Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUZANNE GENEREUX, et al.,                                                   )
Plaintiffs,                                                                 )
                                                                            )
v.                                                                          )                                                      C.A. No.  04-12137
                                                                            )
HARDRIC LABORATORIES, INC.,                                                 )
et al.,                                                                     )
Defendants.                                                                 )
ERNEST BETUCCHY, et al.,                                                    )
Plaintiffs,                                                                 )
                                                                            )
v.                                                                          )                                                      C.A. No.  10-11652
                                                                            )
RAYTHEON COMPANY,                                                           )
Defendant.                                                                  )
                                                                            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, D.J.                                                                                                                         June  5,  2013
                                                                            Plaintiffs  move  for  reconsideration  of  the  May   29,                  2013
Memorandum  and  Order  denying  their  motion  to  file  a  sur-reply
brief  and  to  make  other  submissions  concerning  defendant's  fully
briefed   Motion   for   Summary   Judgment   and   Request   for   Oral
Argument  (the  "Motion  for  Summary  Judgment").  In  their  proposed
sur-reply  brief,  plaintiffs  seek  to  argue  that  they  are  not
required  to  prove  "subcellular  change"  in  order  to  prevail  on
the  merits.  In  the  pending  motion,  plaintiffs  contend  that  the
argument  that  they  do  not  need  to  prove  "subcellular  change"  is
not   a   new   argument,   since   it   was   previously   raised   in
plaintiffs'   opposition   to   the   Motion   for   Summary   Judgment.




Plaintiffs  also  renew  their  request  to  file  a  copy  of  a  certain
medical test result.
Motions  for  reconsideration  "are  appropriate  only  in  a
limited  number  of  circumstances:  if  the  moving  party  presents
newly  discovered  evidence,  if  there  has  been  an  intervening
change  in  the  law,  or  if  the  movant  can  demonstrate  that  the
original  decision  was  based  on  a  manifest  error  of  law  or  was
clearly  unjust."  United  States  v.  Allen,                                573  F.3d                                       42,   53   (1st
Cir.  2009)  (citing  Marie  v.  Allied  Home  Mortgage  Corp.,  402  F.3d
1,  7  n.2  (1st  Cir.  2005)).  Plaintiffs'  current  motion  points  to
no  newly  discovered  evidence,  intervening  change  in  the  law,
manifest error of law, or clear injustice.
As explained in the May  29,  2013 Memorandum and Order:
The  Motion  for  Summary  Judgment  was  fully  briefed  in
November,                                                                    2012.  The  parties  further  outlined  their
positions  at  the  April  26,  2013  scheduling  conference.
The  court  ensured,  at  the  hearing,  that  the  parties
and  the  court  shared  a  common  understanding  of  the
issues  posed  by  the  Motion  for  Summary  Judgment.  This
common   understanding   includes   the   premise,   which
follows  from  plaintiffs'  complaints,  that  in  order  to
prevail,  plaintiffs  will  be  required  to  prove  that
they   have   suffered   subcellular   change.   Plaintiffs
confirmed  that  this  is  their  view  of  the  case.  They
also  confirmed  that  they  did  not  wish  to  draw  on  the
possibility,  left  "for  another  day"  by  the  SJC,  that
medical  monitoring  may  be  available  in  some  instances
"although   no   symptoms   or   subclinical   changes   have
occurred."
2




May                                                                             29,                                                            2013  Mem.  &  Order                                                       6                                        (quoting  Donovan  v.  Philip  Morris
USA,  Inc.,  914  N.E.2d  891,  901  (Mass.  2009);  and  citing  Apr.  26,
2013 Tr.  17-18).
It  would  not  be  appropriate  to  reconsider  and  revise  the
May  29,  2013  Memorandum  and  Order.  As  discussed  at  the  April  26,
2013   conference,   plaintiffs'   complaints   allege   subcellular
change.  See  Betucchy  Am.  Class  Action  Compl.  ¶¶26(d),  28(c),  42;
Genereux  2d  Am.  Compl.  &  Jury  Claim  ¶64;  Apr.  26,  2013  Tr.  6.  At
the  April                                                                      26,                                                            2013  conference,  plaintiffs  confirmed  repeatedly
that  subcellular  change  is,  in  their  view,  a  necessary  element
                                                                                of   their   case.   See   id.                                 16,                                                                        17-18.   It   would   be   unfair   to
                                                                                                                                               defendant   and   disruptive   to   the   court's   docket   to   permit
                                                                                                                                               plaintiffs to, in effect, amend their complaints again now.
                                                                                                                                               In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
                                                                                1.                                                             Plaintiffs'  Motion  for  Reconsideration  of  the  Court's
May                                                                             29,                                                            2013  Order  Which  Denied  Plaintiffs'  Request  to  File  a
Sur-Reply  Brief  in  Opposition  to  Defendant's  Motion  for  Summary
Judgment  (Docket No.  376) is DENIED.
2.                                                                              The  issue  of  whether  the  court  will  consider  the
medical  document  that  plaintiffs  seek  to  submit  will  be  decided
at the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
3.                                                                              The  hearing  on  the  Motion  for  Summary  Judgment  shall
begin  on  June  11,  2013,  at  2:00  p.m.,  instead  of  June  10,  2013,
3




as   previously   scheduled.   The   hearing   shall   continue,   if
necessary,  on  the  afternoon  of  June                                   12,   2013.  As  previously
ordered,  the  parties  shall  have  their  expert  witnesses  available
to testify on June  11,  2013, if necessary.
/s/ Mark L. Wolf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

Download 26925.pdf

Massachusetts Law