MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

NO. 99-BEM-2634

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, Plaintiff

v.

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

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST RESPONDENTS' ATTORNEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 804 CMR 1.09(d)


I hereby request that in accordance with 804 CMR 1.09(d) the Respondents' counsel, Schwartz, be sanctioned for submitting the Motion for a More Definite Statement, which was a filing that was made for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary delay and needless expense, and cannot be argued in good faith to be well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Under 804 CMR 1.09(d), Schwartz is required to make a reasonably inquiry as to the facts in the case. (1)

"The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact, and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation." [emphasis added].

Schwartz made NO such inquiry. Schwartz had sources of information available, but refused to make minimal inquiry as required under the regulation.

The basis for this action has been thoroughly explained to respondents' previous counsel, Michael L. Rosen of Foley Hoag & Eliot. The basis for this action has been posted on a publicly accessible website, (2) which is, in fact, the website that the respondents complained in their libel claim. All that Schwartz needed to do to get more information was to pick up the telephone and call Rosen. Schwartz also had the option of going to the website, the subject of the lawsuit, at http://www.sorehands.com/mattel. If Schwartz had a problem with his internet connection, there are many public libraries that provide free internet access.

Even if Schwartz could not read a website, one would expect that he could operate a telephone. One would presume that Schwartz could make a local telephone call to Rosen to make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts and history of this case.


There are three possible explanations for his behavior. One, he is not qualified to handle any case related to the internet. Two, he intentionally remained ignorant so he could intentionally delay and increase the cost of litigation. Three, that he is making deliberate misrepresentations to the Commission.

I respectfully implore the Commission enforce their own regulations and sanction Schwartz for his illegal behavior.


Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN