Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Massachusetts Unified County

Court

Massachusetts Unified County

Massachusetts

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2023-09-22
Status Open
Type E Filed Tre Trespass To Real Estate Involving Title, G.l. Chapter 185, 1(o)
Docket 72 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Maguire, Philip|Maguire, Marie
Defendant James G. Grant Co., Llc|James G. Grant Co., Inc.

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. ase assigned to the Fast Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
  2. and Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 444228 Date: 09/22/2023
  3. and Court surcharge Receipt: 444228 Date: 09/22/2023
  4. niform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
  5. erified Complaint eFiled.
  6. he case has been assigned to the F Track. Notice sent. Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/26/2023 10:58:31
  7. vent Scheduled Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 10/24/2023 Time: 10:00 AM (via videoconference) Case Management Conference Notice and Order was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/26/2023 11:02:03
  8. ummons returned to Court with service on James G. Grant Co., Inc. filed. Acceptance of Service of Summons and Complaint.
  9. ummons returned to Court with service on James G. Grant Co., LLC filed. Acceptance of Service of Summons and Complaint.
  10. oint Case Management Conference Statement, filed.
  11. nswer and Counterclaim filed by Defendants.
  12. vent Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 10/24/2023 10:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Gordon H. Piper, Presiding October 24, 2023. Case Management Conference held via videoconference. Early Intervention Event held. Attorney Gordon Meyer, Esq. appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorney George Hailer, Esq. appeared for the defendants. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have been and currently are maintaining on a portion of the plaintiffs' property at 28 Wolcott Street, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Maguire Property") a sanitary sewer drainpipe serving the defendants' abutting property, and that the maintenance of that pipe constitutes a trespass. The defendant entity James G. Grant Co., LLC (the "LLC") is the record owner of the abutting property at 50-R Wolcott Street Rear, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Grant Property"). Defendant James G. Grant Co., Inc. ("Grant, Inc.") has been a tenant on the Grant Property since September 1999. The plaintiffs contend that an entity related to the defendants, through its now deceased principal, David Grant, sought and received permission from the plaintiffs to place a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property. According to the plaintiffs, this entity received permission to install a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property on the condition that the pipe be installed six feet below ground level. The defendants installed a sewer pipe partly crossing on the Maguire Property. The parties acknowledge that the sewer pipe was not installed six feet below ground level. The plaintiffs seek judgment requiring the defendants to remove the sewer pipe, and damages to compensate them for the period of time the sewer pipe has been present on the Maguire Property. The defendants maintain that David Grant gave the defendants sufficient permission to install the sewer pipe on the Maguire Property. The defendants have filed a counterclaim asserting that the parties previously agreed to permit the sewer pipe to be installed in its current location and at its current depth via the grant of an easement to be granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The court noted that G.L.c. 185, 1(o) limits the court's jurisdiction in trespass cases to those cases involving title to land. The court is of the opinion that, at this initial stage, the defendants' counterclaim alleging easement rights provides a sufficient basis for the case to involve issues of title and so to continue in the Land Court. The defendants reported that, as an alternative to pursuing their claims in this litigation, they are designing and seeking municipal approval for the installation of a new sewer line down a private access road owned by the defendants and connecting the Grant Property to the public sewer without crossing the Maguire Property. Defendants contend they will be entitled to reimbursement if they proceed in this manner. The parties agreed that resolution by the parties of where the sewer pipe would remain or be re-installed might not necessarily obviate the need to determine what damages, if any, might be due one party to the other, although a full resolution of the dispute would be preferable. Counsel reported that they were amenable to reaching a negotiated settlement and did not believe the involvement of a neutral was necessary at this point in the case. Counsel instructed to continue their good faiths efforts to reach a mutually agreed upon settlement, and to report to the court in writing on the status of such efforts by December 31, 2023. All discovery to be completed by April 30, 2024, by agreement of counsel. At the conclusion of discovery, counsel to file detailed joint written report. In that report, counsel will set forth the discovery which has been accomplished, and advise if dispositive motions will be forthcoming, and, if so, who will file first, as to what issues, with Land Court Rule 4 to govern the content of the leading motion, which is to be filed by May 31, 2024, and the content and filing dates for any ensuing dispositive motion filings. If neither party intends to file a dispositive motion, in their joint written report, counsel are to request the court schedule a pretrial conference. Counsel agreed to electronic service of all pleadings. Counsel further instructed to inform the court if a formal stay of discovery is desired by either or both sides before the anticipated December 31, 2023 report on settlement negotiations. Counsel advised to direct all communication with the court to sessions clerk Attorney Nicole Foster. Filings to be made electronically via the Tyler eFile system or by mailing of hard copies to the court. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 11/01/2023 10:05:07
  13. laintiffs'/Defendants-in-Counterclaim's Answer to Counterclaims of Defendants/Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses, filed.
