District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 349] concerning the Court's July 9, 2026 Order (hereinafter, "Order") denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 339].In its Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion, concluding that the Rule 34 discovery issues raised were not properly before the Court due to the absence of a meet-and-confer regarding Defendants' objections. It also concluded that even if a meet-and-confer occurred, Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Defendants' original responses and objections to the Request for Production providing for a narrower scope of production foreclosed Plaintiff's argument that Defendants failed to meet their discovery obligations. In light of the latter basis regarding the operative scope Request for Production #1, Plaintiff has provided no basis justifying reconsideration of the portion of its Order regarding the motion to compel. Galanis v. Szulik, 863 F. Supp. 2d 123, 124 (D. Mass. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006)).
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration further argues, that the Court's Order did not separately address Plaintiff's request for sanctions based on an alleged violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff contends that Defendants were required to disclose any computation of damages claimed and the documents or evidentiary materials supporting such computation, regardless of whether Plaintiff specifically requested those materials through Rule 34 discovery.
The Court directs Defendants/Boost Web to file a single response addressing Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) arguments and the request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) by 7/28/2026.
In the response, Defendants/Boost Web shall address:
1. Whether they contend that the amounts reflected in the 2020 and 2021 Forms 1099 issued to Plaintiff constituted a computation of damages claimed by Defendants/Boost Web within the meaning of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii);
2. If and when they contend they actually disclosed any such damages computation to Plaintiff;
3. What documents or evidentiary materials they contend were made available to Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) in support of any such damages computation;
4. Whether they contend that any failure to disclose such information was substantially justified or harmless under Rule 37(c)(1); and
5. Whether they contend that any other basis exists for denying Plaintiffs request for sanctions.
The Court will address Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration after receipt of Defendants' response and any further submissions the Court deems appropriate.
Separately, the Court shall schedule a hearing by videoconference on 7/30/2026 concerning ECF No. 351, Boost Web's motion to subpoena Mr. Orkin's accountant. As stated in ECF No. 355, Mr. Orkin should file any opposition by 7/29/2026.
The motions for leave to amend counterclaims, ECF No. 318, and Boost Web's motion for sanctions, ECF No. 348, are under consideration by the Court; however, the Court does not require further briefing or argument on these motions at this time.
(SF)