United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
case was brought in 1987 by plaintiff Philips Medical
Systems1 ("Philips") corporate predecessor, Picker
International Corporation ("Picker"), against
defendants Thomas J. Quinn and Imaging Equipment Services,
Inc. ("Imaging"). Plaintiff alleged
misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement
related to Picker's computer tomography scanners
non-jury trial, on July 5, 1995, this court issued a detailed
Memorandum and Order which held, in part, that:
Quinn and Imaging have for more than a decade engaged in a
relentless and extensive campaign to misappropriate
Picker's legally protected intellectual property. The
court also finds that defendants' misconduct continued
through trial in the form of testimony fabricated by Quinn.
Picker Int'l Corp. v. Imaging Equip. Servs., Inc. and
Thomas J. Quinn, 931 F.Supp. 18, 22 (D. Mass. 1995),
aff'd 94 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 1996). Therefore,
the court enjoined Quinn and Imaging from possessing
specified Picker proprietary materials. It also ordered that
defendants destroy such materials in their possession or
return them to Picker. Id. at 47-48.
for Picker was entered on October 27, 1995. Quinn appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed this
court's decision in 1996. See 94 F.3d 640.
years later, on March 10, 2003, Quinn filed a motion asking
the court to vacate and remove all orders issued in this case
and for a wide range of other relief. In a March 6, 2004
Memorandum and Order, the court denied Quinn's motion and
enjoined Quinn from making future filings challenging the
validity and effect of the October 27, 1995 judgment against
him in this case without obtaining prior approval from this
court. That decision was based on Quinn's
"vexatious, malicious . . . inappropriate . . . and
legally frivolous" conduct. See Mar. 6, 2004
Mem. & Order at 13-14. The March 6, 2004 decision was
affirmed on appeal on January 11, 2005. See
Judgement, Philips Medical Sys, Inc. v. Quinn, No.
04-1495 (1st Cir. Jan. 11, 2005).
on January 1, 2011, Quinn began filing motions seeking
permission to file motions that challenged the judgment
against him. On September 21, 2011, the court denied
Quinn's motions for the reasons stated in the March 6,
2004 Memorandum and Order and reminded Quinn that he remained
subject to that decision, as well as to the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Quinn again appealed. On
September 13, 2013, the First Circuit summarily affirmed,
[Quinn] has had ample opportunity to fully litigate his
claims. In the eighteen years since [Quinn] was found liable
in a bench trial, he has repeatedly attempted to introduce
new evidence and new legal theories and otherwise vacate the
judgment against him. These efforts were and are untimely
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(3), and cannot meet the high
standard required by Rule 60(b)(6).
Philips Medical Sys, Inc. v. Quinn, No. 11-2306 (1st
Cir. Jan. 11, 2005)
November 12, 2015 and December 10, 2015, Quinn filed three
additional motions: (1) Motion Asking Permission to File A
Motion to Compel; (2) Motion for Leave to File Response to
Philips Response; and (3) Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint. Quinn's motions seek an order compelling
Philips to provide Quinn with information relating to one of
Philips' CT scanners.
opposed Quinn's Motion for Leave to File Motion to Compel
Disclosure. See Philips' Opp. to Mot. for Leave
to File Motion to Compel. It requests that the court modify
the March 6, 2004 injunction to enjoin Quinn from making any
additional filings in this or any court concerning the
subject matter of this case, and from contacting Philips or
any government agency concerning the subject matter of it.
See id. at 5. In addition, Philips asks the court to
order Quinn to pay Philip's attorney's fees incurred
in responding to Quinn's motion. See id. at 4-6.
Philips also filed oppositions to Quinn's other motions,
reiterating its request for a modified injunction and
attorney's fees in each. See Philips' Opp.
to Mot. for Leave to File A Reply at 1-2; Philips' Opp.
to Mot. for Leave to File An Amended Complaint at 2;
Philips' Opp. to Defendant's Motion to Compel at 1.
reasons stated in the March 6, 2004 Memorandum and Order and
the First Circuit's September 13, 2013 decision, the
Motion for Leave to File Motion to Compel Disclosure and
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint are each being
denied. In addition, the court is broadening the March 6,
2004 injunction to bar Quinn from asking the court for
permission to raise any issues relating to the transactions
or occurrences that were the subject of this case.
had ample opportunity to litigate his claims at trial. For
more than 20 years, he has repeatedly attempted re-litigate
those issues and raise new legal theories. The First Circuit
has held that "in extreme circumstances involving
groundless encroachment upon the limited time and resources
of the court and other parties, an injunction barring a party
from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits
may be appropriate." Castro v. United States,
775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st ...