Case Activity (7409)

1. Order | Filed: September 23, 2026 | Entered: September 23, 2026 Zherka v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company et al

   Insurance | Massachusetts

   Memorandum & Order

   Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 85 Plaintiff's Rule 72(a) Objections and Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order Striking Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal. A district judge may reconsider a non-dispositive pretrial ruling of a magistrate judge, on a timely objection, only "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Neelon v. Krueger, 2015 WL 1037992, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2015) (citing cases). Because "[d]iscovery matters are for the informed discretion of the district court," the "breadth" of a magistrate judge's "discretion in managing pre-trial mechanics and discovery is very great." Fennell v. First Step Designs, Ltd, 83 F.3d 526, 532 (1st Cir. 1996).

   The court concludes Judge Morgan did not clearly err, abuse his discretion, or rule contrary to law in striking Plaintiff's motion to unseal certain documents designated as confidential in Maple Street Holdings LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, 23-cv-30127 (First Action). As Magistrate Judge Morgan explained, "[t]he Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order in the First Action (First Action at Dkt. No. 143), which explicitly binds Zherka, provides that '[c]onfidential Information shall be used by any Receiving Party and its counsel solely in and only for purposes of the Litigation and may not be used for any other commercial or personal purposes including but not limited in any other matter, litigation, and/or claim,' with the Litigation defined as the above-captioned Civil Action [23-cv-30127]." (Dkt. No. 84.) This court agrees with Judge Morgan that Plaintiff's "attempt to use the designated Confidential Information in this other matter is in direct violation of the Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order" and that the motion to unseal was appropriately stricken. (Id.) In granting the defendant's motion for a protective order in the First Action, Magistrate Judge Robertson explained that the principal reason for doing so was to prevent Plaintiff from using material the defendant produced in discovery "as fuel for additional Chapter 93A correspondence and lawsuit activity by [Plaintiff]." (23-cv-30127, Dkt. No. 142 at 9.) She specifically rejected a proposal by the plaintiff's counsel in that case which would have expressly permitted Plaintiff to use designated materials if he deemed those materials to be evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, perjury, obstruction of justice, bad faith litigation conduct, or violation of ethical or statutory duties. (Id. at 12-13.) That is precisely what Plaintiff seeks to do here, in a separate action which is barred by res judicata and the litigation privilege. This court therefore overrules Plaintiff's objections and denies his motion for reconsideration of Judge Morgan's order striking Plaintiff's motion to unseal. See attached Memorandum and Order for complete details. (TRL)

2. Order | Filed: September 23, 2026 | Entered: September 23, 2026 Zherka v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company et al

   Insurance | Massachusetts

   Order Dismissing Case

   Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE.(TRL)

3. 7407 additional result(s)