Mbony et al v. Carter

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
NELSON MBONY, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-12025-FDS
)
JASON W. CARTER, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 13, 2026
Boal, M.J.
On February 24 and 25, 2026, the parties filed status reports regarding outstanding
discovery issues. Docket Nos. 22, 23. This Court held a status conference on February 25,
2026. Docket No. 24. At that time, defendants Jason W. Carter and the Law Office of Jason
Carter agreed to supplement some of their responses to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See id.
This Court ordered the Defendants to produce insurance information to Plaintiffs and to file their
original and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and requests for production of
documents for this Court’s review. Id.
On March 6, 2026, Defendants filed their discovery responses. Docket Nos. 27-31.
After review of the parties’ status reports and Defendants’ discovery responses, this Court rules
as follows:1
Interrogatory No. 6. Interrogatory No. 6 asks Defendants to identify all communications
1 On February 2, 2026, Judge Saylor referred this case to the undersigned for ruling on discovery
issues. Docket No. 20.
Case 1:25-cv-12025-FDS Document 32 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
they had (or attempted to have) with Attorney Leppo or his office from April 2022 through
March 2023 regarding discovery. Docket No. 27 at 3. Defendants originally objected to the
interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory sought irrelevant information and information
“not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”2 Id. Defendants’
supplemental response states “[s]ee the emails produced in responses to Requests for Production
of Documents” but does not point to what documents are responsive to this interrogatory.
Docket No. 30 at 4.
It appears that Defendants are referring to the documents filed at Docket No. 31-3
(documents responding to Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 3, which requests all
communications with Attorney Carl Leppo). See Docket No. 31 at 1. Within two weeks,
Defendants must clarify what documents they are referencing in response to Interrogatory No. 6
and confirm that they have produced all responsive documents that they have located after a
reasonable search.
Interrogatory Nos. 13 & 14. Interrogatory No. 13 asks Defendants to state whether they
were covered by legal malpractice insurance while Interrogatory No. 14 requests them to identify
the insurer, policy number, coverage type, and limits. Docket No. 27 at 4. Contrary to
Defendants’ initial objections, see id., this information is not only relevant but must be disclosed
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). In their supplemental answers to interrogatories, Defendants
2 The current standard for discoverability became effective December 1, 2015. That standard is
as follows: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are now over 10 years old.
Nevertheless, counsel cited to the old “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence” standard in response to this discovery request and others. Counsel is
advised to update his “form” files. See Fischer v. Forrest, No. 14 Civ. 1304, 2017 WL 773694,
at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017).
Case 1:25-cv-12025-FDS Document 32 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
state that a declaration sheet for the policy is provided in their responses to Plaintiffs’ requests
for production of documents. Docket No. 30 at 5. This Court notes, however, that Defendants
have only produced declaration sheets for policies covering the period from June 7, 2020 to June
7, 2021 and from April 12, 2024 to April 12, 2025. See Docket No. 31-5. It does not appear that
these are the relevant policies. The events at issue in this case occurred in 2021-2023 and this
case was filed on July 18, 2025.
Defendants state that they “are currently tracking down the additional policies.” Docket
No. 31 at 2. It is not clear why this critical information has not been yet found or provided. It is
also not clear whether Defendants have complied with their obligations under Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iv) or this Court’s order to provide insurance information to Plaintiffs by March 2,
2026. If they have not already done so, Defendants must provide insurance information within
one week. They must also file a status report indicating compliance within one week.
Interrogatory No. 15. Interrogatory No. 15 asks Defendants to identify all disciplinary
complaints against them for the last 10 years. Docket No. 27 at 4. Defendants object to this
interrogatory on the grounds that such information is irrelevant and that 10 years is too long a
time period. See Docket No. 30 at 6. This Court finds that such information is relevant and
discoverable. Defendants must answer this interrogatory within two weeks.
Interrogatory No. 16. This interrogatory asks Defendants to state any actions they
contend Plaintiffs should have taken to mitigate harm resulting from their conduct. Docket No.
30 at 6. While Defendants’ original answer was non-responsive, they have now answered the
interrogatory.
Interrogatory Nos. 17-19. Interrogatory Nos. 17 through 19 seek Defendants’ financial
information. “Generally, district courts do not allow prejudgment discovery regarding a
Case 1:25-cv-12025-FDS Document 32 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
defendant’s ability to satisfy a judgment, aside from the initial disclosures required by Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iv).” Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC, No. 18-cv-10506-ADB, 2020 WL
3492469, at *5 (D. Mass. June 26, 2020) (citation omitted).3 Accordingly, this Court denies this
request.
Physical Address. In response to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, Defendants had originally
answered that “[f]or the complete file, please provide a physical address where it can be sent.”
See Docket No. 29 at 1-2. It appears that this issue has now been resolved.
Boilerplate Objections (RFP Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9-12). Defendants had asserted boilerplate
objections to a number of RFPs. In their supplemental answers, Defendants have withdrawn
their objections to RFP Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 9. They continue to maintain objections to RFP Nos.
10-12. This Court finds that such requests seek information that is beyond the scope of
discovery under Rule 26. Accordingly, this request is denied.
Failure To State Whether Documents Are Being Withheld. Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants had failed to state whether responsive materials were being withheld on the basis of
an objection. See Docket No. 22 at 3. As mentioned above, Defendants appear to have
withdrawn most of their objections. With respect to those RFPs to which Defendants continue to
object, this Court has found that they seek documents that are not discoverable. Accordingly,
this issue has now been resolved.
3 An exception to this rule is when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Katz, 2020 WL 3492469,
at *5 (citations omitted). While Plaintiffs included a request for punitive damages in their
complaint, such damages are not allowed in Massachusetts unless expressly authorized by
statute. Flesner v. Tech. Comm’ns Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 813 (1991). There is no indication
that punitive damages would be recoverable in this case.
Case 1:25-cv-12025-FDS Document 32 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
So Ordered.
/s/ Jennifer C. Boal
JENNIFER C. BOAL
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-12025-FDS Document 32 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 5