 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the court is Plaintiff Richard Max Strahan's Motion to Reopen Discovery to Obtain Discovery from Intervenor Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (the "Fund") #331 . Plaintiff requests that the court re-open fact discovery to allow Plaintiff to propound discovery related to three categories of information. First, for any individual from whom the Fund will elicit testimony or evidence at trial as to that individual's economic loss or other financial consequence associated with the removal of Vertical Buoy Ropes ("VBRs") from Massachusetts state waters, as identified in the Fund's Second Amended Initial Disclosures, see Pl.'s Mem., Exh. C [332-3], Plaintiff seeks leave to serve document requests, including for state and federal tax returns, related to that individual's income and expenses. Second, for these same individuals, Plaintiff seeks information as to any federal or state fishing licensure. Third, Plaintiff seeks information both as to income and expenses (including tax returns) and any federal or state fishing licenses for the Fund's President, Craig Hillier. Plaintiff requests in the alternative that the court limit the Fund to the disclosures sent on the court-ordered deadline of February 26, 2021. As an initial matter, the Fund's Second Amended Initial Disclosures are untimely. In granting, in part, the Fund's motion to intervene, the court found that the Fund's intervention would be untimely unless certain conditions were put in place. See Mem. & Order 12-13 #312 . One such condition was that the Fund was required to serve its initial disclosures no later than February 26, 2021. Id. at 13. The Fund served an initial disclosure on that deadline, but proceeded to serve a second and third set of "amended" initial disclosures, with the final disclosure filed on March 11, 2021, two weeks late. See Pl.'s Mem., Exhs. A to C [332-1 to 332-3]. The Fund seeks to justify its delay in serving the disclosure on various grounds which may provide cause for the delay, see Opp'n 3, n.3 #333 , but offers no explanation for failing to seek leave of court for the late disclosures. The court expects compliance with its orders, and does not anticipate permitting further disregard of the court's orders. Putting the question of timeliness of the disclosure to the side, Rule 26(a)(1) requires that the party disclose those individuals "likely to have discoverable information--along with the subjects of that information--that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment." The disclosure of "Massachusetts lobstermen" without more is insufficient and improper under this Rule. The Fund has identified one witness, Tessa Browne, who "will testify as to the economic impact of any lobster fishery closure on her lobster dealership and employees," and seven Massachusetts lobstermen who "will testify about lobstering generally and the economic and cultural impact of any closure/restrictions." Pl.'s Mem., Exh. C [332-3] (emphasis added). To the extent that the Fund seeks to elicit testimony from these eight individuals about the economic impact of any fishery closures or restrictions, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relevant to this issue. In its Opposition 6 #333 , the Fund asserts that it "will not be eliciting testimony about specific incomes" but may seek to elicit testimony as to "evidence of significant capital expenditures and payroll expenses for some witnesses." The Fund argues that, because the fund has produced documents evidencing the significant capital expenditures and payroll expenses, no further discovery is needed or warranted since the issue of economic impact on these individuals is not being put into question. Id. The scope of the testimony proposed by the Fund should be set forth plainly in the disclosure and not in attorney argument. Moreover, the proposed scope must be clarified, as it is not clear what relevance capital expenditures and payroll expenses have to the claims and defenses in this action unless they are, in some fashion, associated with claims of economic hardship these individuals may experience as a result of a closure or restriction of the lobster fishery. Accordingly, the Fund is HEREBY ORDERED to supplement its disclosures no later than April 15, 2021, to provide, as to each of the eight identified individuals who the Fund may use to support its claims and defenses, a brief narrative summary of the testimony that the Fund intends to solicit from that individual, and how that testimony is related to a claim or defense at issue in this action. The Fund shall also identify (and to the extent that the evidence is in the Funds possession, custody or control, shall provide copies of) any documents that each named individual will rely upon or review in connection with his or her anticipated testimony. In addition, because the named individuals are not parties to the action, the Fund shall state as to each identified individual whether the Fund is authorized to accept a subpoena duces tecum on his or her behalf, and if not, shall provide the individual's address and phone number in the disclosures. Once the Fund has supplemented its disclosure in accordance with this Order, and prior to April 21, 2021, Plaintiff may serve Defendant and Intervenor with notices of limited document subpoenas tailored to the Fund's reformulated disclosures. The court expects Plaintiff to not renew his request for these individuals' tax returns unless Plaintiff can 1) articulate specifically the relevance of the requested returns, and 2) explain why the information sought from the returns is not available elsewhere, something Plaintiff failed to do in the present motion. The court anticipates resolving any disputes as to the scope of the additional documents sought at the April 21, 2021, pretrial conference. As to the second category of information--Plaintiffs' request for federal or state fishing licensure information for the disclosed individuals--the Fund represents in its opposition that it will produce copies of fishing licenses for any witnesses it intends to call at trial. Fund Opp'n 5 #333 . Accordingly, this issue is moot.Finally, as to Plaintiff's request for information regarding the income and expenses as well as tax returns for the Fund's President, Craig Hillier, "in order to assess the Funds standing," Pl.'s Mem. 7 #332 , the discovery request is denied as unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. (Kelly, Danielle) Modified on 4/8/2021: Corrected docket text - Please note changes in BOLD. (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 340 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to April 13, 2021 to Serve Rebuttal Expert Disclosure by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 339 EXHIBIT re #338 Memorandum in Support of Motion, Exhibit D (filed separately due to technical difficulties) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 338 MEMORANDUM in Support re #337 MOTION for Discovery to Deem Admitted Responses to Requests for Admission and to Compel Document Production filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit E, #5 Exhibit F)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 337 MOTION for Discovery to Deem Admitted Responses to Requests for Admission and to Compel Document Production by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 336 MANDATE of USCA as to #324 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. Appeal #324 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 335 USCA Judgment as to #324 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 334 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 333 Opposition re #331 MOTION to Reopen Discovery to Obtain Discovery from Intervenor Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 (Contains A-C), #2 Exhibit 2 (Contains D-E))(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 332 MEMORANDUM in Support re #331 MOTION to Reopen Discovery to Obtain Discovery from Intervenor Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 331 MOTION to Reopen Discovery to Obtain Discovery from Intervenor Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 330 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Having considered the Joint Stipulation #329 of Plaintiff Richard Maximus Strahan, Defendants Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (the "Commonwealth Defendants"), and Intervenor-Defendant Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (the "Fund"), the Court orders as follow:The deadline to file a joint report on any additional fact discovery that the Commonwealth Defendants or Plaintiff contends is required by virtue of the Fund's intervention and--in the case the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to scope of any additional fact discovery--to file motions for leave to reopen the fact discovery deadlines is extended, nunc pro tunc, from March 12, 2021 to March 16, 2021. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 329 STIPULATION of the Parties Extending Deadline to File Joint Report on Additional Fact Discovery Required by Virtue of Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund Intervention and Motions to Reopen Fact Discovery Deadlines by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 328 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura G. Hayes on behalf of Richard Max Strahan (Hayes, Laura) |
| Filing 327 USCA Case Number 21-1178 for #324 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 326 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: On February 17, 2021, the court granted in part only Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's Motion to Intervene. See Order Granting Motion to Intervene in Part #312 . The court found that the time for the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (the "Fund") and its members to act promptly in seeking leave to intervene began in April 2020, that the Fund had made no showing that the State Defendants were deficient in representing the Fund's members' interests thus far, and that the risk of delay if the motion was granted posed a real concern as time was of the essence. Nonetheless, because of potential prejudice moving forward, the Fund would be permitted to intervene to address future issues. Id. The Fund's subsequent filings and litigation tactics fail to respect this limitation.The Fund's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) #318 , challenging Plaintiff Richard Max Strahan's application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is DENIED. The filing fee issue was resolved on April 4, 2019, and is outside of the matters as to which the Fund has been granted leave to intervene. Moreover, no such defense was raised in the Fund's Proposed Answer [270-3]. Instead, in its December 29, 2020 Reply in support of its motion to intervene, the Fund dismissed Plaintiff's concerns that the Fund's intervention, if not constrained, would sidetrack these proceedings with unnecessary and time-consuming discovery. See Fund Reply at 5-6 #292 . Even more, the Fund assured the court that it did not, at that time, foresee the need for any discovery and that any discovery it ultimately requested would only be sought after a thorough review of the documents already produced in these proceedings by the Commonwealth. Id. Problematically, the record submitted demonstrates that the Fund was well into its process of investigating Mr. Strahan's finances a week before its December 29, 2020 Reply in which it assured the court that it did not at that time foresee the need for any discovery. See Exhibit 4 to Fund Mem. [319-4] (showing that the "Carfax" report of Plaintiff's vehicle was printed on December 22, 2020). Candor towards the tribunal would have required disclosure of the Fund's intention to seek discovery of Plaintiff's personal finances but, of course, such candor may have resulted in the court reaching a different decision as to the Fund's requested intervention.The court further finds that, in any event, the Fund has failed to show that Plaintiff made any materially false statements in his IFP Application #2 or that Plaintiff is not indigent as claimed. The Fund largely rests its accusation that Mr. Strahan has misrepresented his financial condition on the assertion that, since 2014, Mr. Strahan has leased a Volkswagen Jetta and did not disclose this fact in the IFP application. As an initial matter, the Fund's evidence that Mr. Strahan leases a vehicle does not contradict any assertions made by Mr. Strahan in his IFP Application as the application asks the applicant to disclose assets owned, not assets leased. (Indeed, a lease is a liability, not an asset). The Fund is correct to note that Mr. Strahan should have itemized the car expense in his answer to the question inquiring of his monthly liabilities as opposed to simply stating that he "pay[s] about $600 for all the expenses of survival each month." IFP Appl. ¶ 6 #2 . But, at most, Plaintiff's failure to itemize his expenses would have provided cause for the court to seek additional information from Plaintiff when he filed his application. It does not, as the Fund argues, constitute a basis for entering final judgment against Plaintiff two years into this litigation, three months before the scheduled trial. The Fund also asserts that Mr. Strahan's lease of the vehicle calls into question his entire IFP application since Mr. Strahan could not possibly afford the car lease in addition to other necessary living expenses on his monthly earnings of $600. Fund Mem. 7, 11 #319 . But this argument admittedly rests entirely on speculation.The Fund's request that it be permitted to serve third-party subpoenas, see Response to "Joint" Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline #321 , is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Fund's Non-Party Subpoenas #323 is GRANTED. The court explicitly limited discovery in its Order Granting Motion to Intervene in Part #312 . Rather than demonstrate cause for reconsideration of this order, the court finds that the Fund's efforts to obtain the information relating to Mr. Strahan's personal finances constitutes an unwarranted burden on the court, the parties, and nonparties, and in no way furthers the interests of the Fund's members that it purports to represent.The Fund is not the only party guilty of contributing to distractions from what should be the focus of these proceedings. Plaintiff's deposition subpoena served on the court reporter who had been scheduled to take Mr. Strahan's February 4, 2021 deposition was unwarranted and should not have been served. That Plaintiff ultimately withdrew the subpoena, see Pl.'s Notice #322 , in the face of the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Quash #310 is helpful, but does not cure the problem. The parties and their counsel are warned that any further abusive discovery tactics may result in sanctions. For the reasons set forth above, the Fund's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) #318 is DENIED, the Fund's request that it be permitted to serve third party subpoenas, see Response to "Joint" Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline #321 , is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Fund's Non-Party Subpoenas #323 is GRANTED, and the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Quash #310 is DENIED AS MOOT. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 325 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #324 Notice of Cross Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 324 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to #309 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #206 Memorandum & ORDER by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. ( Filing fee: $ 505, receipt number 0101-8662142 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid)) 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 MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at #http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/efiling.htm. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 3/23/2021. (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 323 MOTION to Quash Quash Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's Non-Party Subpoeanas and Opposition to MLSF's Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Granting Intervention and to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 322 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #310 MOTION to Quash subpoena to Court Reporter to Withdraw Subpoena (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 321 Response by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund to #320 Stipulation . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 320 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Extending Fact Discovery Deadline by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 319 MEMORANDUM in Support re #318 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A) filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 318 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A) by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 317 USCA Case Number 21-1154 for #315 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 316 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #315 Notice of Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 315 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #309 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Max Strahan 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 MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at #http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 3/15/2021. (Sobol, Thomas) Modified on 2/22/2021 to Correct Docket Text (Paine, Matthew). (Main Document 315 replaced on 2/23/2021) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 314 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan of Agreement to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 313 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER Granting Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash #272 . Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 312 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER Granting in Part Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's Motion to Intervene #269 . Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 311 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 310 MOTION to Quash subpoena to Court Reporter by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 309 Judge Indira Talwani: Memorandum and Order DENYING #259 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial. (IT, law2) (Main Document 309 replaced on 2/16/2021) (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 308 SUR-REPLY to Motion re #272 MOTION to Quash (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices) filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 307 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #305 Motion for Leave to File Five Page Sur-Reply to Center For Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Subpoena and Deposition Notices; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 306 Letter/request (non-motion) from Thomas Sobol re Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (ECF No. 305). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 305 MOTION for Leave to File FIVE PAGE SUR-REPLY TO CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION NOTICES by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Sur-Reply, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 304 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 303 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #302 Joint Motion for Order to Amend Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 302 Joint MOTION for Order to to Amend Pre-Trial Scheduling Order by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 301 REPLY to Response to #272 MOTION to Quash (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices) filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 300 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum #294 and terminating Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' superseded Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum #293 as moot. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 299 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. PROTECTIVE ORDER. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 298 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #297 Joint Motion for Protective Order (Joint Motion for Entry of 502 Proposed Order). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 297 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (Joint Motion for Entry of 502 Proposed Order) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit (502 Proposed Order))(Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 296 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel A. Downey on behalf of Richard Max Strahan (Downey, Rachel) |
| Filing 295 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 294 MOTION for Leave to File (Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum) by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, Pleading)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 293 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum In Response to Plaintiff's Opposition to Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 Reply Memo)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 292 REPLY to Response to #269 MOTION to Intervene filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 4, #2 Exhibit 5, #3 Exhibit 6)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 291 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of its Motion to Intervene #289 . The Reply shall be limited to ten pages and shall be filed no later than close of business on December 29, 2020. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 290 Opposition re #272 MOTION to Quash (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices) filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 289 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 288 DECLARATION re #287 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene by the "Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund" by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 287 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #269 MOTION to Intervene By the "Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund" filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 286 REPLY to Response to #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 285 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #275 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 259) as moot. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 284 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #281 Amended Motion for Leave to File Reply In Support of Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 283 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Second Amended Scheduling and Pretrial Order. Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 282 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #280 Joint Motion for Order to Amend Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 281 Amended MOTION for Leave to File Reply In Support of Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Reply)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 280 Joint MOTION for Order to Amend Pre-Trial Scheduling Order by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 279 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #278 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #269 MOTION to Intervene . Responses due by December 22, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 278 MOTION for Extension of Time to December 22, 2020 to File Response/Reply as to #269 MOTION to Intervene by Richard Max Strahan.(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 277 ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING: Bench Trial set for 6/7/2021 is RESET for 6/9/2021 09:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge Indira Talwani. (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 4/15/2021, to change courtroom number (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 276 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 275 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 259) by Richard Max Strahan.(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 274 STIPULATION re Protocol for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and Hard Copy Documents by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 273 MEMORANDUM in Support re #272 MOTION to Quash (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices) filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, Pleading, #2 Exhibit B, Pleading, #3 Exhibit C, Pleading, #4 Exhibit D, Pleading, #5 Exhibit E, Pleading)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 272 MOTION to Quash (Non-Party Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and Deposition Notices) by Center for Coastal Studies.(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 271 NOTICE of Appearance by Olaf Aprans on behalf of Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund (Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 270 MEMORANDUM in Support re #269 MOTION to Intervene filed by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 269 MOTION to Intervene by Massachusetts Lobstermen's Survival Fund.(Aprans, Olaf) |
| Filing 268 Opposition re #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 267 NOTICE of Appearance by Nathaniel J. Hyman on behalf of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Hyman, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 266 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #265 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by December 4, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 265 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 264 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: granting Parties' Joint Motion for a Five-Day Extension of the Written Discovery Deadline #262 . The deadline for both parties to serve written discovery is extended to November 23, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 263 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 262 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to November 23, 2020 to Complete Discovery by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 261 DECLARATION re #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 260 MEMORANDUM in Support re #259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 259 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 258 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: granting Plaintiff's #257 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 257 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Order re Excess Pages, #2 Proposed Motion for Preliminary Relief Pending Trial, #3 Proposed Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Relief, #4 Proposed Keats Declaration in Support of Motion for Preliminary Relief, #5 Proposed Ex. 1 to Keats Declaration, #6 Proposed Ex. 2 to Keats Declaration, #7 Proposed Ex. 3 to Keats Declaration, #8 Proposed Ex. 4 to Keats Declaration, #9 Proposed Ex. 5 to Keats Declaration, #10 Proposed Ex. 6 to Keats Declaration, #11 Proposed Ex. 7 to Keats Declaration, #12 Proposed Ex. 8 to Keats Declaration, #13 Proposed Ex. 9 to Keats Declaration, #14 Proposed Ex. 10 to Keats Declaration, #15 Proposed Order re Motion for Preliminary Relief)(Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 256 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 255 Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction held on March 5, 2020, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Cheryl Dahlstrom at cheryldahlstrom@yahoo.com. Redaction Request due 11/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 254 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 253 Transcript of Telephonic Conference held on October 8, 2020, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 11/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2021. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 252 MANDATE of USCA as to #176 Notice of Appeal filed by Richard Max Strahan. Appeal #176 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 251 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Amended Scheduling Order and Pretrial Order . Please see attached. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 250 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel M. Brown on behalf of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce (Brown, Rachel) |
| Filing 249 STATUS REPORT by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 248 Recommendations for Scheduling Order . (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 247 NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah W. Brennan on behalf of Richard Max Strahan (Brennan, Hannah) |
| Filing 246 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas M. Sobol on behalf of Richard Max Strahan (Sobol, Thomas) |
| Filing 245 Recommendations for Scheduling Order and Proposed Order re Trial Schedule. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 244 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Case called. Court had colloquy with counsel. Counsel are directed to confer and file a joint or competing proposed schedule for setting a prompt bench trial; proposed schedule(s) due 10/15/2020. Motion to Stay #211 denied; the court treats the motion as the 1st Status Report and Orders additional Status Reports be filed by Defts. every 30 days starting 10/15/2020, which will outline their efforts to seek an Incidental Take Permit. MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #235 denied w/o prejudice. MOTION to Compel Production of Documents #214 found moot; Pltf. may alert the court if needed after review of documents. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Adam F. Keats, Maryanne Reynolds) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 243 USCA Judgment as to #176 Notice of Appeal filed by Richard Max Strahan (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 242 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Telephone Conference set for 10/8/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Indira Talwani. The Court may be in session when you call in; please remain on the line. Teleconference #: (888)-808-6929 access code: 8523158 (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 241 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss #227 , #229 are GRANTED as unopposed. See attached Order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 240 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting in part #238 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction #235 is stayed pending further order. The clerk shall set a telephonic status conference. Counsel shall be prepared to address at the conference whether this matter should proceed on the motion for preliminary injunction or an early bench trial on the merits. (IT, law2) |
| Filing 239 Opposition re #238 MOTION for Extension of Time to Oct. 21, 2020 to File Response/Reply filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 238 MOTION for Extension of Time to Oct. 21, 2020 to File Response/Reply by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 237 AFFIDAVIT of Adam Keats in Support re #235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 236 MEMORANDUM in Support re #235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Max Strahan.(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 234 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by September 18, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 233 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #232 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Geraldine E. Edens. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 232 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Geraldine E Edens Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8387351 by Vineyard Wind, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Geraldine E Edens)(Heuer, Thaddeus) |
| Filing 231 AFFIDAVIT of Geraldine E. Edens in Support re #229 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Vineyard Wind, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4)(Heuer, Thaddeus) |
| Filing 230 MEMORANDUM in Support re #229 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Vineyard Wind, LLC. (Heuer, Thaddeus) |
| Filing 229 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by Vineyard Wind, LLC.(Heuer, Thaddeus) |
| Filing 228 MEMORANDUM in Support re #227 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Baystate Wind, LLC. (Iaquinto, Christopher) |
| Filing 227 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Baystate Wind, LLC.(Iaquinto, Christopher) |
| Filing 226 SUMMONS Returned Executed Vineyard Wind, LLC served on 7/31/2020, answer due 8/21/2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 225 SUMMONS Returned Executed Baystate Wind, LLC served on 7/31/2020, answer due 8/21/2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 224 Opposition re #214 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 223 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #222 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #214 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents. Responses due by August 18, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 222 MOTION for Extension of Time to August 18, 2020 to respond to Doc. 214 by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) Modified on 8/14/2020: Corrected event type (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 221 Opposition re #211 MOTION to Stay filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Dr. Sarah Sharp DVM)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 220 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's e-mails and voice messages directed to the courtroom deputy and docket clerk on August 6 and August 10, 2020, the court orders as follows:Plaintiff is formally advised that the court does not accept filings by email. The court notes further that Plaintiff is represented by counsel, and accordingly, is no longer proceeding here pro se. Plaintiff's counsel shall promptly confer with his client and determine whether a filing needs to be made on Plaintiff's behalf. If so, and if Plaintiff's counsel has difficulty filing through the CM/ECF application, he is directed to contact the ECF help desk at ecfhelp@mad.uscourts.gov.In light of Plaintiff's threat of a personal lawsuit against the courtroom deputy and docket clerk if they do not respond to his demands and Plaintiff's use of language such as "sorry asses" in his communications, the court has instructed the courtroom deputy and docket clerk that they need not open further emails or messages from Plaintiff. Communications with the courtroom deputy and docket clerk on Plaintiff's behalf shall be through counsel only. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 219 MEMORANDUM in Support re #211 MOTION to Stay filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 218 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER ALLOWING #217 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Memorandum ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 217 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Memorandum by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Corrects p. 6 of Doc. 212)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 216 AFFIDAVIT of Adam Keats in Support re #214 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 215 MEMORANDUM in Support re #214 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 214 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Richard Max Strahan.(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 213 DECLARATION re #211 MOTION to Stay by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 212 MEMORANDUM in Support re #211 MOTION to Stay filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 211 MOTION to Stay by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: # REFER TO #212 Memorandum in Support, # REFER TO #213 Declaration)(Reynolds, Maryanne) Modified on 7/30/2020: Removed attachments to properly file in separate entries (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 210 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #175 . The court's July 1, 2019 Scheduling Order #94 provided that "[e]xcept for good cause shown, no motions seeking leave...to amend the pleadings to assert new claims... may be filed after October 31, 2019." Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #175 was filed on March 2, 2020, and accordingly, the good cause standard, rather than Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)'s leave freely given standard, applies here. See Somascan, Inc. v. Philips Med. Sys. Nederland, B.V., 714 F.3d 62, 64 (1st Cir.2013) (per curiam) (good cause standard, rather than the leave freely given standard, applies when a scheduling order sets a deadline for amending the pleadings). Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint[175-1] seeks in part to reallege claims that were challenged in Defendant Costal Studies' Motion to Dismiss #107 , Defendant Havilands' Motion to Dismiss #111 and Defendant Sawyer and Defendant Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association's Motion to Dismiss #113 . Those motions were filed in July 2019, and accordingly, if Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to raise additional allegations relating to the challenged claims, he should have done so at that time and, in any event, before October 31, 2019. Instead, he waited until a month after the court granted Defendants' motions. See Memorandum and Order #150 . Plaintiff has not presented good cause for his delay in seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint [175-1] also seeks to reassert count three against the State Defendants. The State Defendants challenged this count in their Motion to Dismiss #117 , but the court did not reach this challenge and instead dismissed the count without prejudice after construing Plaintiff's Notice #143 as a voluntary dismissal of this count. See Elec. Order 153 . Plaintiff promptly filed a second Notice #158 stating that the court misconstrued his earlier notice as a voluntary dismissal whereas Mr. Strahan was actually "expressing disappointment with the Court's lack of action." Under these circumstances, the court finds cause for the late filing of the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #175 insofar as the motion pertains to count three. Turning to the merits of the motion to amend, the court considers whether the proposed amendment to count three states a claim for which relief may be granted. Favorably construed, count three centers on three, somewhat related, allegations. First, Plaintiff alleges that the State Defendants have, by denying Plaintiff a permit, failed to comply with state regulations governing the issuance of such permits. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 96 [175-1]. However, the court is without jurisdiction to address Plaintiff's complaint where it alleges that the State Defendants have failed to comply with state law in carrying out their official responsibilities. Lopez v. Massachusetts, 588 F.3d 69, 73 (1st Cir. 2009). That claim must be brought in Massachusetts state court. Second, Plaintiff alleges that State Defendants have violated Plaintiff's rights under the first amendment to the federal Constitution by engaging in conduct that has frustrated Plaintiff's ability to petition the court concerning Defendants' alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 95 [175-1]. However, Plaintiff has standing to pursue his ESA claim without regard to the permit denial and accordingly, Plaintiff cannot show any interference with his ability to petition the court. 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (g)(1). Finally, while there are other allegations in count three which speak of retaliation, access to public records, and discrimination towards "Green Fishermen," these components of the count are, even leniently construed, no more than conclusory allegations that do not satisfy Plaintiff's pleading standards. See Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept of Hous. & Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2005) ("Even within the generous confines of notice pleading, courts must continue to eschew reliance on bald assertions and unsupportable conclusions"). For these reasons, the court finds that count three of the proposed amended complaint is legally insufficient and the proposed amendment is futile. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's February 3, 2020 Memorandum and Order #150 , the request is denied since Plaintiff has not demonstrated that "newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light or that the rendering court committed a manifest error of law." Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 209 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam F. Keats on behalf of Richard Max Strahan (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 208 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order entered denying Plaintiff's emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction #190 , Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order #203 , Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order #204 , and Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order #205 and Defendants' Assented-to Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Temporary Restraining Order #207 . Plaintiff's motions all claim that Defendants' licensing of vertical buoy ropes in Massachusetts coastal waters is in violation of the Endangered Species Act due to resulting incidental takes of endangered species. While the species giving rise to the motions and the relief requested therein slightly differ from the facts and claims underlying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction #144 , the underlying claim--that state-licensing of vertical buoy ropes in Massachusetts waters violates the Endangered Species Act--is the same. Accordingly, the court finds that the interlocutory relief fashioned in the court's Memorandum and Order #206 appropriately addresses the claims that give rise to Plaintiff's other motions and no other relief is warranted at this time. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction as set forth in the Memorandum and Order #206 . Defendants' Assented-to Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Temporary Restraining Order #207 is denied as moot. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 207 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 1, 2020 to File Response/Reply as to #203 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order #W## PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORRARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM FURTHR LICENSING COMMERCIAL FISHING UNTIL THEY CAN PROVE THAT TH, #204 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ## STRAHAN'S TRO APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING MEMO WITH EXHIBITS ##, #205 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 206 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Please see attached Memorandum and Order. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 205 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #204 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ## STRAHAN'S TRO APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING MEMO WITH EXHIBITS ## ## STRAHAN'S MEMO AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF HIS EMERGENCY TRO APPLICATION ## filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 Globe story, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2 WDC court memo, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3 Sick Whales article, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4 ny times article)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 204 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ## STRAHAN'S TRO APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING MEMO WITH EXHIBITS ## by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 Globe story, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2 WDC court memo, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3 Sick Whales article, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4 ny times article)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 203 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order #W## PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORRARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM FURTHR LICENSING COMMERCIAL FISHING UNTIL THEY CAN PROVE THAT THEIR ARE NO ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WHALES AND SEA TURTLES IN MASSACHUSETTS STATE WATERS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 202 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re 147 Order,,, ##. PLAINTIFFS EXPECTATION THAT COURT WILL ASAP GRANT HIS PENDING PI MOTION AND ORDER THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO APPLY TO NOAA FOR AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT AND ENJOIN THEM FROM REQUIRING THE USE OF VERTICAL BUOY ROPES BY THE FISHERMEN IT LICENSES ## (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_WDC_NRW_Judgment_10Apr20)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 201 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN ##. PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF A US COURTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NOAA FOR LICENSING LOBSTERPOT FISHING THAT ENTANGLES RIGHT WHALES. ## (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_Whale-Judgment_Apr2020)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 200 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan ## PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE TO TAKE VIDEO RECORDED DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 30(B)(6) OF ACTING DIRECTOR DANIEL MCKIERNAN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES ON 15 JUNE 2020 AT A COMMERCIAL OFFICE IN BOSTON MA AT SOON TO BE DESIGNATED LOCATION ## (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 199 First Opposition re #190 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM LICENSING FISHING GEAR THAT ENTANGLES ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 198 REPLY to Response to #175 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR FRCP RULE 59 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTFirst MOTION for Reconsideration re #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, ## PLAINTIFFS BEGGING UNDER THE COURTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL RULES FOR HER MAGESTYS PERMISSION TO REPLY TO THE POMPOUS AND MALCIOUS MAURA HEALYS HISSY-FIT OVER HIS FIILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT PURUSANT TO FRCP RULE 59/15 filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 197 Opposition re #175 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR FRCP RULE 59 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTFirst MOTION for Reconsideration re #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 196 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #195 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #175 . Responses due by March 27,2020 (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 195 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 27, 2020 to File Response/Reply as to #175 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR FRCP RULE 59 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTFirst MOTION for Reconsideration re #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 194 Second MEMORANDUM in Support re #190 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM LICENSING FISHING GEAR THAT ENTANGLES ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES ### PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF ALLEGED MATERIAL FACTS AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS PETITION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_Defendants' Admission, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_NMFS_FR_1996, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3_List ESA Authorities)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 193 ANSWER to #68 Amended Complaint by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 192 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #182 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #68 . Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and David Pierce answer due March 20, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 191 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #190 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM LICENSING FISHING GEAR THAT ENTANGLES ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES # DECLARATION OF RICHARD MAXIMUS STRAHAN: SUPPORTING HIS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION TO STOP THE DEFENDANTS ENTANGLEMENT OF ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_Defendants_1996_ITP_NOAA, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_NMFS_FR_1996, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3_NMFS_ITP_Handbook, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4_ITP_turtle_app_No._Carolina, #5 Exhibit Exhibit#5_ITP_sea-turtle_NC, #6 Exhibit Exhibit#6_ITP_sturgeon_app_NC, #7 Exhibit Exhibit#7_ITP_sturgeon_NC)(Strahan, Richard) (Attachment 7 replaced on 9/15/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). |
| Filing 190 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM LICENSING FISHING GEAR THAT ENTANGLES ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 189 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING Motion to Strike #187 as moot. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 188 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER STRIKING Affidavit #186 and attached exhibits. On March 2, 2020, the court struck Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and attached exhibits #172 and Notice and attached exhibits #173 as filed without the required leave of court. Electronic Order 174 . At the March 5, 2020, hearing the court reiterated the requirement of obtaining leave of court before filing additional documents, but as courtesy to Plaintiff allowed Plaintiff's late-filed exhibits [173-1], [173-2], and [173-3] to be considered in connection with the pending motion. See Electronic Order 184 (directing clerk to restore these documents to the docket). The court afforded Defendant an opportunity to respond to the late filed exhibits, see id., but did not permit Plaintiff to file further additional documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Affidavit #186 and attached exhibits are hereby stricken as filed without leave of court. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 187 MOTION to Strike #186 Affidavit in Support,, by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 186 This document has been STRUCK from the record pursuant to Order 188 . AFFIDAVIT in Support re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN STRAHAN'S DECLARATION SUPPORTING PI MOTION. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#_Defendants_ITP_application, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_NMFS_FR_1996, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3_NMFS_ITP_Handbook, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4_NMFS_ITP_No._Carolina, #5 Exhibit Exhibit#5_No._Carolina_ITP_App)(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 3/13/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). (Attachment 4 replaced on 9/15/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). |
| Filing 185 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. McKiernan in Opposition re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1: 2019 Cooperative Agreement Documents, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2: 2019 Cooperative Agreement Documents, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3: 2018 Cooperative Agreement Documents, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4: 2018 Cooperative Agreement Documents, #5 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 184 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On March 2, 2020, the court struck Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and attached exhibits #172 and Notice and attached exhibits #173 as filed without the required leave of court. Electronic Order 174 . For the reasons set forth at the March 5, 2020 hearing, the court amends Electronic Order 174 , and allows, nunc pro tunc, Plaintiff's late-filed exhibits [173-1], [173-2], [173-3], which the clerk is instructed to restore to the docket. Defendants may, but are not required to, file up to three exhibits or affidavits that directly respond to any factual issues raised by late-filed exhibits and are not cumulative with the current record. Defendants' responsive filing, if any, shall be made no later than Wednesday, March 11, 2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 182 MOTION for Extension of Time to 03/20/2020 to File Answer re #68 Amended Complaint by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 183 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Motion Hearing held on 3/5/2020 re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN filed by Richard Max Strahan. Case called. Court heard argument for parties. Order to follow. (Court Reporter: Cheryl Dahlstrom at cheryldahlstrom@yahoo.com.) (Attorneys present: Strahan (Pro Se), Reynolds, Sweeney) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 181 USCA Case Number 20-1281 for #176 Notice of Appeal filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 180 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #176 Notice of Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 179 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 178 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Allowing in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Emergency Petition #177 . Plaintiff is authorized to bring his laptop computer into courtroom 9 on March 5, 2020, for the hearing in this matter. Plaintiff is not authorized to bring a phone into the courthouse. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 177 Emergency MOTION re 155 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, STRAHAN'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING US MARSHAL TO ACCEPT HIS BRING TO TOMORROW'S HEARING HIS PHONE AND LAPTOP COMPUTER by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 176 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Richard Max Strahan 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 MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at #http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 3/23/2020. (Strahan, Richard) (Modified on 3/3/2020 to Correct Docket Text) (Paine, Matthew). |
| Filing 175 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR FRCP RULE 59 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, First MOTION for Reconsideration re #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,, PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR FRCP RULE 59 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ( Responses due by 3/16/2020) by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit PROPOSEd Amended Complaint)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 174 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and attached exhibits #172 and Notice and attached exhibits as filed without the required leave of court #173 . See Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) (after the submission of a motion and an opposition to a motion, no additional papers may be submitted without leave of court); Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) (memoranda supporting or opposing a motion shall not exceed 20 pages double-spaced without leave of court). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 173 This main document has been STRUCK from the record pursuant to Order 174 . NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN, #1 Complaint PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF CLAIMS OF FACT AND LAW AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS TO ESTABLISH RECORD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE COURTS MALICOUS AND BULLYING DENIAL OF HIS PENDING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_NMFS_Whale_Assessment, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_NRW_Report-Card_2020, #3 Exhibit Echibit#3_NRW_Entanglement_Paper)(Strahan, Richard). Modified on 3/9/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 172 This document has been STRUCK from the record per order 174 . Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS OF FACT AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS PENDING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_NMFS_Whale_Assessment, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_NRW_Report-Card_2020, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3_NRW_entanglement_paper)(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 3/2/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 171 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Reply to State Defendants' Opposition to his Pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #169 as filed without the required leave of court. See Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) (after the submission of a motion and an opposition to a motion, no additional papers may be submitted without leave of court); Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) (memoranda supporting or opposing a motion shall not exceed 20 pages double-spaced without leave of court). (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 170 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN STRAHAN'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS PI MOTION ATTESTING TO DEFENDANTS ENTANGLEMENT OF TWO MORE RIGHT WHALES IN THE PAST MONTH. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_Jan2020_entangled_whale, #2 Exhibit Exhibi#2_NMFS_28Feb20_entangled-whale)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 169 This document has been STRUCK from the record per order 171 . First REPLY to Response to #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN STRAHAN'S REPLY TO STATE DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_NMFS_NRW_Assessment, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2_Report_NRW_consortium, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3_Report_NRW_entanglements)(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 3/2/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). Modified on 3/4/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 168 NOTICE of Appearance by James A. Sweeney on behalf of David Pierce (Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 167 NOTICE of Appearance by James A. Sweeney on behalf of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Sweeney, James) |
