Ivanowski v. Viv Auto Pilot et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ELAINE IVANOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
VIV AUTO PILOT, CLEANSKY ENERGY
A/K/A TITAN GAS LLC, VIVIANA
ENERGY, GLORIA GLAUDIN, and
TITAN ENERGY – NEW ENGLAND INC.,
Defendants.
Civ. No.: 4:25-cv-40114-MRG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GUZMAN, J.
Plaintiff Elaine Ivanowski brings this action pro se against Defendants CleanSky Energy
a/k/a Titan Gas LLC (“CleanSky”), Viv Auto Pilot, Viviana Energy, Titan Energy – New England
Inc. (“Titan Energy”), and Gloria Glaudin (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging various state and
federal law violations stemming from the allegedly “unauthorized enrollment [of Plaintiff] into
utility programs.” [ECF 1-1 at 3]. The Complaint, originally filed in Worcester Superior Court,
was removed to this Court on August 15, 2025. [ECF No. 1].
I. 	PENDING MOTIONS
Several motions are pending before the Court, including:1
1 The Court is mindful that Defendants Titan Energy and CleanSky have filed motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 8, 17].
Prior to ruling on those motions, the Court will provide Plaintiff—proceeding pro se—with the opportunity to file a
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 8

2
ECF No. 	Motion 	Filing Date
23 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint
October 17, 2025
25 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint
October 29, 2025
27 	Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike 	November 17, 2025
31 	Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents
December 3, 2025
33 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 	December 3, 2025
37 	Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike 	December 17, 2025
40 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Electronically
December 19, 2025
41 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 	December 22, 2025
44 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing 	December 29, 2025.
With the goal of achieving “the orderly and expeditious disposition of [this] case” and the
preservation of the Court’s limited judicial resources—without compromising the leniency pro se
litigants are accorded—the Court addresses these motions and related filings today. In re Petition
for Order Directing Release of Records, 27 F.4th 84, 89 (1st Cir. 2022); see In re McDonald, 489
U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (“A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that [its] resources are allocated
in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”).
A. Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike [ECF No. 27]
On November 17, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Defendant
CleanSky filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s supplemental “Exhibit,”2 arguing that the filing “is
procedurally improper, consists of a variety of documents clearly generated only by artificial
intelligence . . . , prejudices CleanSky by making vague reference to alleged ‘fraud,’ and contains
a litany of redundant, immaterial and impertinent content.” [ECF No. 28 at 1]. The Court
procedurally proper motion for leave to amend the Complaint, in accordance with the directives outlined below. See
Channing Bete Co., Inc. v. Greenberg, No. 3:19-CV-30032-MGM, 2022 WL 43692, at *11 (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2022)
(citing Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc. v. Am. Software, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 376, 384 (D. Conn. 2008)).
2 Plaintiff filed the challenged “Exhibit” on November 12, 2025. [ECF No. 26].
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 8

3
GRANTS Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike, [ECF No. 27] as to Plaintiff’s supplemental
Exhibit [ECF No. 26]. This decision is based on Plaintiff’s stated intent that a subsequent filing,
[ECF No. 29], replace the at-issue filing, [ECF No. 26]. In Plaintiff’s words, the “Consolidated
Opposition to Motion to Strike” and “Federal Supplemental Evidentiary Report . . . replaces the
previously disputed Exhibit 26.” [ECF No. 29 at 1 (emphasis added)]. Therefore, with Plaintiff’s
“replacement” filing, the filing Defendant seeks to strike, [ECF No 26], “no longer performs any
function in the case” and may be struck. Kolling v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 347 F.3d 11, 16
(1st Cir. 2003) (observation related to amended pleading, but still applicable here given that
Plaintiff’s ECF No. 29 contains new factual and legal allegations).
B. Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend Complaint and Supporting Material
The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s various motions for leave to amend her Complaint. On
October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint.3 [ECF No. 23].
Thereafter, on October 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Amend. [ECF No. 25]. On
December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a third Motion to Amend. [ECF No. 33]. Plaintiff also filed
various factual supplements appearing to support these motions. [ECF Nos. 30, 32, 34]. After
reviewing these filings with the appropriate degree of leniency afforded to pro se litigants, Ahmed
v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997), the Court finds that they are not properly before
the Court.
These multiple motions and supporting materials all ostensibly address the same request,
leave to amend the complaint, and they are not clearly incorporated into a single operative motion.
Instead, Plaintiff has filed multiple standalone documents that fail to indicate her requested relief.
This has imposed an unworkable burden on the Court’s ability to manage the case in an orderly
3 The Court hereafter shortens “Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint” to “Motion to Amend.”
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 8

4
and efficient manner. Therefore, the pending Motions to Amend, [ECF Nos. 23, 25, and 33] are
DENIED without prejudice, and the supporting materials, [ECF Nos 30, 32, 34] are hereby
STRICKEN. See, e.g., Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Beall, No. 1:25-CV-00071, 2025 WL 2085275,
at *29 (D. Me. July 24, 2025) (citing In Spite Telecom LLC v. Rosciti Constr. Co. LLC, 747 F.
Supp. 3d 270, 285 (D. Mass. 2024) (“The Court . . . has the inherent authority to strike filings
pursuant to its power to manage its own docket.”)); Geiger v. Z-Ultimate Self Def. Studios LLC,
No. 14-CV-00240, 2015 WL 1598092, at *4 n.7 (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2015) (“[t]he court will not
consider any document that was not submitted as an exhibit to the filed motion papers, as they are
not properly before the court”); Roman v. Wolf, No. 20-00768, 2020 WL 6107071, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (“[t]he Court does not, and cannot [], scour all of the dockets for all of its cases
every day to look for random filings”). 	Because the Court has stricken ECF Nos. 30, 32, 34,
Defendant’s Motion to Strike, [ECF No. 37], is, in part, TERMINATED as MOOT.4
Plaintiff is permitted to file a new Motion to Amend with the relevant exhibits attached.
C. Directives Related to Potential Future Efforts to Amend the Complaint
This Order should not be read as dissuading Plaintiff from attempting to amend her
Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a “court should freely give leave
[to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court “enjoys
significant latitude in deciding whether to grant leave to amend.” U.S. ex rel. Gagne v. City of
Worcester, 565 F.3d 40, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Grounds for denial include “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . [and] futility of
amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Because ‘“[f]utility’ means that the
complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,” Glassman
4 For the reason stated below (infra Section I(D)), Defendant’s Motion to Strike [ECF No. 37] is GRANTED with
respect to ECF No. 31.
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 8

5
v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), Plaintiff may benefit
from reviewing Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss, [ECF Nos. 8, 17], because they contain
arguments that Plaintiff’s current Complaint fails to clear the futility hurdle. Plaintiff is hereby
cautioned against overlooking arguments that have already been made by Defendants in their
pending Motions to Dismiss. [ECF Nos. 8, 17].
If Plaintiff moves to amend her Complaint, Plaintiff must file a single motion for leave to
amend containing her new factual assertions and/or legal claims. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged
to include a proposed amended complaint containing the new factual assertions and/or legal claims
with 	her 	motion 	to 	facilitate the Court’s 	evaluation 	of 	the sufficiency 	of 	the proposed
amendment(s). See Ortiz v. Inform Diagnostics, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 3d 156, 159 (D. Mass. 2025)
(denying motion for leave to amend a complaint as “procedurally deficient” in the absence of a
“proposed amended complaint for the Court to consider”); Traincroft, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State
of Pennsylvania, No. 14-10551, 2014 WL 12796262, at *3 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2014) (noting that
“it is of course strongly preferable that a party seeking leave to amend include a proposed amended
complaint with its motion”).
D. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and Request for Production of Documents
Plaintiff filed a Discovery Motion and Request for Production of Documents. [ECF Nos.
31, 41] (together, “discovery requests”). As filed, these discovery requests are improper for
multiple reasons.
First, discovery requests are generally shared directly between the parties. They are not
filed with the court unless a party is asking the court to resolve a dispute about the requests or
responses. See Tang v. City of Framingham, No. 07-11634, 2008 WL 11639188, at *1 (D. Mass.
June 19, 2008) (“During [the discovery] process, the parties request of and provide each other
information concerning the allegations in the complaint. The requests for discoveries are not filed
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 8

