Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) JOHN BRADLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-12927-RGS v. ) ) TIMOTHY J. CRUZ, MICHAEL HORAN ) FRANK J. MIDDLETON, ) and OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY FOR PLYMOUTH ) COUNTY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COUNTS I, II, III, V, and VI OF COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Introduction Contrary to what Plaintiff, John Bradley ( Mr. Bradley ), states in his Complaint and Jury Demand ( Complaint ) brought against Timothy Cruz ( Mr. Cruz ), Michael Horan ( Mr. Horan ), Frank Middleton ( Mr. Middleton ) and the Office of the District Attorney for Plymouth County ( District Attorney s Office ) (collectively Defendants ), his termination from the District Attorney s Office has nothing to do with his alleged political activities and everything to do with his systematic and gross insubordination, unprofessional behavior and declining job performance. Despite serving, by statute, at the pleasure of Mr. Cruz, Mr. Bradley routinely disparaged and attempted to undermine his boss to other members of the District Attorney s office. Moreover, Mr. Bradley estranged himself from his colleagues to such a
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 18 degree that he rarely left his office and would not speak to or even work with Mr. Middleton from July 2006 until September 2012. Mr. Bradley s insubordination included being untruthful to Mr. Cruz about cases, referring to Mr. Cruz in disparaging terms to other staff members, and refusing to carry out his required duties as the Chief District Court Prosecutor. This insubordination reached its apex when he refused a specific instruction, issued via a November 17, 2011 email from Mr. Cruz, to stop talking to the press on behalf of the District Attorney s Office pursuant to longstanding office policy. Instead of following Mr. Cruz s order, Mr. Bradley responded to the email and rejected the mandate, emailing Mr. Cruz (his boss) the following, I am not your child. I have done a lot of important work in this office both before and after you became DA. You can start showing me a little more respect in the future. After this email, Mr. Cruz met with Mr. Bradley on November 21, 2011, and in light of Mr. Bradley s insubordination, petulance, and reclusiveness, it was mutually agreed that it was time for Mr. Bradley to move on from the District Attorney s Office. At Mr. Bradley s request and with Mr. Cruz s acquiescence, Mr. Bradley was allowed to complete two homicide cases, because despite his insubordination, it was unfair to the victims and their families to start over with a new prosecutor on cases that had been pending for so long. Once these two trials were completed, Mr. Bradley was terminated when he failed to resign as previously agreed. The facts as developed through this case will demonstrate that Mr. Bradley s claims are without merit. To the extent any allegations are made in the introduction to the Complaint, Defendants deny such allegations. 2
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 18 Parties 1. Defendants admit that Mr. Bradley is an adult male. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Mr. Bradley s current residence. Defendants deny that at all relevant times Mr. Bradley was an employee of the District Attorney s Office. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Admitted. 3. Defendants admit that Mr. Horan is an adult male who resides in Marshfield, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Defendants admit that Mr. Middleton is an adult male who resides in Marshfield, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Defendants deny that remaining allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. Admitted. Jurisdiction 6. Defendants state that the allegations in Paragraph 6 are conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required. Facts 7. Defendants deny that Mr. Bradley began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney ( ADA ) in October 1991. By way of further response, the District Attorney s Office hired Mr. Bradley in October 1991 as a legal intern. Because Mr. Bradley failed the Massachusetts bar exam in November 1991, he did not become a licensed attorney and an ADA until June 1992. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 3
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 4 of 18 8. Defendants admit that Mr. Bradley left the District Attorney s Office in October 2001 to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bradley left the United States Attorney s Office because, inter alia, he was dissatisfied with what he considered to be low-level assignments at that office. Further, Mr. Bradley stated that he left the United States Attorney s Office due to policy disputes with the United States Attorney, despite the fact that the United States Attorney had been Mr. Bradley s prior boss at the Plymouth County District Attorney s Office. Defendants deny that Mr. Bradley returned to the District Attorney s Office as the Deputy First Assistant ADA in April 2003. By way of further response, Mr. Bradley was not named Deputy First Assistant ADA until several months after his return to the District Attorney s Office. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Defendants deny Mr. Bradley reported directly to Mr. Middleton. In fact after July 2006, Mr. Bradley refused to speak to or work with Mr. Middleton at all. In 2005 Bradley became Chief District Court Prosecutor and his duties were primarily supervising the district court staff. Mr. Bradley had no superior court supervisory duties and no supervisory role in homicides or homicide investigations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Denied. 13. Denied. By way of further response, Mr. Bradley estranged himself from Mr. Cruz and Mr. Middleton long before the fall of 2010. Mr. Bradley expressed professional jealousy when Mr. Middleton was named statewide prosecutor of the year in 2007. From July 4
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 5 of 18 2006 until September 2012, Mr. Bradley refused to speak to or work with Mr. Middleton at all and would walk by him in the halls of the District Attorney s Office without acknowledging his presence. During this time, Mr. Bradley also emailed a series of disparaging, inappropriate, and unprofessional emails about Mr. Cruz, Mr. Middleton, fellow prosecutors, judges, defendants and defense attorneys. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to Mr. Bradley s exercise of his legal right to make political contributions to candidates for public office. By way of further response, in 2008 Mr. Bradley did not contribute to Mr. Cruz s political fund. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. 17. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 17 as it alleges Mr. Bradley did not make a financial contribution to Mr. Cruz in 2010. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 17. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what Mr. Bradley s understanding was with respect to the allegations in Paragraph 22. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22. 23. Denied, including the allegations made by a third party in the first affidavit attached to the Complaint. 5
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 6 of 18 24. Denied. By way of further response, political activity played no role whatsoever in decision-making and personnel decisions were made based upon job performance alone. ADAs and other staff members who did not provide support for Mr. Cruz s political campaigns (monetary or otherwise) were promoted to important positions at the District Attorney s Office. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24, including those made by the affidavits attached to the Complaint. 25. Denied. By way of further response, Mr. Bradley s increasingly insubordinate conduct, poor job performance, and reclusive behavior led to issues with the District Attorney s Office long before 2010. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. By way of further response, in 2007 Mr. Bradley complained to Mr. Cruz about his workload and requested that several murder cases be reassigned to other ADAs. At that time Mr. Bradley had six pending cases. Cruz granted his request and two cases were reassigned. From mid-2008 until he was terminated in September of 2012, Mr. Bradley carried a total of only four cases in that entire four year period. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. 6
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 7 of 18 34. Denied. By way of further response, the housing and living expenses for the witness to multiple homicides referenced in Paragraph 34 were paid by the Witness Protection Board. Mr. Bradley himself signed the Witness Protection Petition Memorandum of Understanding to get the funds for this witness. The Witness Protection Board approved and paid for housing and living expenses for this witness, aside from $1,700 from the hotel bill for this witness, which was billed above the government rate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34. 35. Denied. By way of further response, days after testifying in open court, this cooperating witness was shot in the head. Mr. Middleton received repeated emails from staff members regarding the witness safety as well as verbal concerns that certain members of the District Attorney s Office were not being discreet about this witness. Accordingly, Mr. Middleton held a meeting in March 2012 to remind the staff members of the District Attorney s Office that this witness life was in danger and to therefore exercise discretion when discussing his cooperation and location. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35. 36. Denied. 37. Defendants deny so much of Paragraph 37 as it alleges that Mr. Bradley had a strained relationship with Mr. Cruz, Mr. Horan, and Mr. Middleton because of Mr. Bradley s alleged unwillingness to support Mr. Cruz s campaign or his alleged attempts to speak out about issues concerning informants. Defendants also deny so much of Paragraph 37 as it alleges that Mr. Cruz, Mr. Horan, and Mr. Middleton harbored resentment towards Mr. Bradley because of his alleged unwillingness to support Mr. Cruz s campaign or his alleged attempts to speak out about issues concerning informants. Defendants admit that the Boston Globe s Spotlight Team published a series of articles concerning OUI rates in the Commonwealth in 2011. Defendants 7
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 8 of 18 state that these articles are documents that speak for themselves and therefore no responsive pleading is required as to their contents. To the extent Paragraph 37 alleges that the Boston Globe articles strained Mr. Cruz, Mr. Horan, or Mr. Middleton s relationship with Mr. Bradley or that Mr. Cruz, Mr. Horan, or Mr. Middleton harbored resentment towards Mr. Bradley because of the Boston Globe articles, Defendants also deny these allegations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 37. 38. Denied. By way of further response, it was Mr. Cruz, not Mr. Bradley, who identified the OUI issue, spearheaded an effort to address this problem, and had corrective legislation filed in early 2011 before ever being contacted by the Boston Globe. Once the Boston Globe contacted the office in the spring of 2011, it was Mr. Cruz s press office that provided the requested information and set up interviews with staff. Mr. Bradley was not interviewed by the Boston Globe until months later at a meeting suggested by and scheduled by the press office. In addition, by way of further example in 2009, long before the Boston Globe articles, Mr. Cruz worked with the Massachusetts Legislature to try to close loop holes in existing OUI law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 38. 