THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 TEL: (617) 727-2200 MAURA HEALEY ATTORNEY GENERAL www.mass.gov/ago June 8,2015 Civil Clerk Suffolk County Superior Court Suffolk County Courthouse, 12th Floor Three Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Kevin O'Loughlin v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Town of Framingham, Massachusetts; Paul Blake ley; Al Grow; Estate of Arthur Martins; and Police Officers 1 to 5; SUCV2015-00909-D Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find Notices of Appearance for Helene Kazanjian and Abigail Fee and Answer and Jury Claim of Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts for filing and docketing in the above-entitled action. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Abigail Fee Assistant Attorney General Government Bureau/Trial Division Enclosure cc: SEUJ George W. Vien, Esq. Michael D. Kendall, Esq. Matthew Knowles, Esq. John J. Cloherty III, Esq. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CA. NO. 2015-0909-D KEVIN O'LOUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS; PAUL BLAKELEY; AL GROW; ESTATE OF ARTHER MARTINS; and POLICE OFFICERS 1 to 5. Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE NAMED COURT: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as the attorney for the defendant. Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the above-entitled case. Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By its Attorneys, MAURA HEALEY ATTORNEY GENERAL Date: ' "ZD kS Helene Kazanjian, BBO # 548041 Assistant Attorney General Government Bureau/Trial Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200, Ext. 2524 Email: Helene.Kazanjian@state.ma,us COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 2015-0909-D KEVIN O'LOUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS; PAUL BLAKELEY; AL GROW; ESTATE OF ARTHER MARTINS; and POLICE OFFICERS 1 to 5. Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE NAMED COURT: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as the attorney for the defendant. Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the above-entitled case. Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By its Attorneys, MAURA HEALEY ATTORNEY GENERAL Date: '2-0V'S) AbigaWFee, BBO # 687474 Assistant Attorney General Government Bureau/Trial Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200, Ext. 2216 Email: Abigail.Fee@state.ma.us CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Abigail Fee, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that I have this day, June 8, 2015, served the foregoing upon all parties, by mailing a copy, first class, postage prepaid to: Michael D, Kendall, Esq. Matthew Knowles, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 George W. Vien, Esq. Donnelly, Controy & Gelhaar, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 John J. Cloherty III Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP 90 Canal Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Abigail Fee Assistant Attorney General COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 2015-0909-D KEVIN O'LOUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS; PAUL BLAKELEY; AL GROW; ESTATE OF ARTHER MARTINS; and POLICE OFFICERS 1 to 5. Defendants. ANSWER AND JURY CLAIM OF DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts submits the following Answer to the Complaint by corresponding paragraphs: 1. The Commonwealth states that Plaintiff Kevin O'Loughlin was convicted in March 1983 of the rape of an eleven year-old girl, and otherwise states that paragraph 1 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 2. The Commonwealth admits that Plaintiff served time in prison, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 3. The Commonwealth states that the order of Judge Kathe M. Tuttman of the Superior Court for Middlesex County granting Plaintiffs Motion for a New Trial dated February 26, 2015 speaks for itself as does the Commonwealth's Nolle Prosequi filed March 6, 2015. 4. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 4 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 5. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. Further, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 6 is Plaintiffs demand for compensation to which no response is required. THE PARTIES 7. The allegations in paragraph 7 are statements of identity concerning Plaintiff and do not require a response. 8. The allegations in paragraph 8 are statements of identity concerning Defendant Paul Blakeley and do not require a response. The Commonwealth further states that this paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 9. The allegations in paragraph 9 are statements of identity concerning Defendant A1 Grow and do not require a response. The Commonwealth further states that this paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 2 10. The allegations in paragraph 10 are statements of identity concerning Defendant Estate of Arthur Martins and do not require a response. The Commonwealth further states that this paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 11. The allegations in paragraph 11 are statements of identity concerning Defendants Police Officers 1 to 5 and do not require a response. The Commonwealth further states that this paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 12. The allegations in paragraph 12 are statements of identity concerning Defendant Town of Framingham and do not require a response. 13. The Commonwealth admits the allegation in paragraph 13 of the Complaint that the Commonwealth is a named defendant in this action but otherwise denies the allegations therein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 14 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 15. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 15 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 3 FACTS A. The Crime 16. The Commonwealth admits that an eleven year-old girl, identified as Jane Doe in the Complaint, was raped on April 19, 1982. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. The Commonwealth admits that some time shortly before 8:00 p.m., Jane was playing outside her parents' home on the north side of Framingham. A male approached Jane and asked her the time. The male left and returned ten minutes later. The male grabbed Jane in a headlock and placed his hands over her mouth. He dragged her to some nearby woods. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. The Commonwealth admits that the male displayed a jack knife, and then held it to Jane's throat. The male molested her, and then dragged her to another wooded area, where he violently raped Jane at knifepoint. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. The Commonwealth admits that the male eventually released Jane, and she returned to her house. Framingham police officers responded at approximately 8:19 p.m. Jane was rushed to the hospital. