Sheehan v. Town of Carver,Ma et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
MARGARET SHEEHAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 24-12347-ADB
)
TOWN OF CARVER, MA, et al., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
____________________________________)
ORDER ON MOTION OF COMMUNITY LAND AND
WATER COALITION, INC. TO QUASH SUBPOENA
[Docket No. 156]
February 5, 2026
Boal, M.J.
Non-party Community Land and Water Coalition, Inc. (“CLWC”), formerly known as
Save the Pine Barrens, Inc. (“STPB”), has moved to quash a subpoena served on CLWC by the
Town of Carver. Docket No. 156.1 For the following reasons, this Court grants the motion.
I. 	RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Margaret Sheehan is an environmental lawyer who has embarked a multi-year
campaign to curtail unpermitted “sand mining” and hauling operations in Southeastern
Massachusetts. She filed this action alleging that the towns of Carver and Plymouth and various
town committee members have conspired with local sand mining and trucking companies to
1 Judge Burroughs referred the motion to the undersigned on December 9, 2025. Docket No.
157.
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 6

2
violate her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and, in their attempts to silence her activism,
have defamed her and have committed intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sheehan, alleges, among other things that:
Carver, acting through officials of whom many are participants in the sand
mining 	industry, 	has 	a 	longstanding 	practice 	and 	unwritten 	policy
(hereafter, the “unwritten policy”) of protecting the landowners and
operators where sand and gravel mining occurs, and the haulers of the mined
sand and gravel (together, the “sand mining industry”). The unwritten
policy extends to impeding concerned residents, and groups, and their
advocate (usually Sheehan) in their efforts to oppose the sand mining
industry through administrative and judicial proceedings. Manifestations of
the unwritten policy include the appointment and election of many
participants in the sand mining industry to committees, boards, and
commissions with which that industry interacts on a regular basis, e.g., the
Earth Removal Committee (“ERC”), the Conservation Commission, and the
Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), with results predictably generally
favoring the sand mining industry. A further manifestation of the unwritten
policy is that the Town fully embraces the results favoring the sand mining
industry, while thwarting efforts to compel the industry to abide by
municipal bylaws and state and federal law.
Amended Complaint at ¶ 124.
In 2021, Sheehan helped form a grassroots organization called Save the Pine Barrens,
Inc. (“STPB”), which focused in substantial part on defendant A.D. Makepeace Co.’s
(“Makepeace”) efforts to clear large areas of the Pine Barrens in order to mine and
commercialize sand. Id. at ¶ 36. The group later rebranded as the “Community Land & Water
Coalition (“CLWC”), a project of STPB” with a mission of education and legal advocacy. Id. at
¶ 49. Sheehan has served in various leadership roles at CLWC and is the pro bono attorney for
the corporation. Docket No. 156 at 6.
Carver served a subpoena on CLWC, seeking documents and email communications
between CLWC and any federal or state department or agency concerning Carver or Plymouth
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 6

3
and a number of topics. See Docket No. 156-1. The subpoena contains 10 individual requests
spanning the time period from January 1, 2021 to the present. See id.
On December 9, 2025, CLWC filed the instant motion to quash the subpoena. Docket
No. 156. Carver filed an opposition on December 23, 2025. Docket No. 166. At that time,
Carver withdrew Request Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 in the subpoena. Id. at 2. SLT Construction
Corporation, Peter Opachinski, A.D. Makepeace Company, James F. Kane, and Michael
McVeigh filed a joint opposition to the motion to quash on December 23, 2025. Docket No.
168. On January 10, 2026, CLWC filed a reply. Docket No. 176. This Court heard oral
argument on February 4, 2026.
II. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Standard Of Review
A Rule 45 subpoena must fall within the scope of proper discovery under Rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Product
Liab. Litig., No. 13-2419-FDS, 2013 WL 6058483, at *4 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2013) (citations
omitted). Rule 26(b)(1) allows 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).
Whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case depends on, among other things, “the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of discovery in resolving
the issues, and whether the expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.
The information sought by a subpoena must therefore be (1) not privileged; (2) relevant
to the claim or defense of any party; and (3) proportional to the needs of the case. Id. In
addition, “[a] party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 6

4
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). Also, an order compelling compliance with a subpoena
“must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense
resulting from compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii).
B. 	Relevance
CLWC argues that the subpoena seeks information that is not relevant to this case. See
Docket No. 156 at 2-3. In response, Carver argues that Request Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 seek
documents relevant to Sheehan’s allegations that Carver maintains a “longstanding practice and
unwritten policy . . . of protecting landowners and operators where sand and gravel mining
occurs, and the haulers of he mined sand and gravel.” Docket No. 166 at 2. According to
Carver, documents responsive to these requests will “shed light on Sheehan’s claim that Carver
maintains the foregoing unwritten policy, including, but not limited to whether Carver impedes
groups, such as CLWC, in their efforts to oppose the sand mining industry.” Id. at 2-3. Carver
also argues that “as Sheehan alleges the unwritten policy is manifested by Carver’s attempt to
thwart efforts to compel the sand mining industry to abide by municipal bylaws and state and
federal law, any documents between state or federal agencies pertaining to Carver and its
employees, or those in the sand mining industry” are also relevant. Id. at 3. See also Docket No.
168 at 3 (stating that the Amended Complaint “revolves around the so-called ‘sand wars’ in
which plaintiff, on behalf of STBP and CLWC, opposes private companies, like SLT and
Makepeace, in the arena of town meetings, public hearings, and in litigation, all in an effort to
impede them from engaging in the lawful business of site excavation and construction”).
While documents regarding state and federal agencies’ investigations and/or findings
about Carver might be marginally relevant to Carver’s alleged unwritten policy, Defendants have
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 6

5
not sufficiently explained how communications between CLWC and state/federal agencies
regarding Carver and sand mining are relevant. It is not at all apparent how the documents
sought by the subpoena relate to the issues the Defendants identify and they have not sufficiently
articulated an explanation. In addition, many of the requests are overly broad and not
proportional. For example, Request No. 3 seeks all documents and communications between
CLWC and any state agencies from January 1, 2021 to the present which concern or relate to
“any former or current Carver or Plymouth official or employee (elected or appointed),”
regardless of whether any such official or employee had any involvement in the issues raised by
this action.
With respect to Request Nos. 9 and 10, Carver argues that responsive documents are
relevant to this litigation because “they are the same documents Sheehan had access to while
levying her allegations against the Defendants.” Docket No. 166 at 3. In addition, Carver argues
that these documents are relevant to Sheehan’s allegation that the Defendants harmed her
reputation and sought to destroy her credibility. Id. According to Carver, “[i]f CLWC’s
documents reflect that Sheehan knowingly made false accusations against the Defendants, she
can hardly argue that it was the Defendants’ actions which harmed her reputation and
credibility.” Id.
Again, Defendants fail to tie the particular requests to the issues that they identify. In
addition, these requests are also overly broad. Request No. 9 also seeks communications which
relate to “any other former or current Carver or Plymouth official or employee (elected or
appointed)” without regard to whether such officials had any involvement in the events giving
rise to this case. Similarly, Request No. 10 seeks all documents regarding alleged sand mining in
Southeastern Massachusetts, regardless of whether it involved Carver, Plymouth, or any of the
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 6

6
other defendants. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to show that the
subpoena seeks discoverable information.2
III. 	ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, this Court grants CLWC’s motion to quash.
/s/ Jennifer C. Boal
JENNIFER C. BOAL
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Because this Court has found that the Defendants have failed to show relevance, it is
unnecessary to address CLWC’s remaining arguments.
Case 1:24-cv-12347-ADB Document 187 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 6