Court Case Record PAUL KOURKOULIS vs. MICHELLE KOURKOULIS 2013-J-0294 UID(2fca)


Court Case Number: 2013-J-0294

Case Number2013-J-0294
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyEssex Probate & Family
CourtEssex Probate & Family
Court Address
Field Date07/15/2013
Close Date08/30/2013


Meredith White, EsquirePaul KourkoulisPlaintiff/Respondent
Cynthia Grover Hastings, EsquireMichelle KourkoulisDefendant/Petitioner
Saul L. Benowitz, EsquireContinental Restaurant of SaugusOther/respondent
Saul L. Benowitz, EsquireEnon Street LLCOther/respondent
Saul L. Benowitz, EsquireChamplain Realty TrustOther/respondent
Saul L. Benowitz, EsquireAngelica Business TrustOther/respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
07/15/2013 #1 ***Financial statements IMPOUNDED***
07/15/2013 #2 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Michelle Kourkoulis. ^
07/16/2013 #3 RE#1: Action on the petition is stayed to 8-16-13. Status report due then concerning trial court's disposition of defendant's motion for reconsideration. *Notice/Attest/Ricci, J.
08/14/2013 #4 Status report, filed by Michelle Kourkoulis.^
08/22/2013 #5 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Continental Restaurants of Saugus Inc, Enon Street LLC, Champlain Realty Trust and Angelica Business Trust^
08/22/2013 #6 RE#2: The stay of proceedings is vacated. *Notice.
08/26/2013 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Paul Kourkoulis^
08/30/2013 Response of Michelle Kourkoulis to Opposition to Petition. ^
08/30/2013 ORDER: The defendant, Michelle Kourkoulis, has filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, s. 118 (first par.), seeking relief from a protective order entered by a Probate and Family Court judge limiting discovery requests to certain third party businesses and trusts. The plaintiff, Paul Kourkoulis, and the third-party respondents each filed an opposition to the defendant's petition. I have carefully reviewed all of the filings in this matter. A single justice will rarely interfere with the extremely broad discretion possessed by a trial judge in the management of litigation, including matters involving discovery, Resendes v. Boston Edison Co., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 344, 350 (1995), where, in general, discovery matters are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Symmons v. O'Keeffe, 419 Mass. 288, 302 (1995). The trial judge's discovery rulings will be upheld "unless the appellant can demonstrate an abuse of discretion that resulted in prejudicial error." Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 653 (2003), quoting Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., 399 Mass. 790, 799 (1987). In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused her discretion when she issued the protective order. The husband's interest in the third-party respondents has been excluded from the marital estate, and the wife has already received reasonable discovery from these entities. Therefore, the petition is denied. So ordered. (Vuono, J.). *Notice/Attest/Ricci, J.
09/04/2013 RE#5: The within having been received after the denial of the petition is treated as a motion for reconsideration, after reconsideration, the court's action on 8/30/13 (#6) stands. (Vuono, J.). *Notice.