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, 21. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 4 B. Kevin O'Loughlin 23. The Commonwealth admits that Mr. O'Loughlin grew up in Framingham. On April 19, 1982, Mr. O'Loughlin was 19 years old. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 25. The Commonwealth admits that Mr. O'Loughlin lived on Scott Drive. The Commonwealth further states that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. C. The Improper Show Up 26. The Commonwealth admits that on April 19, 1982, Defendant Blakeley drove past and then stopped Mr. O'Loughlin who was holding a Mountain Dew soda. The Commonwealth states that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. The Commonwealth admits that Defendant Grow arrived with Jane at Mr. O'Loughlin's location and that Defendant Grow shined headlights on Mr. O'Loughlin. Jane asked to hear Mr. O'Loughlin's voice. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. The Commonwealth admits that Defendants brought Mr. O'Loughlin closer to Jane. Defendant Blakely engaged Mr. O'Loughlin in conversation while Jane sat in the car. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 5 30. The Commonwealth admits that Jane identified Mr. O'Loughlin as her attacker. At a probable cause hearing, Jane testified that she did not get a good look at her attacker's face. At a pretrial suppression hearing, Jane said that her attacker had a "teenager's voice" and at trial said there was nothing special or distinctive about it. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint, 32. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint. D. The Defendants Withhold Evidence of Smith's Crime Spree 34. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 35 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no further response is required. Further, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 36. The Commonwealth admits that in July 1978, the Framingham Police charged the individual identified as John Smith in the Complaint (then 13 years old) with a daytime breaking and entering in Framingham. 37. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 39. The Commonwealth admits that in May 1981, Smith approached an 11 year-old girl who was riding a bicycle near Jane's home and that Smith asked the girl if she knew what 6 time it was. Smith then exposed himself and offered to pay for oral sex. The girl later identified Smith at a school science fair. The Framingham Police charged Smith, and he was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 41. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42. The Commonwealth admits that in July 1984, Smith broke into a home in Framingham, and kidnapped a 14 year-old girl. He raped her in the yard and used a sock to gag the girl while he assaulted her. He was arrested and charged by the Framingham Police, and pled guilty. Smith was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in state prison. The Commonwealth denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 44. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 45. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 46 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no further response is required. Further, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 47 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no further response is required, but to the extent a response is required the Commonwealth denies the allegations therein. 48. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 48 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the 7 extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 49. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 49 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint. E. Mr. O'Loughlin's Wrongful Conviction and Incarceration 50. The Commonwealth admits that Mr. O'Loughlin pleaded not guilty and testified on his own behalf at trial, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 51. The Commonwealth states that ajury convicted Plaintiff in March 1983, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 51. The Commonwealth further states that paragraph 51 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 52. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 53. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 54. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint. F. Exoneration 8 56. The Commonwealth admits that Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery of the Framingham Police Department re-investigated the case beginning in late 2012. The Commonwealth further states that paragraph 56 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required and that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 of the Complaint 57. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 57 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. The Commonwealth admits that Deputy Chief Slattery provided information to the Office of the Middlesex District Attorney. 58. The Commonwealth states that the Rule 30(b) motion, referenced in paragraph 58 of the Complaint, speaks for itself. Further answering, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 59. The Commonwealth states that the Rule 30(b) motion, referenced in paragraph 59 of the Complaint, speaks for itself. Further, the Commonwealth admits that it assented to the relief Mr. O'Loughlin sought in the motion. 60. The Commonwealth states that the order of Judge Kathe M, Tuttman of the Superior Court for Middlesex County granting Plaintiffs Motion for a New Trial dated February 26, 2015 speaks for itself. 61. The Commonwealth admits that on March 6,2015, the Middlesex District Attorney's Office filed the Commonwealth's Nolle Prosequi and states that the filing speaks for itself. CLAIMS Count I: Compensation for Erroneous Conviction {against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) 9 62. The Commonwealth incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1-61 as if fully set forth herein, 63. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 63 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no further response is required. The Commonwealth further states that the dockets for 82-2430 and 82-2435 speak for themselves. 64. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 64 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no further response is required. The Commonwealth further states that the order of Judge Kathe M. Tuttman of the Superior Court for Middlesex County granting Plaintiffs Motion for a New Trial dated February 26, 2015 speaks for itself. The Commonwealth admits that on March 6, 2015, the Middlesex District Attorney's Office filed the Commonwealth's Nolle Prosequi and states that the filing speaks for itself. 