A quarterly summary and brief analysis of significant decisions issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session. A service of O’Connor, Carnathan and Mack LLC.		  

March
2008

Volume 4
Number 3
Page 3
 

Summarizing opinions from July 1, 2007 through
Sept. 30, 2007

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

HPSC, Inc. v. New Health Dynamics Equipment, LLC, 2007 WL 2729079
(Mass. Super.) (July 20, 2007) (van Gestel, J.).
     

Plaintiff leased certain dental equipment to defendant New Health and claimed that defendant Dutton signed a personal guaranty with respect to New Health’s obligations. Dutton invoked the Statute of Frauds in his defense.

On a defense motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted an affidavit to rebut the statute of frauds, which the Court found “replete with inadmissible evidence that should not be considered in
 


 


 

 
opposition to Dr. Dutton’s motion for summary judgment.” Id. at *3. Moreover, Dutton submitted his own affidavit denying that he ever signed a guaranty, along with a set of Rule 36 Admissions in which plaintiff acknowledged it could not prove that Dutton signed a guaranty document. Finding that plaintiff had failed to rebut the statute of frauds, the Court granted the defendant summary judgment.

 
 

 

 

 



 

 
 
     
     
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

NPS, LLC v. StubHub, Inc., 2007 WL 2367748 (Mass. Super.)
(July 31, 2007) (van Gestel, J.).
     

NPS, LLC, the holding company for the New England Patriots, asked the Court to compel StubHub, an online ticket reseller, to disclose the identities of season ticket holders who tried to resell their tickets through StubHub. StubHub refused to comply with plaintiff’s request in the absence of a protective order confining the use of the information to the present litigation.

Judge van Gestel’s analysis was guided by Justice Cowin’s recent opinion in Herman v. Admit One Ticket Agency – a case in which the district court’s refusal to enter a protective order was overruled as an abuse of discretion. Judge van Gestel identified a significant difference
 

 


 

 

 

 

 
between Admit One and StubHub. Unlike Admit One, where the plaintiff was a potential ticket buyer seeking to enforce anti-scalping laws, the plaintiff in this case was a ticket issuer seeking to enforce the terms of the ticket agreement. Thus, “[t]he Patriots have legitimate needs that were not possessed by the plaintiff in Admit One” – i.e., the need to regulate entry into the private property of Gillette Stadium and the need to identify customers who are violating the limitations on re-sale of their tickets. Id. at *2. These needs justified an order to compel production of the requested information, and denial of the request to limit use of that information to the present case.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 
PAGE  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 8