  14. laintiffs' Status Report (on settlement), filed.
  15. efendants' Status Report (on settlement), filed.
  16. ppearance of John Mark Dickison, Esq. for James G. Grant Co., LLC, James G. Grant Co., Inc., filed
  17. ppearance of Brendan Slean, Esq. for James G. Grant Co., LLC, James G. Grant Co., Inc., filed
  18. ithdrawal of John Mark Dickison, Esq. for James G. Grant Co., LLC, James G. Grant Co., Inc., filed
  19. laintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Propounded on Defendants, filed.
  20. laintiffs' Motion to Compel Lawson & Weitzen, LLP to Comply with Subpoena and for Attorneys Fees, filed.
  21. cheduled Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Event: Hearing on pending Motions to Compel Date: 04/16/2024 Time: 11:00 AM (on ZOOM) Notice of Event was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John Mark Dickison, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/09/2024 09:56:39
  22. vent Resulted: Hearing scheduled on: 04/16/2024 11:00 AM Has been: Rescheduled For the following reason: Request of Defendant(s) Hon. Gordon H. Piper, Presiding
  23. cheduled Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Event: Rescheduled hearing on pending motions to compel Date: 04/29/2024 Time: 03:00 PM (on ZOOM) Notice of Event was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John Mark Dickison, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/10/2024 14:37:53
  24. ssented-to Motion to Modify Tracking Schedule, filed.
  25. otice of Docket Entry: April 12, 2024. The defendants' assented-to motion to extend tracking schedule, filed April 11, 2024, is ALLOWED. This allowance is subject to further adjustment and order of the court; the court will review the deadlines in this case with counsel at the time of the hearing on the plaintiffs' pending motions to compel, now on the court's calendar for April 29, 2024, rescheduled to that date at the request of the defendants. Counsel are advised that this case, filed September 22, 2023, is, in fact, of a case type which ought, presumptively, to have been assigned to the A (Average) track; the initial administrative designation of this case as an F Fast track case was incorrect. In any event, the deadlines applicable to this case are, regardless of track, those ordered by the court after hearing from the parties, taking into account the specifics of the case; the court will hear counsel concerning the deadlines governing this case at the time of the April 29th event. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: John Mark Dickison, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/12/2024 11:52:34
  26. efendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, filed.
  27. efendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Lawson & Weitzen, LLP to Comply with Subpoena and for Attorney's Fees, filed.
  28. vent Resulted: Hearing scheduled on: 04/29/2024 03:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Gordon H. Piper, Presiding April 29, 2024. Hearing held by videoconference on plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Propounded on Defendants ("Motion to Compel Answers") and plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Lawson & Weitzen, LLP to Comply with Subpoena and for Attorney's Fees ("Motion to Compel and for Fees"). Attorney Gordon Meyer, Esq. appeared for the plaintiffs. Attorney George Hailer, Esq. appeared for the defendants. At a case management conference held on October 24, 2023, the plaintiffs confirmed their allegation that the defendants have been and currently are maintaining on a portion of the plaintiffs' property at 28 Wolcott Street, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Maguire Property") a sanitary sewer drainpipe serving the defendants' abutting property, and that the maintenance of that pipe constitutes a trespass. The defendant entity James G. Grant Co., LLC (the "LLC") is the record owner of the abutting property at 50-R Wolcott Street Rear, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Grant Property"). Defendant James G. Grant Co., Inc. ("Grant, Inc.") has been a tenant on the Grant Property since September 1999. The plaintiffs contend that an entity related to the defendants, through its now deceased principal, David Grant, sought and received permission from the plaintiffs to place a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property. According to the plaintiffs, this entity received permission to install a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property on the condition that the pipe be installed six feet below ground level. The defendants installed a sewer pipe partly crossing on the Maguire Property. The parties acknowledge that the sewer pipe was not installed six feet below ground level. At the case management conference, the parties reported that they were alternatively seeking municipal approval of a new sewer line that would use a private access road owned by the defendants and obviate the need for an easement on the Maguire Property. A discovery deadline of April 30, 2024 was set, which has been extended. Attorney Slean informed the court that unfortunately efforts to relocate the sewer line somewhere off the Maguire Property had stalled because of financial concerns. In the Motion to Compel Answers, the plaintiffs seek responses to properly served interrogatories. Plaintiffs further allege that Lawson & Weitzen, LLP, the law firm representing the defendant, has failed to comply with a subpoena. Counsel agreed that, while not having done so timely, in the time since plaintiffs filed their Motions to Compel, the defendants have supplemented their discovery responses sufficiently, with the exception of a single interrogatory. Counsel reported that a deposition of the corporate representative of the defendant entities is scheduled for April 30, 2024, and that there will be an opportunity for Attorney Meyer to question the deponent about the subject matter of the allegedly unresponsive interrogatory answer. Attorney Slean expressed concern that the current discovery deadlines would need to be extended, and inquired about the necessity of filing a motion to extend those deadlines. The Court advised counsel to proceed to conduct the planned deposition on April 30, 2024 in good faith, and particularly to attempt to obviate the need for further motion practice regarding the allegedly defective interrogatory answer. Counsel further advised that, should an extension of the current discovery deadlines prove necessary, counsel may confer to reach agreement about an extension of those deadlines or may file appropriate an motion with the court seeking a reasonable extension. Attorney Meyer indicated that the plaintiff is interested in seeking an award of attorney's fees incurred in the preparation of plaintiff's Motions to Compel, but had not estimated the range of those fees nor discussed them with Attorney Slean. Attorney Meyer advised to communicate with Attorney Slean regarding any estimated attorney's fees incurred in conjunction with the plaintiff's Motions to Compel. Absent some agreement between the parties as to those fees and responsibility for their payment, Attorney Meyer advised he may file a motion for award of attorney's fees with a detailed accounting of the fees incurred. Court to act on any such filed motion without hearing unless otherwise indicated. (Piper, C.J.)
  29. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/03/2024 09:12:42
  30. laintiffs' Motion for Award of Legal Fees Regarding Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, filed.
  31. ffidavit of Gordon Meyer (in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Legal Fees Regarding Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories), filed.
  32. otice of Docket Entry: May 23, 2024. The court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Legal Fees Regarding Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, filed May 23, 2024. Defendants are to file and serve by May 30, 2024, a written response to plaintiffs' motion for an award of legal fees. Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/23/2024 14:52:25
  33. efendants' Assented-to Motion to Extend Tracking Schedule, filed.
  34. otice of Docket Entry: May 29, 2024. Defendants' Assented-to Motion to Extend Tracking Order filed May 28, 2024: ALLOWED. Discovery deadline extended to July 15, 2024, with the leading summary judgment motion to be filed now by August 15, 2024, with Land Court Rule 4 to govern the sequence, timing, and content of all summary judgment filings. Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/29/2024 10:32:44
  35. efendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Legal Fees, filed.
  36. efendants and Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaims James G. Grant Co. LLC' and James G. Grant Co. Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, filed.
  37. emorandum in Support of Defendants and Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaims James G. Grant Co. LLC' and James G. Grant Co. Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, filed.
