DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 13

Citation
§ 13
Parent Document
Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp. (2026)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2026-03-13
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808368/ryan-v-mary-ann-morse-healthcare-corp/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (369)

Full Text

1,366 chars 
may . . . order a continuance to permit" further discovery "or
may make such other order as is just"). The basis for the
plaintiffs' motion, which is included in the defendant's record
appendix, was that the defendant had objected on privilege
grounds to the deposition of its counsel and other discovery
concerning any role counsel played in creating the "post hoc"
estimate of Heritage's payroll costs for providing ALR-specific
intake services. Defense counsel responded that the plaintiffs
instead should seek the information from Heritage or other
witnesses. The plaintiffs subsequently questioned the
defendant's rule 30 (b) (6) deponents regarding how the
calculations were performed; in these depositions, defense
counsel did not object to questions concerning how the
percentages were calculated, nor was any privilege invoked; and
the witnesses identified by name various current or former
Heritage employees who performed roles in the intake process
over the course of the class period. The plaintiffs' brief on
appeal does not mention the rule 56 (f) motion, let alone argue
that more discovery is needed.
                                                                  22 furtherance of the statute's stated purpose to promote the availability of ALRs and the services they provide, see St. 1994, c. 354, § 1.   Holding that an ALR nonetheless may be