MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

NO. 99-BEM-2634

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, Plaintiff

v.

MICROSYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC., THE LEARNING COMPANY, INC., MATTEL INC,  Respondents

 

MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENTS' POSITION STATEMENT AND OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEFAULT RESPONDENTS


I again request that the respondents are defaulted for their flagrant violation of the MCAD rules. (1) The respondents have not disputed the validity of my objection their request for more definitive statement. The respondents cannot be permitted to change attorneys to evade time limits.

The respondents implication that Attorney Olenick is representing me in the instant case is improper, irrelevant, and untrue. The respondents' attorney is fully aware that Olenick is representing me in the appeal of the dismissal without prejudice. That Olenick is monitoring the instant case in an effort to be thorough in the appeal and a potential repeat of the summary judgment from the prior case.

The respondents failed to request an extension of time until June 12, 2000, 57 days (more than twice the allowed time of 21 days) after the service of the complaint on the respondents. (2) The respondents have failed to request additional time prior to the expiration of the regulatory time limits. The respondents still fail to move for an extension of original time limits. (3)

The respondents did make a request for more definitive statement, on May 16, 2000. This was 26 days after the complaint was served on them. This was 4 days after the time to respond had expired. The respondents still have not requested an extension of this original time. The respondents never disputed the validity of my objection to their request. In the respondents' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEFAULT RESPONDENTS the respondents admit that prior to making that motion, they did not make any inquiry into the complaint, either from the website, prior counsel, or the MCAD.


The respondents retaining new counsel is not a valid excuse to ignore the MCAD regulations. (4) Since they respondent did not state when new counsel was hired, one cannot tell, which counsel is responsible for this gross negligence, if this is really neglect. It is very likely that this is an intentional part of Mattel's strategy to delay and harass. (5)

It is also interesting to note, that I have complied with commission regulations. I am a pro se complainant, without staff or legal training, to respond within time limits. I received the packet from the respondents on July 3, 2000 and responded by July 7.

Wherefore, plaintiff again requests that the commission default all the defendants and make an immediate finding of probable cause.

Respectfully submitted,

 

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN