Civil practice – Abuse of process – Discovery dispute

Listen to this article

Where (1) a plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking to compel a deposition and (2) the defendant filed a counterclaim alleging abuse of process, the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim should have been allowed because the defendant lacked any “entitlement to relief under the law” in the context of a discovery dispute.

“Accepting the allegations in the counterclaims as true, we conclude that [defendant Nancy Madore] Pratt lacked any ‘entitlement to relief under the law’ on an abuse of process cause of action in the context of a discovery dispute. … [Plaintiff Robert M.A.] Nadeau filed his complaint against Pratt in Massachusetts for the purpose of obtaining ‘[j]udicial assistance,’ Matter of a R. I. Select Comm’n Subpoena, 415 Mass. 890, 895 (1993), in securing deposition ‘testimony … for use … outside this commonwealth,’ G.L.c. 223A, §11, in the pending Maine litigation. The animating purpose of the statute is comity that promotes respect for foreign jurisdictions, encourages reciprocal assistance, and facilitates the administration of justice. By invoking the statute and seeking judicial assistance in obtaining the deposition testimony of Pratt, Nadeau attempted to employ one of many discovery tools made available to all civil litigants. … While protective orders relating to such discovery may always be sought, Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c), as amended, 474 Mass. 1401 (2016), Pratt did not have an independent cause of action for abuse of process. … Pratt’s counterclaims for abuse of process necessarily lacked an ‘entitlement to relief under the law.’ … An abuse of process claim is properly dismissed where, as here, ‘there could be no liability as a matter of law.’ … Therefore, Nadeau’s motions to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) should have been allowed. …

“The judgment in favor of Pratt on her counterclaims is vacated, and the orders denying Nadeau’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are reversed. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a judgment dismissing Pratt’s counterclaims with prejudice. The appeal from the order dismissing Nadeau’s complaint to compel deposition testimony is dismissed, not on the merits but because it is moot given the termination of the underlying Maine litigation. Nadeau’s request for an award of costs is denied.”

Nadeau, et al. v. Pratt (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-119-24) (8 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-1267) (Oct. 22, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.