Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ryan v. Astra Tech, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

November 14, 2014

JEFFREY F. RYAN, Appellant, CHEVONNE SIUPA, Plaintiff,
v.
ASTRA TECH, INC.; JOE JOHNSON; STEVE CYR, Defendants, Appellees

Page 51

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Arnold R. Rosenfeld, with whom Camille F. Sarrouf and Sarrouf Law, LLP were on brief, for appellant.

Andrea C. Kramer, with whom Hirsch Roberts Weinstein, LLP was on brief, for appellees.

Before Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 52

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.

Attorney Jeffrey Ryan (" Ryan" ) appeals from the district court's revocation of his permission to practice pro hac vice for the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit that gave rise to these proceedings.[1] The district court revoked Ryan's pro hac vice admission after finding that he lied to the court about attempting to interfere with the deposition of his client. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Background

The conduct that led to the revocation challenged on this appeal occurred during a deposition of Ryan's client by defense counsel on October 24, 2012. The deposition transcript shows that a half hour into the deposition, defense counsel asked Ryan's client, the plaintiff, about an interrogatory answer. After the plaintiff struggled for more than one minute to answer defense counsel's question, the following exchange between the attorneys took place:

[Defense counsel]: I would like the record to reflect Mr. Ryan is writing notes to his client while she is answering a question. If he wishes to prove that's not true rather than going on a rampage, he can turn back over the notepad that he just turned over, and he can show us all what he wrote on it. But I will, again, be bringing up to the court that he was writing on a notepad. And when I looked at him, he turned it over. It was clear that [the plaintiff's] eyes were looking at the notepad as well.
Mr. Ryan: Nothing that [defense counsel] said in that last statement was accurate. 100 percent false.
[Defense counsel]: Then I would request that you bring that notepad to the court and let the court look at it.

Defense counsel then asked the plaintiff while she was still under oath whether she had seen Ryan flip the notepad over. The plaintiff admitted that " [t]he notepad has been flipped over and reflipped over," and " I saw something in my peripheral vision." The plaintiff denied looking at the notepad. After further skirmishes, the deposition was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.