Hewlett v. International Business Machines Corp.
| Linda Hewlett |
| International Business Machines Corp. |
| 4:2022cv10965 |
| June 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| David H Hennessy |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Other Statutes: Arbitration |
| 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 48 SUR-REPLY to Motion re #5 MOTION to Vacate filed by International Business Machines Corp.. (Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 47 Opposition re #5 MOTION to Vacate filed by International Business Machines Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit 2 to Exhibit A)(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 46 REPLY to Response to #45 MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award and Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award filed by Linda Hewlett. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 45 MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award by Linda Hewlett. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 44 REDACTION to #1 Complaint, Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award byLinda Hewlett. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 43 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #41 Motion to Seal Document. The court GRANTS IBM's motion to seal and accepts its proposed redactions and documents to remain under seal. Although there is a presumption of public disclosure, IBM may redact the names of current and former employees not directly involved in Hewlett's employment under the exception for innocent third parties. D. Mass. R. 83.6.11(b)(1). The three documents attached to Hewlett's reply brief may be sealed under the exceptional circumstances. See D. Mass. R. 83.6.11(b)(5). These documents were not produced in the underlying arbitration action and do not relate to Hewlett's action, so Hewlett cannot now shoehorn these documents into the public eye. Excluding the documents identified in IBM's list, the parties are ordered to refile in unsealed and unredacted form any filings provisionally sealed under the court's September 19, 2022 and October 5, 2022 orders (Dkt # 30 and 34) by November 25, 2022. (RGS, law1) |
| Filing 42 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Linda Hewlett re 36 Order,,,,, . (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 41 MOTION to Seal Document ***IBM's Requested Redactions and Documents to Remain Under Seal*** by International Business Machines Corp..(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 40 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #39 Motion for Extension of Time to file submission by November 17, 2022. (RGS, law1) |
| Filing 39 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to November 17, 2022 to Comply with Order dated October 20, 2022 by International Business Machines Corp..(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 38 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT entered for IBM. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 37 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying #5 Motion to Vacate ; denying 17 Sealed Motion. (RGS, law1) |
| Filing 36 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re #31 Assented to MOTION to Seal Document Provisionally filed by International Business Machines Corp. The court is currently inclined to unseal the highly redacted documents under the court's grant of #31 Assented to Motion to Provisionally Seal Documents. The court is aware of the standard for sealing court records and does not require briefing on the issue. Local Rule 83.6.11 states that "[a]ll matters before the court concerning alleged attorney misconduct and discipline are presumptively public" with several identified exceptions. This court has also held that "the public interest in access is strong and the tradition of public access is robust" for business documents that provide the foundation for dispositive motions. Bradford v. Bigelow, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 3d 445, 449 (D. Mass. 2015). To seal such documents, a party "must establish an overriding interest in sealing and must ensure that any sealing is narrowly tailored to shield as little from public view as possible." Id. The parties have 21 days (November 10, 2022) to confer and submit to the court a list of the specific parts of the record they believe meet the standard identified above. (RGS, law1) |
| Filing 35 SUR-REPLY to Motion re #5 MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award (Leave to file granted on October 5, 2022) filed by International Business Machines Corp.. (Kessler, Jamie) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2022: #1 Sealed Sur-Reply) (Pacho, Arnold). |
| Filing 34 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #31 Assented to Motion to Provisionally Seal Documents. The court emphasizes the provisional nature of this grant. Public access to judicial records and documents allows the citizenry to monitor the functioning of our courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.... The citizens right to know is not lightly to be deflected. We agree with the Sixth Circuit that [o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records. F.T.C. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 476 (1st Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 33 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #32 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document as a separate entry on the docket. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on October 5, 2022 - in the caption of the document. (RGS, law1) |