  38. otice of Docket Entry: July 3, 2024. The plaintiff's motion for an award of legal fees, filed in connection with the motion to compel plaintiff filed to require defendants to address claimed insufficiencies in defendants' discovery responses, including their interrogatory answers, is, in the discretion of the court, DENIED. The record does reveal delays by defendants in responding to plaintiff's discovery, including failure to file interrogatory answers well after they were due, incomplete and insufficient initial responses to interrogatories when, after delay, they were answered, and delayed compliance with a subpoena. At the hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel, the defendants had largely, if belatedly, improved their responses to the discovery which were the subject of the motion to compel. No formal order to compel was issued, none being indicated at that time. The court does not dismiss the plaintiff's point that it took far too much time and effort (and legal services) to bring about appropriate response by defendants' to plaintiff's discovery requests. It should not have taken the filing of a motion to compel (after multiple inquiries and warnings) to prompt the belated responses from the defendants. The court will proceed on the expectation that defendants will continue to respond to any remaining discovery in a good faith, adequate and timely manner; should failure in that regard necessitate the filing of any further motion to compel, the court will be inclined to enter an order and include an award of legal fees as part of that order. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 07/03/2024 12:33:57
  39. otice of Docket Entry: July 3, 2024. Defendants' motion for leave to file their first amended answer and counterclaim is ALLOWED. Defendants are permitted to assert their counterclaim for an easement by prescription. Counsel are to confer promptly and to file by July 12, 2024, a joint written report in which they provide their views on whether, in light of the expansion of the pleadings now allowed by the court, the deadlines previously established and extended by the court in this case need any adjustment, and, if so, in what manner. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 07/03/2024 12:35:57
  40. otice of Docket Entry: July 12, 2024. Upon review of the July 12, 2024 submission of counsel, setting forth deadlines proposed by plaintiffs and assented to by defendants, the court approves the dates provided. All discovery now to be completed by September 30, 2024, by agreement of counsel. At the conclusion of discovery, counsel to file detailed joint written report. In that report, counsel will set forth the discovery which has been accomplished, and advise if dispositive motions will be forthcoming, and, if so, who will file first, as to what issues, with Land Court Rule 4 to govern the content of the leading motion, which is to be filed by October 31, 2024, and the content and filing dates for any ensuing dispositive motion filings. If neither party intends to file a dispositive motion, in their joint written report, counsel are to request the court schedule a pretrial conference. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 07/12/2024 12:56
  41. irst Amended Answer and First Amended Counterclaim, filed.
  42. laintiffs'/Defendants-In-Counterclaim's First Amended Answer to First Amended Counterclaims of Defendants/Plaintiffs-In-Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses, filed.
  43. oint Report, filed.
  44. otice of Docket Entry: October 2, 2024. The court is in receipt of the joint report of counsel filed October 2, 2024. The court will anticipate the filing and service, not later than October 31, 2024, of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and the filing and service of an opposition and cross-motion by defendants. The content of all filings, and the timing of the responsive filings by the defendants, will be governed by Land Court Rule 4. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/03/2024 09:55:44
  45. laintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  46. emorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judmgent, filed.
  47. laintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits for Summary Judgment Motion, filed.
  48. laintiffs' Defendants' In Counterclaim Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue, filed.
  49. xhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  50. cheduled Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Event: Summary Judgment Hearing Date: 01/28/2025 Time: 02:30 PM (in-person in Boston) Notice of Summary Judgment Hearing was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 11/18/2024 14:25:57 Email notice to counsel on 11/19/2024.
  51. pposition of Defendants and Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaim to Plaintiffs' and Defendants-in-Counterclaims Motion for Summary Judgment, filed [courtesy copy received December 11, 2024].
  52. efendants and Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim Response to Statement of Material Facts, filed [courtesy copy received December 11, 2024].