| Filing 166 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: ALLOWING #165 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs & David Pierce answer due 3/6/2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 165 MOTION for Extension of Time to 03/06/2020 to File Answer by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 164 Opposition re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit, #14 Exhibit)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 163 Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 162 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Discovery #161 , which the court understands to be a motion for expedited discovery, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. At the June 17, 2019 status conference, the court determined that discovery shall not commence until after the State Defendants have filed their answer and the party requesting discovery has served his or its initial disclosures. See Elec. Clerk's Notes 83 . The court having now denied in part the State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, see Memorandum and Order #160 , the court finds no reason for discovery to wait on the filing of an answer. Accordingly, each side may commence discovery after serving his or their initial discovery. To the extent that Plaintiff contends that he needs responses to discovery on shortened time, he may file a further motion after: (1) serving his initial disclosures; and (2) serving the discovery at issue. Any such motion shall include a copy of the discovery request at issue. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks discovery from a dismissed party, discovery is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 which requires that a subpoena be served with the discovery requests. The clerk shall provide Plaintiff with requested subpoenas. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #148 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion seeks the production of records and other evidence related to a recent sighting of whales off the coast of Massachusetts. Defendant's right to such information does not arise directly from the Endangered Species Act, see Am. Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and no temporary restraining order is appropriate. As set forth above, Plaintiff may now commence discovery of information relevant to his pending claim that the State Defendants have violated Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 161 Emergency MOTION for Discovery PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY IN ORDER TO PREVAIL ON HIS PENDING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 160 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss #117 is DENIED as to Count I and ALLOWED as to Counts II and VI. IT IS SO ORDERED.(Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 159 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #150 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,, PLAINTIFFS NOTICE TO THE COURT THAT HE WILL BE FILING BOTH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 59/15 TO REINSTATE HIS DISMISSED CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 158 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re 153 Order on Motion for TRO,,, PLAINTIFFS NOTICE TO THE COURT THAT HE HAS NOT DISMISSED ANY CLAIM AGAINST ANY DEFENDANT PURUSANT TO FRCP RULE 41(A) AND HIS EXPECTATION THAT THE COURT WILL IMMEDIATELYT REINSTATE HIS "PERMIT CLAIMS" CLAIMS AGAIBNST THE STATE DEFENDANTS DISMISSED BY THE COURT (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 157 Summons Issued as to Baystate Wind, LLC, Vineyard Wind, LLC. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 156 PER ORDER 155: Deadline Reset: Responses to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction #144 due by 2/18/2020. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 155 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: State Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction #144 by February 18, 2020. A hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for Thursday, March 5, 2020, at 3:30 P.M. in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 154 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: It has come to the court's attention that no summons has issued for two defendants, Vineyard Wind, LLC, and Baystate Wind, LLC. The Clerk is directed to issue summonses for these two defendants. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 153 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice #143 stating that his claims for injunctive relief against the Defendants concerning the issuance of 2019 fishing permits are now moot and that he intends to file a new lawsuit concerning 2020 fishing permits. Plaintiff is permitted to dismiss his own claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 without a court order when the notice of dismissal is filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff satisfies the conditions for voluntary dismissal, that aspect of Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order #44 , which concerns the issuance of a 2019 fishing permit, is also denied as moot. (Kelly, Danielle) Modified on 2/6/2020 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 152 Opposition re #148 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order STRAHAN'S REVISED PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS MASS DISVISION. OF MARINE FISHERIES AND CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES ORDERING THEM TO PRODUCE RIGHT WHALE INFORMATION filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 151 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN FIRST MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HID 30 JANUARY EMERGENCY PETITION FOR AN ORDER STOPPING THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM ANY FURTHER LICENSING OF LOBSTERPOT AND GILLNET FISHING IN ESA DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR NORTHERN RIGHT WHALES ABSENT ANY PERMIT FROM NMFS AUTHORIZING SUCH CONDUCT filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 NRW Now Entangled in Defendants' Fishing Gear, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2 NOAA's 2020 List of Whale Entangling Fisheries, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3 NOAA's Report on Right Whale as Functionally Extinct from Fishing Gear Entanglements, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4 NOAA's Map of Designated Right Whale ESA Critical Habitat, #5 Exhibit Exhibit#5 Report on Fishing Gear Killing Right Whalest, #6 Exhibit Exhibit#6 NRW researcher letter to NOAA claiming Right What killed by Mass fishing gear, #7 Exhibit Exhibit#7 NOAA Letter to Maine Fishermen claiming NRW killed in Mass and Maine fishing Gear, #8 Errata Exhibit#8 Judicial order recognizing NOAA Murders NRW with Its Licensed Fishing Gear)(Strahan, Richard) (Attachment 8 replaced on 9/10/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). (Attachment 8 replaced on 9/15/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). |
| Filing 150 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered.1. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendants Sawyer and Haviland #92 is DENIED.2. Defendant Coastal Studies Motion to Dismiss #107 is ALLOWED.3. Defendant Havilands Motion to Dismiss #111 is ALLOWED.4. Defendant Sawyer and Defendant Massachusetts Lobstermens Associations Motion to Dismiss #113 is ALLOWED.5. Plaintiffs Motion for Hearing #132 is DENIED.6. Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery #137 is DENIED.7. Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #145 is DENIED in light of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #148 .8. Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #148 is DENIED as to Defendant Coastal Studies but remains pending as to the State Defendants. (adminn, ) DOCUMENT REPLACED WITH CORRECTED VERSION (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 149 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #148 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order STRAHAN'S REVISED PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS MASS DISVISION. OF MARINE FISHERIES AND CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES ORDERING THEM TO PRODUCE RIGHT WHALE INFORMATION Strahan's Memo in Support of His 2 February TRO Petition filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 NRW Now Entangled in Defendants' Fishing Gear, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#2 NOAA's 2020 List of Whale Entangling Fisheries, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#3 NOAA's Report on Right Whale as Functionally Extinct from Fishing Gear Entanglements, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#4 NOAA's Map of Designated Right Whale ESA Critical Habitat, #5 Exhibit Exhibit#5 Report on Fishing Gear Killing Right Whales, #6 Exhibit Exhibit#6 NRW researcher letter to NOAA claiming Right What killed by Mass fishing gear, #7 Exhibit Exhibit#7 NOAA Letter to Maine Fishermen claiming NRW killed in Mass and Maine fishing Gear, #8 Exhibit Exhibit#8 Judicial order recognizing NOAA Murders NRW with Its Licensed Fishing Gear)(Strahan, Richard) (Attachment 8 replaced on 9/10/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). (Attachment 8 replaced on 9/15/2021) (Danieli2, Chris). |
| Filing 148 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order STRAHAN'S REVISED PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS MASS DISVISION. OF MARINE FISHERIES AND CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES ORDERING THEM TO PRODUCE RIGHT WHALE INFORMATION IN THEIR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION IMMEDIATELY by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 147 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic Order: Plaintiff Max Strahan has filed an Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order #145 . Plaintiff's Motion states that he "will be filing a memorandum of argument and a declaration with exhibits in support of the instant PETITION by next Monday." In light of Plaintiff's characterization of his motion as requiring emergency relief, he shall file a notice stating whether he seeks to proceed with his motion on the basis of the papers filed. If Plaintiff's notice states that he intends to so proceed, Defendants shall file any opposition no later than three business days after such notice is filed. If Plaintiff's notice states that he intends to supplement his motion with additional argument or evidence, the court will deny the Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order #145 without prejudice and allow plaintiff to renew the motion with any supporting papers. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 146 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered: DENYING #106 Motion for Recusal. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 145 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order STRAHAN'S EMERGECNY REQUEST FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND THE CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES TO PRODUCE ALL RECORDS OF ENTANGLED AND OTHER RIGHT WHALES CURRENTLY RESIDING IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction STRAHAN'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR LICENSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF FISHING GEAR USING VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 143 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #127 Order to Show Cause, 81 Amended Complaint, #95 Memorandum in Support of Motion, #97 Notice (Other), #26 Notice (Other), #16 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, #130 Response to Motion,, 99 Order,, #115 Response to Motion, 29 Order on Motion for TRO,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, 43 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, Order on Motion for Order,,, #15 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 93 Order, 13 Order on Motion for TRO, #129 Response to Motion, #44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019, #132 MOTION for Hearing re #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILUR, #92 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAWYER AND HAVILAND, #138 Memorandum in Support of Motion, #68 Amended Complaint, #142 Notice (Other),, 105 Order on Motion to Correct, 34 Order, 83 Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,,,, Order on Motion for Order,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,, Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,,,, Scheduling Conference,,,,,, Set Scheduling Order Deadlines,,,,, #141 Opposition to Motion,, #106 Final MOTION for Recusal PUBLIC CITIZENS DEMAND (NOT MOTION) THAT TALWANI RELINQUISH SUPERVISON OF MY PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS OWING TO TALWANI'S BIGOTRY AGAINST WORKING CLASS CITIZENS PETITIONING COURTS WITHOUT SHYSTERS ON A LEA, 46 Order,, #128 Notice (Other),, 25 Order,,, #137 First MOTION for Discovery STRAHAN'S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS IN ORDER TO GATHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND IN DEFENSE OF CCS MOTION TO RULE 12 DISMISS BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT RECORDS THAT SERVE AS EVIDEN, #1 Complaint, #131 Response to Court Order, 104 Order, #116 Response to Motion, #90 Amended Complaint, 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, Terminate Hearings, #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE THAT CLAIMS AGAIST DEFENDANTS IFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ARE NOW MOOT FROM FAILURE OF NAZI TALWANI TO ACT IN 2019 AND I WILL BE FILING A NEW LAWSUIT AGAINT DEFENDANTS FOR 2020 FISHING PERMITS LATER THIS MONTH (Strahan, Richard) |
| Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered cancelling Status Conference set for January 2, 2020. Conference to be reset by the Clerk. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 142 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #138 Memorandum in Support of Motion, #137 First MOTION for Discovery STRAHAN'S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS IN ORDER TO GATHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND IN DEFENSE OF CCS MOTION TO RULE 12 DISMISS BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT RECORDS THAT SERVE AS EVIDEN PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS ENTANGLEMENT OF A HUMPBACK WHALE OFF CAPE COD AND FURTHER ESA PROHIBITED CONDUCT FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS PENDING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1_Record_entjangled-whale_ccs_4Oct19)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 141 Opposition re #137 First MOTION for Discovery STRAHAN'S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS IN ORDER TO GATHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND IN DEFENSE OF CCS MOTION TO RULE 12 DISMISS BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT RECORDS THAT SERVE AS EVIDEN (Defendant Center for Coastal Studies' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery Against Defendant Center for Coastal Studes) filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, E-mail)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 140 REPLY to Response to #135 MOTION for Leave to File (Defendant Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint) filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 139 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #135 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 138 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #137 First MOTION for Discovery STRAHAN'S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS IN ORDER TO GATHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND IN DEFENSE OF CCS MOTION TO RULE 12 DISMISS BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT RECORDS THAT SERVE AS EVIDEN STRAHAN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FOR HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 137 First MOTION for Discovery STRAHAN'S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANT CCS IN ORDER TO GATHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND IN DEFENSE OF CCS MOTION TO RULE 12 DISMISS BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT RECORDS THAT SERVE AS EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS AGAINST CCS ARE IN THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF CCS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 136 First Opposition re #135 MOTION for Leave to File (Defendant Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint) STRAHAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CCS MOTION TO FILE A REPLY OWING THAT IT FAILED TO CONSULT WITH ME BEFOREHAND AND IT ALSO FAILED TO FILE CONCURRENTLY A MEMO IN SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 7 MOTION PRACTICE filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 135 MOTION for Leave to File (Defendant Center for Coastal Studies' Motion to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint) by Center for Coastal Studies. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 4, Reply)(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 134 First Opposition re #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CCS FRCP RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Evidence_CCS_removing_derelict_fishing_gear_cape-cod-bay)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 133 Second Opposition re #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HAVENOHEART'S FRCP RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit WBUR STORY ON DEFENDANT, #2 Exhibit 60DAYESA NOTICE OF INTENT TO BRING SUIT)(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 9/17/2019 to fix docket text (Vieira, Leonardo). |
| Filing 132 MOTION for Hearing re #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS FRCP RULE 12 MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 131 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Richard Max Strahan re #127 Order to Show Cause PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 130 First Opposition to Motion re #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS FRCP RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Oceana Right Whale Alert, #2 Exhibit Right Whale Alert by Healey Mass Attorney General, #3 Exhibit NMFS 2019 List of Fisheries that Entangle Whales, #4 Exhibit NMFS Report Right Whale Functionally Extinct, #5 Exhibit Map of Right Whale ESA Critical Habitat in Massachusetts)(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 9/17/2019 to fix docket text (Vieira, Leonardo). |
| Filing 129 First Opposition to Motion re #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PIERCE'S MOTION TO DISMISS HIS CLAIMS AGAINST HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) Modified on 9/17/2019 to fix docket text (Vieira, Leonardo). |
| Filing 128 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #127 Order to Show Cause, #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE HE IS FILING THIS MONDAY A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND A COPY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A PARTIAL RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS FRCP RULE 12 MOTIONS TO DISMISS. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 127 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 9/20/2019. (Vieira, Leonardo) (Main Document 127 replaced on 9/13/2019, to correct a typographical error.) (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 126 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 125 Order,, #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MAN AGAINST EXTINCTION'S NOTICE PRESERVING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT IN RESPONSE TO ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND THAT HE INTENDS TO ADD MAURY HEALEY AND THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AS DEFENDANTS (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 125 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: The docket reflects that a mailing, containing subpoenas signed by the clerk on May 7, 2019, and addressed to the plaintiff at his former post box address, was returned as undeliverable mail. As communicated in the status conference held on June 17, 2019, discovery--which includes the issuance of subpoenas--shall not commence until two weeks after each defendants initial disclosures are due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Defendants' initial disclosures are due two weeks after that defendant files its Answer. To date, no defendant has filed an Answer. Accordingly, the clerk is directed not to resend the subpoenas to plaintiff's updated address at this time. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 124 Mail sent to Richard Maximus Strahan Returned as Undeliverable. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 123 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at #http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) |
| Filing 122 Transcript of Scheduling Conference held on June 17, 2019, before Judge Indira Talwani. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Cheryl Dahlstrom at cheryldahlstrom@yahoo.com Redaction Request due 8/27/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/6/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/4/2019. (Scalfani, Deborah) |
| Filing 121 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's documents #119 and #120 . The captions of these documents fail to identify any Defendant named in this action and list an incorrect civil action number. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, the court will allow Plaintiff until September 3, 2019 to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss #107 , #111 , #113 , and #117 . Such responses shall be properly captioned, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 and Local Rule 5.1(a). (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 120 This document has been STRUCK from the record per order 121 . First MEMORANDUM in Support re #119 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdi filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) Modified on 3/4/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 119 This document has been STRUCK from the record per order 121 . First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM STRAHAN'S PETITION TO EXTEND DATE TO 2 SEPTEMBER 2019 FOR FILING HIS OPPSOTIONS TO THE DEFENDANTS ACCUMULATIVE MOTIONS TO DISMISS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 3/4/2020 (Kelly, Danielle). |
| Filing 118 MEMORANDUM in Support re #117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 2018 Action ECF Doc. 56, #2 Exhibit 1995 Action ECF Doc. 435, #3 Exhibit 1995 Action ECF Doc. 438)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 117 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ( Responses due by 8/6/2019) by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce.(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 116 First RESPONSE to Motion re #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint STRAHAN'S FIRST OF SEVERAL OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANT SAWYER AND SHYSTER APJERK'S MALICIOUS ATTEMPTS TO EVADE JUSTICE filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Press_on_Sawyer, #2 Exhibit 60 Day Notice to Sawyer)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 115 First RESPONSE to Motion re #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM STRAHAN'S FIRST OF SEVERAL FILINGS OPPOSING DEFENDANT HAVILAND AND SHYSTER LEBLANC'S MALICIOUS ATTEMPTS TO EVADE JUSTICE filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Press stories on Haviland, #2 Exhibit 60Day ESA Notice to Haviland)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 114 MEMORANDUM in Support re #113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Arthur Sawyer. (Attachments: #1 Elizabeth Casoni's Affidavit)(Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by Arthur Sawyer.(Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 112 MEMORANDUM in Support re #111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by John Haviland. (LeBlanc, Eric) |
| Filing 111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by John Haviland. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum)(LeBlanc, Eric) |
| Filing 110 Opposition re #92 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAWYER AND HAVILAND filed by Arthur Sawyer. (Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 109 Opposition re #92 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAWYER AND HAVILAND filed by John Haviland. (LeBlanc, Eric) |
| Filing 108 MEMORANDUM in Support re #107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Center for Coastal Studies. (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by Center for Coastal Studies.(Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 106 Final MOTION for Recusal PUBLIC CITIZENS DEMAND (NOT MOTION) THAT TALWANI RELINQUISH SUPERVISON OF MY PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS OWING TO TALWANI'S BIGOTRY AGAINST WORKING CLASS CITIZENS PETITIONING COURTS WITHOUT SHYSTERS ON A LEASH AND OWING TO HER PERSONAL HATRED OF THE PUBLIC CITIZEN by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 105 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Typographically Corrected Version of his Amended Complaint #89 . Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) requires that a party filing a motion "shall at the same time file a memorandum of reasons, including citation of supporting authorities, why the motion should be granted." Plaintiff's motion is not accompanied by a memorandum explaining why his motion should be granted. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 104 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's First Reply #101 and Second Reply #102 to Massachusetts Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Leave to Further Amend Complaint. Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) requires that a reply brief "may be submitted only with leave of court." Plaintiff did not seek, and was not granted, leave prior to filing his replies. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 103 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #89 Second MOTION to Correct #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS SUING DEFENDANT PIERCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, #90 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE A NEW CIVIL ACTION BRINGING INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT PIERCE, MAURA HEALEY AND OTHERS IF THE COURT REFUSES TO LET HIM BRING HIS CURRENT INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT PIERCE (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 102 Second REPLY to Response to #89 Second MOTION to Correct #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS SUING DEFENDANT PIERCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY PLAINTIFF'S WITHDRAWING HIS DOCKET ITEM FILING #101 AND SUBSTITUTING IT WITH THIS TYPOGRAPHICALLY CORRECTED REPLY TO MAURA HEALEY AND THE STATE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO BRING AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM AGINST DEFENDANT DVID PIERCE filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 101 First REPLY to Response to #89 Second MOTION to Correct #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS SUING DEFENDANT PIERCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO STATE DEFENDANTS AND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BULLYING AND MALICIOUS EFFORTS TO STOP ME FROM BRINGING CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 100 First Opposition re #89 Second MOTION to Correct #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS SUING DEFENDANT PIERCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY filed by Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, David Pierce. (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 99 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: DENYING as baseless Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions re #97 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re 96 Notice (Other) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO SHYSTER ARMHEINS MALICIOUS "MOTION" FALSELY POSING AS A "NOTICE" THAT SEEKS TO HAVE THE COURT STRIKE MY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE SEEKING SANCTIONS AGAINST SHYSTER ARMHEIN FOR HER AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ON HIM by Richard Max Strahan (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 98 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re #96 NOTICE by Arthur Sawyer Request for Clarification. ELECTRONIC ORDER: GRANTING Defendant Arthur Sawyer's Request for Clarification #96 and clarifies as follows:(1) Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) states that "[n]o motion shall be filed unless counsel certify that they have conferred and have attempted in good faith to resolve or narrow the issue." As Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, the court waives this requirement for all parties and will not procedurally dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #92 for failing to confer.