6
with the Court. Except to resolve disputes concerning discovery requests and responses thereto,
the Court generally is not involved in discovery.”); Stow v. McGrath, No. 17-CV-088-LM, 2018
WL 11579821, at *1 (D.N.H. Mar. 2, 2018) (noting that “discovery requests and responses are
communicated between the parties, and neither copies nor notices of the request for or production
of discovery materials are to be sent to the court” except in connection with a discovery dispute).
Second, ordinarily, discovery may not be commenced prior to a discovery conference
convened pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) without a court order authorizing
discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may not
seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),
except . . . when authorized . . . by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Defendant Titan Gas has
represented that the scheduling conference has not yet occurred. [ECF No. 46 at 5]. Therefore,
discovery is premature.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike, [ECF No. 37], Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents, [ECF No. 31], is GRANTED in part as to [ECF No. 31] and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Discovery [ECF No. 41] is DENIED.
E. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically
The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically, [ECF No. 40],
and Defendant’s opposition, [ECF No. 45], thereto. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Electronically, [ECF No. 40]. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the directives contained
in this Order, the Local Rules, and the Clerk’s instructions for electronic filing, the Court may
suspend Plaintiff’s electronic filing privileges. Appel v. Goncalves, No. 23-12877-MJJ, 2024 WL
1199633, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2024) (“Should any misuse occur, the Court may vacate its
order allowing [Plaintiff] to file electronically, and [Plaintiff] will no longer be allowed to use the
CM/ECF system.”).
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 8

7
The Court has mailed Plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules and the District’s guide for pro se
litigants.5 Plaintiff is ORDERED to review these resources. Plaintiff’s compliance with
procedural requirements imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local
Rules is mandatory. See Ahmed, 118 F.3d at 890 (“pro se status does not insulate a party from
complying with procedural and substantive law”).
F. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing
Finally, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing, [ECF No 44], filed on
December 29, 2025. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests to “speak with” the Court regarding “issues”
related to her “inheritance” that may be impacted by this case. [Id.] Local Rule 7.1(d) (titled
“Request for Hearing”) provides that “[a]ny party making or opposing a motion who believes that
oral argument may assist the court and wishes to be heard shall include a request for oral argument
in a separate paragraph of the motion or opposition.” The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion, [ECF
No 44], because it appears that the requested hearing is unrelated to any pending motion and
Plaintiff has not provided any authority demonstrating her entitlement to a hearing.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court has resolved the motions listed in the table
below. Plaintiff should be mindful that the Court did not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or
Defendants’ arguments in opposition. For the most part, Plaintiff’s motions were denied because
of procedural deficiencies and the administrative burden caused by multiple filings lacking a clear
request for relief. Should Plaintiff want to amend her Complaint, she is encouraged to file one
single motion that includes a proposed amended complaint detailing all the changes.
5 These resources are also available electronically here https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/prose-litigants.htm
and here https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/pdf/local-rules/Combined%20Local%20Rules.pdf
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 8

8
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS:
ECF No. 	Motion 	Disposition
23 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 	DENIED
25 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 	DENIED
27 	Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike 	GRANTED
33 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 	DENIED
37 	Defendant CleanSky’s Motion to Strike 	GRANTED in part as to [ECF
No. 31]
40 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically 	GRANTED
41 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 	DENIED
44 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing 	DENIED
Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to review the Local Rules and the District’s guide for
pro se litigants.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2026 	/s/ Margaret R. Guzman
Margaret R. Guzman
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-40114-MRG Document 51 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 8