Counsel says Arlington's answer to be filed 'shortly'

A US District Court judge has rejected the town's motion to delay the $7 million lawsuit until arbitrations involving Stavroula Bouris and Charles E. Coughlin Jr. have been completed. Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler issued the ruling May 27. The electronic court filing says, "Ordinarily, a federal court will exercise the jurisdictional power that Congress has conferred upon it when a plaintiff invokes its jurisdictional authority to apply federal law."

The filing then cites a series of federal cases buttressing the decision. Bowler wrote: "Efficiency and judicial economy do not justify a stay." 

April 3: Don't delay lawsuit, Coughlin-Bouris attorneys ask court

Town Counsel Juliana Rice is reported to have argued the case for delay May 11. She responded May 31: "Following this decision, the defendants will file responsive pleadings to the complaint and the case will move forward to the discovery stage. I expect to be filing the town's answer to the complaint shortly."

On March 30, attorneys defending the two former Ottoson Middle School employees, fired in 2007 following an investigation of e-mail exchanges between them, raised objections to pleas from attorneys representing the town to delay the lawsuit. Defense attorneys have asked that the $7 million lawsuit brought in the case involving two fired school employees be delayed until arbitrations have been completed. Timothy O. Egan of Peabody & Arnold filed papers in US District Court in Boston on March 18. 

Among the documents filed March 30 by attorney Frank Mondano, representing Bouris and Coughlin, is a two-page account written in June 2007 by then-Superintendent Nate Levenson. Mondano's filing says that account, called a "'log,' recited facts central to the case which were in sharp contrast to Levenson’s own testimony and the testimony of other witnesses called by Arlington. 

The Advocate published a story May 27 based on events recounted in the log and a three-page letter written by one of the school district's attorneys explaining Levenson’s resignation to an arbitrator. The story says: "Levenson describes a series of events at odds with the official story of how he was alerted to e-mails exchanged between the principal and a technology teacher at Ottoson Middle School."

On April 3, YourArlington first published the log and Aug. 8, 2008, letter from attorney Kay Hodge of Stoneman Chandler & Miller, the schools' law firm, here >>

The Advocate's story continues:

"Now that the inconsistencies of the log are publicly available, Levenson's attorney, Barry Klickstein, acknowledged that its discovery led to Levenson’s resignation.

"'Nate didn't want himself to be the focus of the investigation,' Klickstein said. 'The reason he resigned is the memo [or log] does not accurately state what actually occurred.'

"Klickstein also said Levenson had been 'entirely truthful' in all his testimony and never intended for the log to become public."

That is, the log was intended only for his attorney.

Asked for comment May 28, Klickstein wrote: "As far as the quotes in the Advocate, nothing more to add for the record."

He declined to comment about the judge's ruling. "Now that she's decided," he wrote, "the defendants will have to file responsive pleadings to the complaint, and the case will move on."

The cases cited in the electronic filing of Bowler's ruling -- and her further comments -- are:

–  Bath Memorial Hospital v. Maine Health Care Finance Commission, 853 F.2d 1007, 1013 (1st Cir. 1988); accord Trailer Marine Transport Corporation v. M. Rivera-Vazquez, 931 F.2d 961, 963 (1st Cir. 1991). 

"The various circumstances justifying a stay outlined in Bath are not present to a sufficient degree," she wrote. "This case does not present difficult issues of state law or make it significantly more difficult for the state to operate its regulatory system.

"Rather, it presents federal constitutional issues of privacy and free speech rights as well as related state law claims that are not uniformly present in the arbitration proceeding.

"Moreover, comity principles do not warrant abstention primarily because the state proceeding does not provide an adequate opportunity to review the alleged violations of federal constitutional rights."

–  See generally Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Bettencourt v. Board of Registration In Medicine of Com. of Mass., 904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir. 1990). 

"Defendants' argument as to issue preclusion, while relevant, see Sevinor v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 807 F.2d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 1986), is not persuasive given the issues and claims involved in this case." 

Mondano did not respond to a request for comment. Since this story was first reported, in July 2007, Mondano has spoken to reporters for The Boston Globe and Advocate, but not YourArlington.

This story was published Saturday, May 29 and updated May 31.