Civil practice – Discovery | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Listen to this article

Where plaintiffs suing over injuries sustained at a resort in Sint Maarten have filed a motion for discovery, that motion should be denied because the plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the categories of information they seek may lead to evidence that would challenge the record evidence presented by the defendant that it does not own, operate or possess the property in question.

“Before the court is Plaintiffs Tenna and Timothy Ingle’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) [Doc. No. 54]. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied. …

“Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. No. 1] alleges that Tenna Ingle sustained injuries at the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort, Casino & Spa in Sint Maarten and that Defendant Sonesta International Hotels Corp. (‘Sonesta International’) is liable for negligence, failure to warn, and loss of consortium. …

“Here, Plaintiffs have timely sought discovery. They have failed, however, to show that any of the categories of information they seek may lead to evidence that would challenge the record evidence presented by Sonesta International that it does not own, operate, or possess the property in question, nor control any relevant policy or practice as a franchisor.”

Ingle, et al. v. Sonesta International Hotels Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-215-25) (6 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10855-IT) (April 2, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.