United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ZOBEL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before me are a number of outstanding discovery motions
(Docket ## 28, 59, 60, 61, 72, 87, 135, and 147). In essence,
plaintiff seeks to discover information from 2011 to the
present and to attach additional assessments up to $5, 000,
000. Defendants contend that discovery should be limited to
2014 and separately move for protective orders concerning
various subpoenas duces tecum.
Attachment of Additional Assets
after this case was filed, plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion
for prejudgment attachment. Docket # 7. On May 5, 2017,
“[i]n light of the facts alleged in his Verified
Complaint, and further stated in his motion, ” I
allowed plaintiff's ex-parte motion for prejudgment
attachment “in an amount of no more than $1.3
million.” Docket # 10. Plaintiff subsequently moved
to attach additional assets because he maintains that
“he is reasonably likely to recover a judgment against
Defendants in excess of $5 million.” Docket # 28, at 3.
I ordered plaintiff to submit supplemental evidence in
support of his claim, and “to provide specific amounts
of tangible losses, such as medical bills, cost of services
occasioned by and required as a result of defendants'
conduct, and loss of income.” Docket # 93. Plaintiff
provided an itemized list of his medical expenses as of
August 15, 2014, which totaled $368, 425.47.Defendant Gussman
contends that “the medical bills causally connected to
the assault total approximately $52, 000, ” Docket #
150, at 5, and denotes these expenses. See Docket #
150-1. Even accepting plaintiff's expenses in full, he
has not shown there is a reasonable likelihood that he would
recover judgment in an amount equal to or greater than the
amount of $5 million. Accordingly, I decline to allow
attachment of additional assets.
Discovery Time Period
argues that discovery from 2011 through the present is
necessary to demonstrate that the alleged conspiracy
“was hatched long before 2013, and continued long after
Mr. Merrifield was attacked, ” on August 15, 2014.
Docket # 147, at 2. I disagree. The discovery shall be
limited to the period of January 1, 2014 through August 31,
claims against defendants are centrally based on the
following allegations, all of which occurred in 2014:
• “Gussman concocted a plan to hire a hit-man to
attack and seriously injure or kill Mr. Merrifield.”
Docket # 1 (“Verified Complaint”), at ¶ 44;
• “Gussman met with Tracey Valentine, and Reardon.
They agreed with Gussman's plan to hire a hit-man to
attack Mr. Merrifield at his home in Douglasville,
Georgia.” Id. at ¶ 45;
• “[In late July 2014, ] Dearth was in Florida
when Reardon called to discuss Gussman's plan.”
Id. at ¶ 49;
• “Dearth wanted the money, so he agreed to the
job and flew back to Boston. Reardon picked him up at the
airport in the rental car they would later drive from
Massachusetts to Georgia to carry out Gussman's plan for
revenge.” Id. at ¶ 52;
• “On August 13, [2014, ] Reardon and Dearth began
their trip from Boston to Atlanta.” Id. at
• On August 15, 2014, Dearth attacked plaintiff at his
home in Georgia, while Reardon sat in the car. Id.