(2) Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) requires that a party filing a motion "shall at the same time file a memorandum of reasons... why the motion should be granted." (Emphasis added). The rule provides further that "[a]ffidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the motion is based shall be filed with the motion." Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiff filed his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #92 on June 24, 2019, and did not file his Memorandum in Support of the Motion #95 until July 2, 2019. Defendants' response to the motion shall be filed no later than July 16, 2019. Plaintiff is advised that future filings should comply with the rules, and that supporting memorandum and other documents shall be filed on the same day as any motion.(Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 97 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #96 Notice (Other) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO SHYSTER ARMHEINS MALICIOUS "MOTION" FALSELY POSING AS A "NOTICE" THAT SEEKS TO HAVE THE COURT STRIKE MY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE SEEKING SANCTIONS AGAINST SHYSTER ARMHEIN FOR HER AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ON HIM (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 96 NOTICE by Arthur Sawyer Request for Clarification (Amrhein, Emily) |
| Filing 95 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #92 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAWYER AND HAVILAND filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 94 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 93 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's #89 Motion for Leave to File a Second Typographically Corrected Version of his Amended Complaint has not yet been acted on by the court. Accordingly, the clerk shall correct the docket text for document #90 to reflect that this document is a proposed Amended Complaint. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 92 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAWYER AND HAVILAND by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 91 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric R. LeBlanc on behalf of John Haviland (LeBlanc, Eric) |
| Filing 90 PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND TYPOGRAPHICALLY CORRECTED VERSION against All Defendants). Filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) Modified on 7/1/2019 as directed by Order 93 (Kinsella, Devan). |
| Filing 89 Second MOTION to Correct #48 Amended Complaint PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS SUING DEFENDANT PIERCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 88 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily D. Amrhein on behalf of Arthur Sawyer (Amrhein, Emily) |
| Filing 87 Summons Issued as to All Defendants re #68 AMENDED COMPLAINT. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 86 First REPLY to Response to #44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO MY TRO REQUEST TO ORDER THESE DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE ME MY LAWFUL RIGHT TO HAVE A STUDENT COMMERCIAL FISHING PERMIT filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 85 Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/2/2020 02:30 PM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. (Conf. was set in error for 2019.) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 84 Copy re 83 Clerk's Notes mailed to John Haviland P.O. Box 543 Green Harbor, MA 02041 (with corrected STC date of 1/2/2020) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 6/21/2019 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 83 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Case called. Court has colloquy with counsel and pro se parties. Def. Haviland to file a document that provides his mailing address to the court; he will be added pro se until (if) he retains counsel. Def. A. Sawyer to be added indiv.; Atty. Apjohn to be added as counsel to A. Sawyer both indiv. and as pres. of MA Lobsterman's Assoc. Doc. 73 is denied. Discovery will not commence until an Answer is filed as to that party and two weeks after initial disclosures are due. Each defendant's initial disclosures are due two weeks after that defendant files its Answer. Plaintiff's initial disclosures are due two weeks after the initial Answer is filed. Document 81 is stricken from the record. Doc. 67 is granted. The Amended Comp. at doc. 68, filed 6/16/19 is the operative complaint. All Defendants must file responsive pleadings to the Amended Complaint by 7/19/19. Docs. 56 and 71 are withdrawn. Docs. 57 and 66 are denied. Doc. 69 is moot. Status Conference set for 1/2/2020 02:30 PM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. (Court Reporter: Cheryl Dahlstrom at cheryldahlstrom@yahoo.com.)(Attorneys present: Strahan Pro Se, Reynolds, Apjohn, Wynne, Haviland Pro Se) (MacDonald, Gail) Modified on 6/21/2019 to correct status conf. date (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 82 NOTICE. Filed by John Haviland. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 81 This document has been struck from the record. (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 80 Opposition re #44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019 filed by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA"). (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 79 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (D)(3). (Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 78 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference . (Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 77 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric M. Apjohn on behalf of Arthur Sawyer (Apjohn, Eric) |
| Filing 76 NOTICE of Appearance by James M. Campbell on behalf of Arthur Sawyer (Campbell, James) |
| Filing 75 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (Defendant Center for Coastal Studies' Local Rule 16.1 Certification). (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 74 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 PLAINTIFF'S LOCAL RULE 16.1 STATEMENT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 73 Emergency MOTION for Discovery PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO E ALLOWED TO IMMEDIATELY CONDUCT DISCOVERY AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES IN ORDER TO SEEK A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AGUST TO STOP MASSACHUSETTS FROM ENTANGLING WHALES AND SEA TURTLES IN ITS FISHING GEAR by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 72 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #70 MOTION for Sanctions PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANT CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES FOR MALICIOUSLY IGNORING A COURT ORDER PLAINTIFF'S WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOCKET #70) (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 71 MOTION for Sanctions PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN ASSOCIATION AND ARTHUR SAWYER FOR VIOLATING A COURT ORDER by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 70 MOTION for Sanctions PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANT CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES FOR MALICIOUSLY IGNORING A COURT ORDER by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) Modified on 6/17/2019 (MacDonald, Gail). |
| Filing 69 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT ARTHUR SAWYER by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 68 AMENDED COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF'S TYPOGRAPHICALLY CORRECTED AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 67 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TYPOGRAPHICALLY CORRECTED VERSION OF HIS CURRENT AMENDED COMPLAINT by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 66 MOTION for Order to Find Defendant Sawyer in Default PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ORDER DEFENDANT SAWYER IN DEFAULT FOR FAILING TO FILE TIMELY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit_USM_rtn-service_sawyer)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 65 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA").(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 64 JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA").(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 63 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 . (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 62 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER: The court's Order 58 is vacated. Plaintiff may appear by telephone at the June 17, 2019 Scheduling Conference. Parties are instructed to dial (888) 808-6929 and enter Code: 8523158 to be connected to the court's conference system. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 61 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #33 Notice of Scheduling Conference PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE THAT HE IS NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MAKE THE INTER-STATE TRIP TO BOSTON MA FOR MONDAY'S HEARING BECAUSE HE IS INDIGENT AND HAS NO MONEY NOR ANY CAR AND HAS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR UBER/LYFT TRIP TO THE COURTHOUSE (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 60 NOTICE re 43 Order issued 5/29/19: The parties are reminded that in lieu of the joint statements to be filed in advance of the scheduling conference, see L.R. 16.1(b), (d), the parties shall file separate statements with the court. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 59 Opposition re #56 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST MAURA HEALEY FOR MALICIOUSLY VIOLATING THE PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PETITION THE COURTS filed by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA"). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 58 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #55 Motion TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 57 MOTION to Appoint Counsel PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HAVE COURT APPOINT TO HIM PRO BONO LEGAL COUNSEL by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 56 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST MAURA HEALEY FOR MALICIOUSLY VIOLATING THE PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PETITION THE COURTS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 55 Emergency MOTION re #33 Notice of Scheduling Conference PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PARTICPATE TELEPHONICALLY AT THE 17 JUNE 2019 SCHEDULING HEARING by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 54 NOTICE of Appearance by William H. Wynne on behalf of Center for Coastal Studies (Wynne, William) |
| Filing 53 SUMMONS Returned Executed John Haviland served on 6/6/2019, answer due 6/27/2019. (DaSilva, Carolina) |
| Filing 52 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Brenner on behalf of Center for Coastal Studies (Brenner, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 51 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendants Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Division of Marine Fisheries' motion for clarification #49 . Although this action is similar to Plaintiff's prior action (18-cv-10392), it has been filed as a separate action. Defendants shall treat Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #48 , filed June 2, 2019, as the operative complaint. Defendants Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Division of Marine Fisheries shall respond to the Amended Complaint by June 18, 2019. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 50 US Marshal Process Receipt and Return for Summons. Delivered to Richard Delaney of Center for Coastal Studies on May 31, 2019. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 49 MOTION for Clarification and Further Relief by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA").(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 48 AMENDED COMPLAINT PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED AS OF RIGHT BY RULE FRCP RULE 15 against Richard Max Strahan, filed by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 47 First AFFIDAVIT in Support re #44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019 DECLARATION OF RICHARD MAXIMUS STRAHAN ATTESTING TO RETALIATORY REFUSAL BY DEFENDANTS TO ACCEPT ANY PERMIT APPLICATION FROM HIM filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Letter from UNH attesting to full time student status, #2 Exhibit Student permit form, #3 Exhibit recreational permit form, #4 Exhibit Letter from Defendant Pierce)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 46 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER regarding Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Oral Argument on June 17, 2019 #44 . Plaintiff has provided no basis for shortening Defendants' time to respond to this motion, and setting an expedited hearing on June 17, 2019. Defendants may respond to the motion within the time frame permitted by Local Rule. The court will set a hearing on the motion, as needed, after Defendants' opposition is filed. Scheduling of any hearing on the motion may be addressed at the June 17, 2019 Scheduling conference. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 45 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019 PLAINTIFF'S MMEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SO HE CAN AS A STUDENT COMMERCIAL FISH IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE SUMMER FISHING SEASON filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 44 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOIR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON 17 JUNE 2019 by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 43 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Order the US Marshal to Serve Summons on Defendants #42 by June 10, 2019, is DENIED. Service of all defendants need not be completed prior to a scheduling conference. See Local Rule 16.1(a) ("... the judicial officer shall convene a scheduling conference as soon as practicable, but in any event within 60 days after the appearance of a defendant [... ].")Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Order State Defendants to Participate with Him in a Phone Conference #41 is also DENIED. The meet and confer process is intended to streamline disputes between the parties, and not to create additional need for court intervention. In lieu of the joint statements to be filed in advance of the scheduling conference, see L.R. 16.1(b), (d), the parties shall file separate statements with the court. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 42 Emergency MOTION for Order to ORDER US MARSHALL TO SERVE SUMMINS ON DEFENDANTS BY 10 JUNE 2019 by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 41 Emergency MOTION re #33 Notice of Scheduling Conference PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ORDER STATE DEFENDANTS TO PARTICIPATE WITH HIM IN A PHONE CONFERENCE ON 3 MAY 2019 ON SCHEDULING CONFERENCE MATTERS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 40 US Marshal Process Receipt and Return for Summons. Delivered to Mass. Lobstermen Association May 28, 2019. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 39 US Marshal Process Receipt and Return for Summons. Delivered to Arthur Sawyer on May 24, 2019. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 38 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #8 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,, Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,, #9 Summons Issued, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MAILING TO US MARSHAL A SUMMONS/COMPLAINT FOR EACH OF THE FOUR REMAINING DEFENDANTS (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 20 May 2019 letter to US Marshal at Boston, #2 Exhibit USM Form for Defendant Center for Coastal Studies, #3 Exhibit USM Form for Defendant Mass. Lobstermen's Assoc., #4 USM Form for Defendant Sawyer, #5 USM Form for Defendant Haviland)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 37 Judge Indira Talwani: Electronic order: DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's Emergency Motion #36 . Plaintiff may refile his motion with a copy of the documents and any cover letter provided to the United States Marshals Service for service, and a certification of the date that he provided the documents to the United States Marshals Service. In the event that Plaintiff did not retain copies of any such letter or documents, he shall specifically identify such documents and cover letter in the certification. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 36 Emergency MOTION re #9 Summons Issued, #8 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,, Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se,,, PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO ORDER THE US MARSHAL TO SERVE THE SUMMONS FOR THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS BY 10 JUNE 2019 by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 35 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re #26 Notice (Other) PLAINTIFF's SECOND NOTICE RESERVING HIS RIGHT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO FILE HIS AMNEDED COMPLAINT BY FRIDAY 12 MAY 2019 (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 34 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: No party may seek discovery from any source prior to the Rule 16 conference, absent leave of court. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 33 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference set for 6/17/2019 02:45 PM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. SEE ATTACHED NOTICE. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 32 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing #31 Defendants Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("Massachusetts Defendants") request for an enlargement of time to respond to the complaint to June 6, 2019. (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to 06-06-2019 to Respond to Complaint by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA").(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 30 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing set for 5/6/19. (Garvin, Brendan) |
| Filing 29 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER - as to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order #14 . The court previously denied the request as to emergency relief, and set a hearing for May 6, 2019, on Plaintiff's request for further injunctive relief. See Elec. Order 25 . In light of Plaintiff's notice that he declines to pursue a request for a preliminary injunction at this time, see Notice #27 , Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order #14 is terminated. Plaintiff's emergency motion #28 for the court to cancel the May 6, 2019, hearing is GRANTED. (Garvin, Brendan) |
| Filing 28 Emergency MOTION re 25 Order,,, #27 Notice (Other), PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR THE COURT TO CANCEL ITS 6 MAY 2019 SCHEDULED HEARING by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan re 24 Order on Motion for TRO,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Motion Hearing,,, Terminate Motions,,, Set Hearings,, 25 Order,,, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF HIS REFUSAL TO PURSUE ANY REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS AT THIS TIME (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 26 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE RESERVING HIS RIGHT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ON 6 MAY 2019 (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 25 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Regarding Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #14 , Plaintiff has not shown a threat of immediate and irreparable harm, given that Defendants have closed the area at issue to lobster pot fishing through May 8, 2019. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the request for emergency relief is DENIED, and the request for further relief is treated as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The State Defendants MEOEEA and MDMF may file a sur-reply to Plaintiff's reply #20 by Thursday, May 2, 2019. A further hearing on the motion is set for May 6, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. In the event that the State Defendants notify the court of a further extension of the closure of the area at issue, the court may reschedule the hearing. Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument on his Petition for a TRO #17 is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the hearing held on April 29, 2019. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 24 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2019 re #14 #17 Emergency for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Richard Max Strahan. TRO denied in open court and will be considered as motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants' surreply due 5/2/19. Next Hearing set for 5/6/2019 11:30 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani. (Court Reporter: Cheryl Dahlstrom at cheryldahlstrom@yahoo.com.) (Attorneys present: Strahan (pro se), Reynolds) (MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 23 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING Emergency Motion #22 . (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 22 Emergency MOTION re 18 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,, PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING HIM TODAY TO BRING HIS COMPUTER AND PHONE INTO THE COURTHOUSE TODAY TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS ORAL ARGUMENT TO THE COURT AT TODAYS SCHEDULED HEARING by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 21 Second AFFIDAVIT in Support re #17 Emergency MOTION re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WH, #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W DECLARATION OF RICHARD MAXIMUS STRAHAN filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit EXHIBIT#2 WINGOS DEAL WITH WIND FARM ON RIGHT WHALE, #2 Exhibit EXHIBIT#4 PRESS COVERAGE NOAA TRT MEET, #3 Exhibit EXHIBIT#5 PRESS COVERAGE NOAA TRT, #4 Exhibit EXHIBIT#6 GHOST GEAR REMOVAL IN CPAE COD BAY, #5 Exhibit EXHIBIT#1 NOAA SMA IN CAPE COD BAY)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 20 First REPLY to Response to #17 Emergency MOTION re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WH, #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W PLAINTIFF'S RELY TO STATE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO HIS TRO PETITION filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 19 Opposition re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W filed by Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA"). (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit)(Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 18 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The court will hear argument on Plaintiff'sEmergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #14 on April 29, 2019, at 2:45 P.M. Defendants Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA") and Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF") shall respond to Plaintiff'sEmergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #14 no later than April 26, 2019. ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W : Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2019 02:45 PM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani.(MacDonald, Gail) |
| Filing 17 Emergency MOTION re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON HIS PETITION FOR A TRO by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 16 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W PLAINTIFF M.A.X'S FIRST MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS 21 APRIL 2019 TRO APPLICATION TO ENJOIN THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM AUTHORIZING THE DEPLOYMENT OF LOBSTERPOT GEAR IN RIGHT WHALE ESA LISTED CRITICAL HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 15 First AFFIDAVIT in Support re #14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL W DECLARATION BY RICHARD MAXIMUS STRAHAN IN SUPPORT OF TRO REQUEST filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit#1 Strahan BC Law Journal, #2 Exhibit Exhibit#3 2008 Report Entangled Whale, #3 Exhibit Exhibit#4 ESA Stipulation Crab Fishing, #4 Exhibit Exhibit#5 NOAA Report NRW, #5 Exhibit Exhibit#6 Cong. Testimony, #6 Exhibit Exhibit@2 VBR Graphic)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 14 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A TRO AGAINST THE STATE DEFENDANTS TO STOP THEIR DEPLOYING WHALE KILLING FISHING GEAR INTO FEDERALLY PROTECTED HABITAT FOR THE WHALE IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 13 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Request for Emergency Relief #10 is DENIED without prejudice. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on Saturday stated that it would be supported by a memorandum to be filed on Monday. No such memorandum has been filed to date. Accordingly, this motion is denied without prejudice to it being refiled with the supporting documents and proof of service. (Kinsella, Devan) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Maryanne Reynolds on behalf of Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ("MDMF"), Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("MEOEEA") (Reynolds, Maryanne) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE by Richard Max Strahan PLAINTIFF'S RETURN OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON STATE DEFENDANTS (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Return Service of Summons to Defendant MEOEEA, #2 Exhibit Return Service of Summons to Defendant MDMF)(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 10 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order THE PLAINTIFF M.A.X. APPLICATION FOR A TRO TO IMMEDIATELY STOP THE STATE DEFENDANTS FROM FURTHER PEMITTING THE USE OF VERTICAL BUOY ROPES IN ESA DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE RIGHT WHALE IN CAPE COD BAY AND BEYOND by Richard Max Strahan.(Strahan, Richard) |
| Filing 9 Summons Issued as to All Defendants and mailed to plaintiff on 4/5/2019 with forms and instructions for service by the United States Marshals Service and Local Rule 4.1, and Order #8 . (Attachments: #1 Instructions for Service by USMS and Local Rule 4.1)(PSSA, 3) |
| Filing 8 Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #3 Motion for TRO; granting #5 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. The Clerk shall issue summonses as to all Defendants. Plaintiff shall serve the summonses, complaint, and this order upon Defendants in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he may elect to have the United States Marshals Service complete service with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of the issuance of the summonses to complete service. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in dismissal of this action without further notice from the court. (PSSA, 3) |
| Filing 7 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (Finn, Mary) |
Filing 6
General Order 09-1, dated January 6, 2009 regarding the E-Government Act and Personal Identifiers entered. (Vieira, Leonardo)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Richard Max Strahan. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 4 MEMORANDUM in Support re #3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Richard Max Strahan. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Richard Max Strahan. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Richard Max Strahan. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Sheet) (Vieira, Leonardo) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
