Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Sarfaty

Massachusetts Superior Court

Decided February 2, 2001No. 9901361BPublished

1Opinion of the CourtHouston, J.

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel designation and for attorneys fees. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). The plaintiffs contend that the deponent, an insurance carrier who is a non-party to plaintiffs’ medical malpractice action, should be compelled to provide information concerning the relationship it shares with the defendant’s medical experts. The deponent opposes the motion and has filed a cross-motion for a protective order pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c). For the following reasons, the plaintiffs motion to compel is ALLOWED and the deponent’s cross-motion…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Department of Mental RetardationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  2. Hanover Insurance v. SuttonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
  3. Atlas Tack Corp. v. DonabedMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
  4. Dempsey v. Goldstein Bros. Amusement Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  5. G-69 v. DegnanDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API