  53. laintiffs' Reply to Defendants Opposition in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  54. vent Resulted: Summary Judgment Hearing scheduled on: 01/28/2025 02:30 PM Has been: Held in person Hon. Gordon H. Piper, Presiding January 28, 2025. Hearing held on plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Attorneys Gordon Meyer and John Haskell appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Brendan Slean appeared for defendants. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have been and currently are maintaining on a portion of the plaintiffs' property at 28 Wolcott Street, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Maguire Property") a sanitary sewer drainpipe serving the defendants' abutting property, and that the maintenance of that pipe constitutes a trespass. The defendant entity James G. Grant Co., LLC (the "LLC") is the record owner of the abutting property at 50-R Wolcott Street Rear, Hyde Park, Massachusetts ("Grant Property"). Defendant James G. Grant Co., Inc. ("Grant, Inc."), a related entity, has been a tenant on the Grant Property since September 1999. The plaintiffs contend that an entity related to the defendants, through its then principal, David Grant, now deceased, sought and received permission from the plaintiffs to place a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property. According to the plaintiffs, this entity received permission to install a sewer pipe on the Maguire Property on the condition that the pipe be installed six feet below ground level. The defendants installed a sewer pipe partly crossing on the Maguire Property. The parties acknowledge that the sewer pipe was not installed six feet below ground level. The plaintiffs seek judgment requiring the defendants to remove the sewer pipe, and damages to compensate them for the period of time the sewer pipe has been present on the Maguire Property. The defendants maintain that arrangements made by plaintiffs with David Grant gave the defendants sufficient rights to install the sewer pipe on the Maguire Property. The defendants have filed a counterclaim asserting that the parties previously agreed to permit the sewer pipe to be installed in its current location and at its current depth via the grant of an easement alleged to have been committed by plaintiffs to be granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants. After argument, and given the arguments made by the parties, the court is of the firm opinion that both competing summary judgment motions must be DENIED. In this case, the court is court is convinced that there are too many material facts undeveloped or in contest, on both of the principal claims of the parties: that there is, alternatively, a binding and enforceable agreement for an easement between the parties, or, rather, that there has been acquisition of a prescriptive easement by the defendant. There is sufficient doubt as to the date of installation of the sewer pipes; the dates, terms, and conditions of the conversations between the parties that may have occurred after that installation; the alternative resolution alleged to have been reached by the parties, if any, after the installation of the sewer pipes above ground; and the nature and timing of any permissive use of plaintiff's property for the installation of sewer pipes. The court concludes that making any inferences in one direction or the other would be inappropriate under the strictures of Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. Further, the parties have put evidence in the record that requires the court to make credibility determinations, such as with respect to depositions taken by the parties and an affidavit of plaintiff Phillip Maguire. The court, however, is not permitted to make any credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage. Resolution of the controversy between the parties is more suitable for determination at trial, when the court can freely make inferences and credibility determinations, and render findings. Parties instructed to confer through counsel, and then to file a joint written report with the court by February 21, 2025, providing their views whether additional discovery needs to be completed before trial, notwithstanding that discovery has closed, detailing the proposed discovery sought to be taken (if any), and otherwise requesting the court to schedule a pretrial conference. (Piper, C.J.) Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 01/30/2025 12:07:16 Email notice to counsel on 1/30/2025.
  55. oint Report (following close of discovery) filed.
  56. his case has been REASSIGNED to the Hon. Lauren E. Reznick. Please direct further communication to Sessions Clerk Kathleen Hayes at: [email protected]. (Piper, C.J.) Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer. Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected]
  57. aving reviewed the parties' joint status report filed on February 10, 2025, the court hereby ALLOWS IN PART Defendants' request to conduct expert witness discovery. Defendants are ORDERED to serve all discovery requests and subpoenas, and to disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses, to plaintiffs no later than April 7, 2025. The court will address any further discovery requirements, including the necessity of additional expert discovery for plaintiffs if a new expert is disclosed, at the April 10th status and scheduling conference. Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer. Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected]
  58. cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Status Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 04/10/2025 Time: 10:30 AM Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer.
  59. ssented To Motion to Continue Status Conference (from April 10, 2025), filed.
  60. ssented To Motion to Continue Status Conference (from April 10, 2025 to April 15 or April 16, 2025 or date convenient to the Court) ALLOWED. Status Conference via Zoom scheduled April 10, 2025 at 10:00 AM is VACATED. Status Conference via Zoom is continued to April 16, 2025 at 10:30 AM. Notice to be sent. Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer. Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected]
  61. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/10/2025 10:30 AM Has been: Continued For the following reason: Request of all Parties Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
  62. cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Status Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 04/16/2025 Time: 10:30 AM Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer.
