Court Case Record COMMONWEALTH vs. S.D.P. 2012-P-1091 UID(3660)

COMMONWEALTH vs. S.D.P. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-P-1091

Case Number2012-P-1091
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtNorfolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date06/30/2010
Close Date04/01/2013


Varsha Kukafka, A.D.A. Marguerite T. Grant, A.D.A.CommonwealthPlaintiff/Appellee
John S. Day, EsquireS.D.P.Defendant/Appellant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
07/11/2012 #1 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by Christopher Pitasi, is allowed.
07/11/2012 #2 Entered.
07/11/2012 #3 Notice of entry sent.
07/25/2012 #4 Docketing Statement received from Christopher Pitasi.^
08/16/2012 #5 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by Christopher Pitasi.
08/16/2012 #6 RE#4: Extension to 09/09/2012 granted for filing of brief of Christopher Pitasi, Defendant/Appellant. Notice to counsel.
09/12/2012 #7 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by Christopher Pitasi.
09/12/2012 #8 RE#5: Allowed this date for filing of brief of Christopher Pitasi, Defendant/Appellant. Notice to counsel.
09/12/2012 #9 SERVICE of 7 briefs + appendix + transcript for Defendant/Appellant Christopher Pitasi.
10/16/2012 #10 SERVICE of 7 briefs & 7 supplemental appendices for Plaintiff/Appellee Commonwealth.
11/08/2012 #11 Notice sent seeking information on unavailability for oral argument in January 2013
12/03/2012 #12 Notice of 01/09/2013, 9:30 AM argument at John Adams Courthouse, Courtroom 4 (a4) sent.
12/13/2012 #13 Letter from Marguerite T. Grant re: Will appear and argue on 1/9/13 @ 9:30 A.M. & Danielle Piccarini, trial prosecutor may appear but no argue. ^
01/09/2013 Oral argument held. (Trainor, J., Brown, J., Milkey, J.).
01/31/2013 ORDER: The Norfolk Superior Court's docket designated this case as "not public information." Consequently, upon the entry of this appeal in the Appeals Court, the case was designated as fully impounded. See SJC Rule 1:15, § 2(b). Upon review, however, it appears that the case should not be impounded because it is the respondent's appeal from his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person, per G. L. c. 123A, 14(d), and cases of this nature are not required to be impounded by the statute. Further, the Superior Court's docket contains no order of a judge impounding the case, see Trial Court Rule VIII, Rule 8, and the Superior Court's notice of assembly did not include a copy of any order of impoundment, see S.J.C. Rule 1:15, § 2(a). For these reasons, it appears that the impounded designation for the appeal should be removed, and the case be placed on the public docket. Each party is granted until fifteen days from the entry date of this order to serve and file a letter in response to this order that states any objection to the removal of the impounded designation, and the legal grounds for such objection. In addition, the letters should identify what, if any, information is contained in the parties' briefs and record appendix that must be redacted or impounded. See G. L. c. 265, § 24C; Mass.R.A.P. 16 (d), as amended, 425 Mass 1601 (1997), 16(m), 425 Mass. 1601 (1997) and 18 (g), 425 Mass. 1602 (1997). (Trainor, Brown & Milkey, JJ.). *Notice/Attest.
02/04/2013 Letter from Marguerite T. Grant re: No objection to removal of the "impounded" designation.^
02/05/2013 Letter from Marguerite T. Grant re: Impounded material contained in Commonwealth's supplemental record appendix.^
03/04/2013 Decision: Rule 1:28 Judgment affirmed. (Trainor, Brown, Milkey, JJ.). *Notice.
04/01/2013 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.