65. The Commonwealth admits that no criminal proceeding is pending against Plaintiff in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 66. The Commonwealth admits the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 67. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 67 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, the Commonwealth denies the allegations in paragraph 67. Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence) {against Defendants Grow, Blakeley, Martins, and Police Officers 1 to 5) 68. The Commonwealth incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 - 67 as if fully set forth herein. 10 69. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 69 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 69 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 70. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 70 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 70 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 71. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 71 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 71 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 72. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 72 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 72 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 73. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 73 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 73 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. 11 To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 73 of the Complaint. 74. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 74 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 74 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 75. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 75 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 75 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint. Count III: 76. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Policies, Practice, and Training) (against the Town of Framingham, Massachusetts) The Commonwealth incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 - 75 as if fully set forth herein. 77. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 77 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 77 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 77 of the Complaint. 78. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 78 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 78 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 79. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 79 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 79 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 80. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 80 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 80 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 81. The Commonwealth states that paragraph 81 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Further, the Commonwealth states that paragraph 81 of the Complaint contains allegations not directed at the Commonwealth and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commonwealth lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 13 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 1. The Commonwealth states that the first prayer for relief is not an allegation of fact and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, the Commonwealth denies the allegation set forth in the first prayer for relief. 2. The Commonwealth states that the second prayer for relief is not an allegation of fact and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, the Commonwealth denies the allegation set forth in the second prayer for relief. 3. The Commonwealth states that the third prayer for relief is not an allegation of fact and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, the Commonwealth denies the allegation set forth in the third prayer for relief. Further answering, the Commonwealth states that the relief prayed for in the third prayer for relief is not available against the Commonwealth under G.L. c. 258D. 4. The Commonwealth states that the fourth prayer for relief is not an allegation of fact and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, the Commonwealth denies the allegation set forth in the fourth prayer for relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Commonwealth asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1, The Commonwealth asserts a setoff for any damages or compensation awarded to or received by the plaintiff in this or any other related civil action or any cause of action for the same injury(ies) he is seeking compensation for from the Commonwealth in this lawsuit, including but not limited to any claim or demand for damages, whether previously settled or otherwise concluded, pending, or which may be brought or asserted. 14 2. The plaintiff is not in the class of persons eligible for relief, as required by G.L. c. 258D,§ 1(B). 3. Plaintiff will be unable to satisfy his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the crimes or crime charged in the indictment or complaint or any other felony arising out of or reasonably connected to the facts supporting the indictment or complaint, or lesser included felony. G.L. c. 258D, § l(C)(vi). 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation from the Commonwealth for any incarceration or portion thereof, which was or will be credited toward a sentence for, or during which Plaintiff was also serving a concurrent sentence for the conviction of, another crime. G.L. c. 258D, § 2. 5. The Commonwealth hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon such other and further defenses that may become available or apparent during discovery proceedings in this case and hereby reserves the right to amend this answer to assert any such defenses. JURY DEMAND The Commonwealth demands a jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to G.L. c. 258D, § 1(F). Respectfully submitted. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By their Attorneys MAURA HEALEY ATTORNEY GENERAL I 50 #548041) / . . 57474) Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Government Bureau / Trial Division One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor 15 Boston, MA 02108 Tel: (617) 727-2200 Helene.Kazanjian@state.ma.us Abigail.Fee@state.ma.us Dated: June 8, 2015 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Abigail Fee, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that on June 0 ,2015, served the foregoing document upon all parties, by delivering it via first-class mail to; Michael D. Kendall, Esq. Matthew Knowles, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 George W. Vien, Esq. Donnelly, Controy & Gelhaar, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 John J. Cloherty III Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP 90 Canal Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Abig^ilv Fee Assistant Attorney General 17