1. The plaintiff opposed the dismissal being "without prejudice" and asked that the Court instead rule on the motion for summary judgment.

2. Counsel for the defendants even objected at hearing before the MCAD that the plaintiff was seeking to prosecute an abuse of process claim as a retaliation claim--which is, indeed, the gravamen of the case.

3. That was in fact the second attempt by the defendants to block discovery here, as they had run into court seeking to block discovery the plaintiff had sought from a third party by means of a keeper of the record deposition subpoena--which they themselves acknowledged in their emergency motion would not have led to an actual deposition but merely to their being sent a copy of what was produced (which is, in fact, what occurred). That motion was itself brought abusively, in an artificial, self-imposed "emergency" served on only a few days' notice on an out-of-state pro se plaintiff, even though the defendants had sufficient time to have brought that motion under Rule 9A, and had not bothered to conference it under Rule 9C.

4. Documentation of much of what is described in paragraphs 3 to 8 of this narrative may be found in the defendants' motions for more definite statement and for stay here, and particularly in the plaintiff's oppositions to those motions and the exhibits thereto.

5. By way of comparison, the plaintiff notes that the defendants sought a sanction of $2,500 in their original "emergency" motion to strike the plaintiff's original discovery requests to a third party. By that measure, looking at the amount of work that appears to have gone into that motion, a copy of which is attached, much more than the amount requested would be appropriate here.