| Filing 32 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Vacate by International Business Machines Corp..(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 31 Assented to MOTION to Seal Document Provisionally by International Business Machines Corp..(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 30 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #29 MOTION to Provisionally Seal #28 Reply to Response to Motion to Vacate and Petition to Vacate. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order) - in the caption of the document. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 29 MOTION to Seal Document #28 Reply to Response to Motion to Vacate and Petition to Vacate by Linda Hewlett.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 28 REPLY to Response to #5 MOTION to Vacate and Petition to Vacate filed by Linda Hewlett. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/19/2022: #4 Sealed Reply) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/19/2022) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 2 replaced on 9/19/2022) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 3 replaced on 9/19/2022) (Pacho, Arnold). |
| Filing 27 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #24 Motion for Leave to File a Reply by September 16, 2022. However, the court will proceed with its review of this case and because of the length of time requested to file this Reply, it will not provide any further extension. (Zierk, Marsha) |
| Filing 26 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns 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 David H. Hennessy. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 24 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition to Vacate by Linda Hewlett.(Pagano, Adelaide) |
| Filing 23 Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. . (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 22 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Notification forms indicating whether or not a party has consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge have not been received in the Clerk's Office. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed promptly. Additional forms can be obtained on the Court's web page at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov. (King, Dawn) |
| Filing 21 Opposition re #5 MOTION to Vacate and Petition to Vacate filed by International Business Machines Corp. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Opposition, #2 Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit 2 to Exhibit A)(Kessler, Jamie) Modified text on 8/30/2022 (Barrows, Jennifer). |
| Filing 20 Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #19 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 29, 2022 to File Response/Reply as to #5 MOTION to Vacate, #1 Complaint, by International Business Machines Corp. Response due by 8/29/2002. (King, Dawn) |
| Filing 19 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 29, 2022 to File Response/Reply as to #5 MOTION to Vacate , #1 Complaint, by International Business Machines Corp..(Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan R. Shank on behalf of International Business Machines Corp. (Shank, Jonathan) |
| Filing 15 Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #14 MOTION to Seal Document 5 MOTION to Vacate, #1 Complaint, Provisionally by Linda Hewlett. (King, Dawn) |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Seal Document #5 MOTION to Vacate , #1 Complaint, Provisionally by Linda Hewlett.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Jamie L. Kessler on behalf of International Business Machines Corp. (Kessler, Jamie) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Adelaide H. Pagano on behalf of Linda Hewlett (Pagano, Adelaide) |
| Filing 11 Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying with leave to refile #2 MOTION to Seal Petition to Vacate, Motion to Vacate, and accompanying Exhibits by Linda Hewlett for failure to comply with L.R. 7.1. (King, Dawn) |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Linda Hewlett. International Business Machines Corp. waiver sent on 6/21/2022, answer due 8/22/2022. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Main Document 10 replaced on 6/29/2022) (Barrows, Jennifer). |
| Filing 9 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. 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. (Burgos, Sandra) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Danieli, Chris) |
| Filing 7 Case transferred in from Eastern Division (Boston) on 6/22/2022 Case Number 1:22-cv-10965. (Alba, Robert) |
| Filing 6 Case transferred to Central Division (Worcester) (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Vacate by Linda Hewlett. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 4 Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet re #1 Complaint, by Linda Hewlett. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel shall complete and file in PDF format a Local Category Form. The form can be found on the court's website under Resources/Forms. Counsel will use the event under Other Documents - Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Seal Petition to Vacate, Motion to Vacate, and accompanying Exhibits by Linda Hewlett.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Petition to Vacate against International Business Machines Corp. Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-9377096 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Linda Hewlett. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Text of Proposed Order Summons in a Civil Action)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
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
| Search for this case: Hewlett v. International Business Machines Corp. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Linda Hewlett | |
| Represented By: | Shannon E. Liss-Riordan |
| Represented By: | Adelaide H. Pagano |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: International Business Machines Corp. | |
| Represented By: | Jamie L. Kessler |
| Represented By: | Jonathan R. Shank |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
