Babak Babakinejad - Revision history

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:54:39Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:45:48Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:43:20Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:30:41Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:28:38Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:24:41Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen: /* Court Documents */

2024-03-01T19:17:29Z

‎Court Documents

Eric Rasmusen at 19:14, 1 March 2024

2024-03-01T19:14:53Z

Eric Rasmusen at 19:14, 1 March 2024

2024-03-01T19:14:28Z

Eric Rasmusen at 19:08, 1 March 2024

2024-03-01T19:08:26Z

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/Copmlaint_amdended.pdf Amended Complaint]
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/ANSWER_of_MIT.pdf   Answer of MIT] (2-24-2022)
 '''
-*The Court:''' "The plaintiff alleges that MIT wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy because it terminated him after he raised concerns about research misconduct related to the "Food Computer" project at MIT, fundraising misconduct (raising funds based on misrepresenting technology and the status of research), and environmental misconduct related to unlawful discharges, also related to the same project.  Presently before the court are MIT's motion for protective order and plaintiff's motion to compel, concerning plaintiff's discovery requests.  After an initial hearing, at which I instructed counsel to confer regarding phasing and timing of discovery, counsel for the parties have made significant progress.  At a hearing on June 21, 2023, counsel for the parties outlined for the court MIT's agreement to produce certain responsive documents, on a rolling basis, once a search of electronic records for a negotiated set of custodians occurred.  As discussed at the hearing, the parties should continue to carry out the agreed-upon discovery.  Certain issues concerning the appropriate scope of discovery remain and, after hearing, this order provides a ruling on certain of those disputes, to be incorporated by the parties as they continue through discovery.  Both parties reserve their rights to revisit issues concerning the scope of discovery as the case progresses.<br>
 .	Date Range: For all claims, the parties shall use the date range of January 1, 2017 through June 6, 2022, which is a few months more than MIT has suggested, but does not adopt a longer time frame for environmental issues as plaintiff has suggested.<br>
 .	Financial Information regarding Fundraising for the Food Computer Project.  I agree with MIT that it need not identify donors or the amount given by any particular donor.  I agree with plaintiff, however, that he is entitled to discover the overall magnitude/scope of fundraising for the project.  MIT shall produce documents sufficient to identify: i) any fundraising goal(s) established by MIT for the project; and (ii) the total amount raised for the project.  This information may take the form of documents, or an answer to an interrogatory.<br>
@@ Line 42: / Line 43: @@
 .	The motion for protective order concerning "research misconduct" materials is reserved; no action taken at this time.  I need to evaluate more exhaustively the case law on this point before ruling, but did not want to delay issuance of the other aspects of this decision.  I will rule separately on the issue whether MIT's investigation into research misconduct is confidential and insulated from discovery.  This aspect of the motion for protective order remains under advisement.
 So ordered. Dated June 23, 2023"
-*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/34.pdf  Babal's response to MIT's Status Report on Discovery"] (November 29, 2023). Babak claims MIT is witholding documents improperly.
+*'''The Court:''' "MIT's motion for a protective order to avoid discovery of documents and information pertaining to MIT's investigation of research misconduct by Caleb Harper (plaintiff's former boss), is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that the protective order entered in this case restricts the disclosure and use of confidential information produced in this action. These restrictions are especially salient here because the research misconduct documents concern confidential employment information of persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.
 So Ordered.
 December 6, 2023"
-*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
+*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024). Babak filed the motion in January, but without serving MIT.  "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery.pdf MIT's opposition] to Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024). Babak didn't include a brief and exhibits/affidavits, breaking rule 9A.
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf Babak's Reply] to MIT's opposition (2-22-2024)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/Copmlaint_amdended.pdf Amended Complaint]
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/ANSWER_of_MIT.pdf   Answer of MIT] (2-24-2022)
+'''
-*(June 2023) "The plaintiff alleges that MIT wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy because it terminated him after he raised concerns about research misconduct related to the "Food Computer" project at MIT, fundraising misconduct (raising funds based on misrepresenting technology and the status of research), and environmental misconduct related to unlawful discharges, also related to the same project.  Presently before the court are MIT's motion for protective order and plaintiff's motion to compel, concerning plaintiff's discovery requests.  After an initial hearing, at which I instructed counsel to confer regarding phasing and timing of discovery, counsel for the parties have made significant progress.  At a hearing on June 21, 2023, counsel for the parties outlined for the court MIT's agreement to produce certain responsive documents, on a rolling basis, once a search of electronic records for a negotiated set of custodians occurred.  As discussed at the hearing, the parties should continue to carry out the agreed-upon discovery.  Certain issues concerning the appropriate scope of discovery remain and, after hearing, this order provides a ruling on certain of those disputes, to be incorporated by the parties as they continue through discovery.  Both parties reserve their rights to revisit issues concerning the scope of discovery as the case progresses.<br>
+*The Court:''' "The plaintiff alleges that MIT wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy because it terminated him after he raised concerns about research misconduct related to the "Food Computer" project at MIT, fundraising misconduct (raising funds based on misrepresenting technology and the status of research), and environmental misconduct related to unlawful discharges, also related to the same project.  Presently before the court are MIT's motion for protective order and plaintiff's motion to compel, concerning plaintiff's discovery requests.  After an initial hearing, at which I instructed counsel to confer regarding phasing and timing of discovery, counsel for the parties have made significant progress.  At a hearing on June 21, 2023, counsel for the parties outlined for the court MIT's agreement to produce certain responsive documents, on a rolling basis, once a search of electronic records for a negotiated set of custodians occurred.  As discussed at the hearing, the parties should continue to carry out the agreed-upon discovery.  Certain issues concerning the appropriate scope of discovery remain and, after hearing, this order provides a ruling on certain of those disputes, to be incorporated by the parties as they continue through discovery.  Both parties reserve their rights to revisit issues concerning the scope of discovery as the case progresses.<br>
 .	Date Range: For all claims, the parties shall use the date range of January 1, 2017 through June 6, 2022, which is a few months more than MIT has suggested, but does not adopt a longer time frame for environmental issues as plaintiff has suggested.<br>
 .	Financial Information regarding Fundraising for the Food Computer Project.  I agree with MIT that it need not identify donors or the amount given by any particular donor.  I agree with plaintiff, however, that he is entitled to discover the overall magnitude/scope of fundraising for the project.  MIT shall produce documents sufficient to identify: i) any fundraising goal(s) established by MIT for the project; and (ii) the total amount raised for the project.  This information may take the form of documents, or an answer to an interrogatory.<br>
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/34.pdf  Babal's response to MIT's Status Report on Discovery"] (November 29, 2023). Babak claims MIT is witholding documents improperly.
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery.pdf MIT's opposition] to Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024). Babak didn't include a brief and exhibits/affidavits, breaking rule 9A.
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf Babak's Reply] to MIT's opposition (2-22-2024)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ==Court Documents==
-Anyone can get free documents from [https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=Q8hqi7ATra2M*l6Tfrp1bdRStw2enYt7T6W280UblJR7TWqPJwzGIZ8lFSvMx3RyXxoPVh3*XwhN06xlS13k4A] the Middlesex County Superior Court.
+Anyone can get free documents from [https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=Q8hqi7ATra2M*l6Tfrp1bdRStw2enYt7T6W280UblJR7TWqPJwzGIZ8lFSvMx3RyXxoPVh3*XwhN06xlS13k4A] the Middlesex County Superior Court. Case Number 2181CV01904.
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/2024.02.29_docket.pdf The docket] as of February 29, 2024
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/Copmlaint_amdended.pdf Amended Complaint]
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/ANSWER_of_MIT.pdf   Answer of MIT] (2-24-2022)
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/34.pdf  Babal's response to MIT's Status Report on Discovery"] (November 29, 2023). Babak claims MIT is witholding documents improperly.
-*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required
+*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
-documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
+**[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery.pdf MIT's opposition] to Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024). Babak didn't include a brief and exhibits/affidavits, breaking rule 9A.
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf Babak's Reply] to MIT's opposition (2-22-2024)

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required
-documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report,
+documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
-which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure
+**[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery.pdf MIT's opposition] to Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024)
-to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and
+**[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf Babak's Reply] to MIT's opposition (2-22-2024)

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/34.pdf  Babal's response to MIT's Status Report on Discovery"] (November 29, 2023). Babak claims MIT is witholding documents improperly.
-*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024)
+*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery] (2-22-2024) "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery MIT's opposition] to Babak's  motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024)
 **[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf Babak's Reply] to MIT' opposition (2-22-2024)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 1 March 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Court Documents==		==Court Documents==
	Anyone can get free documents from [https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=Q8hqi7ATra2Ml6Tfrp1bdRStw2enYt7T6W280UblJR7TWqPJwzGIZ8lFSvMx3RyXxoPVh3XwhN06xlS13k4A] the Middlesex County Superior Court.		Anyone can get free documents from [https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=Q8hqi7ATra2Ml6Tfrp1bdRStw2enYt7T6W280UblJR7TWqPJwzGIZ8lFSvMx3RyXxoPVh3XwhN06xlS13k4A] the Middlesex County Superior Court.
		+
		+	*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/Copmlaint_amdended.pdf Amended Complaint]
		+	**[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/ANSWER_of_MIT.pdf Answer of MIT] (2-24-2022)
		+
		+
		+
		+	*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/34.pdf
		+
		+	**[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.pdf
		+
		+	*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.1_MIT_Oppo_to-Summay_Judgment_for_Bad_Discovery
		+
		+
		+	*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/37.3.pdf
		+
		+	*[https://rasmusen.org/special/babak/2024.02.29_docket.pdf