  63. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/16/2025 10:30 AM Has been: Held via video. Attorney Gordon E. Meyer appeared for plaintiffs, and Attorney Brendan Slean appeared for defendants. The case involves a sewer pipe located on plaintiffs' property and serving defendant's property. There are fact disputes about when the sewer pipe was installed. Defendants claim the sewer pipe is allowed based on a verbal contract, or in the alternative, that they have established a prescriptive easement. As for discovery, defendant reported that he completed his deposition of plaintiffs' expert witness, is awaiting the final transcript, and is planning to retain a rebuttal expert witness. The court set a deadline of May 7, 2025 for defendants to disclose their rebuttal expert witness. Attorney Slean agreed to voluntarily produce the expert for a deposition. The parties both agreed that fact discovery is concluded. Attorney Slean stated that, once he receives the deposition transcript from plaintiff's expert, he may seek to compel certain information. The court advised counsel to meet and confer, consistent with Land Court Rule 7 prior to filing any discovery motions. The court also scheduled a pre-trial conference for June 24, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. At the request of Attorney Meyer, the court offered the parties a few potential dates for a three-day trial in August and September. The parties may confer on potential trial dates and submit proposed dates to Clerk Hayes. Upon submission and subject to the court's availability, the court will reserve the trial dates for the parties, however those dates will not be officially scheduled until confirmation at the pre-trial conference. Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer and Attorney Brendan Slean. Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
  64. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected]
  65. cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Pre-Trial Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 06/24/2025 Time: 11:00 AM Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer.
  66. laintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Expert Disclosure (Land Court Certificate Pursuant to Rule 7 Included), filed.
  67. he court has received Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Expert Disclosure. Any response to the motion is due by Thursday, May 22, 2025. Furthermore, the parties are directed to notify Clerk Hayes by May 22, 2025, regarding their availability to attend a court conference, via Zoom videoconference, on either Tuesday, May 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. or Wednesday, May 28, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., to address the aforementioned discovery dispute. Email notice to: Attorney Gordon E. Meyer; Attorney Brendan Slean; and Attorney George F. Hailer. Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected]
  68. cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Expert Disclosure VIA ZOOM Date: 05/27/2025 Time: 10:00 AM
  69. efendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Expert Disclosure, filed.
  70. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 05/27/2025 10:00 AM Has been: Held via video. Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Expert Disclosure held via videoconference. Attorney Gordon E. Meyer appeared for plaintiffs, and Attorney Brendan Slean appeared for defendants. Attorney Meyer explained that defendants failed to provide a full expert disclosure by the court's May 7th deadline. While plaintiffs are not moving to exclude defendants' expert at this time, Attorney Meyer argued that a prompt, full expert disclosure and payment for expedited deposition transcription costs would be necessary to avoid prejudice to plaintiffs, given the imminent deadline for the joint pre-trial conference memorandum. Attorney Slean acknowledged that defendants' expert disclosure is late. He further informed the court that the previously disclosed expert is unavailable to perform within the anticipated timeframe, necessitating the retention of a new expert. Attorney Slean requested an extension until June 17, 2025, to finalize defendants' full expert disclosure. He argued that this additional time would not disadvantage plaintiffs or cause any delay to the pre-trial conference or the planned October trial dates, proposing that the parties could supplement their pre-trial conference memorandum once the expert details are available. After hearing, the motion to compel is ALLOWED in accordance with the court's instructions on the record. Defendants are ORDERED to provide a complete expert disclosure by June 17, 2025. This is the final extension. Failure to make a timely and complete expert disclosure by this deadline will result in exclusion of defendants' expert. Additionally, defendants are ORDERED to make their expert available for deposition within 30 days of their disclosure. If scheduling conflicts prevent a deposition within this timeframe, the parties may agree to a later date. However, in such a case, defendants will be responsible for the increased cost of an expedited (three-day turnaround) transcript from the expert deposition. To allow sufficient time to complete this expert discovery, the court VACATED the June 24, 2025 pre-trial conference and RESCHEDULED the pre-trial conference for September 4, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., to be held via Zoom videoconference. The joint pre-trial memorandum is due one week before the pre-trial conference. The court will hold the proposed trial dates of October 27-30, 2025, subject to final confirmation at the pre-trial conference. The parties must promptly notify the court of any scheduling conflicts for these dates involving parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
  71. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gordon E Meyer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: George F Hailer, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Brendan Slean, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/28/2025 11:34:52
  72. vent Resulted: Pre-Trial Conference scheduled on: 06/24/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Rescheduled Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more