39. Denied. By way of further response, it became apparent that Mr. Bradley harbored a personal animus against certain judges and defense counsel and was intent on directing the story towards alleged personal issues of judges and defense counsel. Without consulting the press office or Mr. Cruz, Mr. Bradley subsequently advised the press that they could have privileged work product regarding this issue that Mr. Bradley had solicited from District Court ADAs in his role as Chief District Court Supervisor. When contacted by the press for these memorandums, the press office declined this request. Mr. Cruz felt that Mr. Bradley was acting unprofessionally and in violation of longstanding office policy. Mr. Cruz 8
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 9 of 18 had an email exchange with Mr. Bradley on November 17, 2011 and instructed Mr. Bradley to have no more contact with the Boston Globe until directed by Mr. Cruz. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto. Mr. Bradley refused Mr. Cruz s directive and stated to him that, I am not your child. I have done a lot of important work in this office both before and after you became DA. You can start showing me a little more respect in the future. (Hereinafter, the Insubordinate Email.) Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 39. 40. Denied. By way of further response, Mr. Cruz received the Insubordinate Email when he was at a legal conference in West Virginia. On November 21, 2011, Mr. Cruz addressed this email with Mr. Bradley in a meeting with Mr. Bradley, which Mr. Cruz conducted on his first day back from this conference. Mr. Cruz was shocked to receive the Insubordinate Email from one of his ADAs in response to a specific instruction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40. 41. Denied. By way of further response, after receiving the Insubordinate Email, it became clear to Mr. Cruz that that Mr. Bradley s insubordination, petulance, and reclusive behavior had reached their apogee. When confronted, Mr. Bradley was unapologetic about the email. Accordingly, during the November 21, 2011 meeting it was mutually agreed that it was time for Mr. Bradley to move on from the District Attorney s Office. During this meeting, Mr. Bradley agreed to leave but requested that he be allowed to finish two homicide cases. Mr. Cruz asked Mr. Bradley when these cases would go to trial and Mr. Bradley told Mr. Cruz that these cases would go to trial in December 2011 (the December 2011 Trial ) and February 2012 (the February 2012 Trial ) respectively. Mr. Cruz believed, given the considerable length of time the cases had been waiting to go to trial, that it would be unfair to the victims and their families to delay the cases any further by assigning a new prosecutor. Therefore, he acquiesced 9
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 10 of 18 to Mr. Bradley s request to finish the two homicide cases and Mr. Bradley agreed to leave the District Attorney s Office upon completion of the cases. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41. 42. Denied. By way of further response, as described in Defendants response to Paragraph 41, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Cruz mutually agreed in the November 21, 2011 meeting that Mr. Bradley would be moving on from the District Attorney s Office after his completion of the two homicide trials. During this meeting, Mr. Bradley never mentioned retirement, his pension, nor wanting to stay for his 20 year work anniversary. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bradley would not have reached his 20 year work anniversary in April 2013. He did not become an ADA until June 1992 due to his initial failure to pass the Massachusetts bar exam. During the November 21, 2011 meeting, Mr. Cruz also told Mr. Bradley that he would be happy to talk further with him in the future. Mr. Bradley never sought to speak to Mr. Cruz after this meeting. In the following months Mr. Bradley continued his insubordinate behavior. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42. 43. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 43 as it alleges that in January 2012, Mr. Bradley was removed as the Chief District Court Prosecutor. By way of further response, Mr. Bradley was informed during the November 21, 2011 meeting that a new ADA would be appointed as Chief District Court Prosecutor effective January 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43. 44. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 44 as it alleges that the February 2012 Trial for first degree murder was completed on September 25, 2012 with a guilty verdict for the lesser charge of second degree murder. By way of further response, although the December 2011 Trial progressed on the schedule Mr. Bradley provided to Mr. Cruz during the November 10
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 11 of 18 21, 2011 meeting, the February 2012 Trial was continued a number of times, all without Mr. Bradley informing Mr. Cruz of said continuances. The case had been pending for approximately five years by the time it was tried in September of 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44. 45. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 45 as it alleges that Mr. Horan suggested to Mr. Bradley on September 28, 2012, that he resign from the District Attorney s Office. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45. 46. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 46 as it alleges that Mr. Bradley refused to resign on September 28, 2012. By way of further response, in advance of this meeting Mr. Cruz had begun to undertake efforts to attempt to secure Mr. Bradley with another ADA position at another district attorney s office. When Mr. Horan told Mr. Bradley about this potential opportunity, Mr. Bradley told Mr. Horan to instruct Mr. Cruz to not contact any other district attorneys on Mr. Bradley s behalf. Mr. Bradley further instructed Mr. Horan to tell Mr. Cruz that he would regret firing Mr. Bradley, that Mr. Bradley would be suing, and that his goal in life was to destroy Cruz s career. Upon information and belief, another district attorney s office approached Mr. Bradley about a position shortly thereafter but he refused this opportunity as well. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46. 47. Denied. Based on his conversation and agreement with Mr. Cruz on November 21, 2011, Mr. Bradley was well aware of the reasons for and imminence of his termination when he completed his last murder trial. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47. 48. Denied. 49. Denied. 11
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 12 of 18 COUNT I Violations of 42 U.S.C 1983 (Against Cruz, Horan, and Middleton, Individually) 50. Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 49 above, as if fully set forth herein. 51. The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 51. 52. The allegations contained in Paragraph 52 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 52. 53. The allegations contained in Paragraph 53 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 53. 54. The allegations contained in Paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 54. COUNT II Violations of the MCRA, M.G.L. c. 12, 1142 U.S.C 1983 (Against Cruz, Horan, and Middleton, Individually) 55. Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 54 above, as if fully set forth herein. 12
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 13 of 18 56. The allegations contained in Paragraph 56 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 56. 57. The allegations contained in Paragraph 57 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 57. 58. The allegations contained in Paragraph 58 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 58. 59. The allegations contained in Paragraph 59 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 59. COUNT III Tortious Interference with Contractual/Business/Employment/Advantageous Relationship (Against Cruz, Horan, and Middleton, Individually) 60. Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 59 above, as if fully set forth herein. Mr. Cruz has moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 is required on his behalf at this time. 61. Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton hereby respond that allegations contained in Paragraph 61 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 61. Mr. Cruz has moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 is required on his behalf at this time. 13
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 14 of 18 62. Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton hereby respond that the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 62. Mr. Cruz has moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 is required on his behalf at this time. 63. Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton hereby respond that the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63. Mr. Cruz has moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 is required on his behalf at this time. 64. Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton hereby respond that the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Horan and Mr. Middleton deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64. Mr. Cruz has moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 is required on his behalf at this time. COUNT IV Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fortune Claim (Against the District Attorney s Office) 65. Defendants have moved to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 is required at this time. 66. Defendants have moved to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 is required at this time. 67. Defendants have moved to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 is required at this time. 14
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 15 of 18 68. Defendants have moved to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint. Accordingly, no response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 is required at this time. COUNT V Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Against the District Attorney s Office) 69. Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 68 above, as if fully set forth herein 70. The allegations contained in Paragraph 70 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 70. 71. The allegations contained in Paragraph 71 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 71. COUNT VI Violations of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Statute, M.G.L. c. 149, 185 (Against the District Attorney s Office) 72. Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 71 above, as if fully set forth herein. 73. The allegations contained in Paragraph 73 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 73. 74. Denied. 15
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 16 of 18 75. The allegations contained in Paragraph 75 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 75. 76. Denied. 77. The allegations contained in Paragraph 77 are conclusions of law to which no allegations contained in Paragraph 77. Affirmative Defenses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), Defendants, by and through their attorneys, hereby set forth the following affirmative defenses. Defendants have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses and reserve the right to raise additional affirmative defenses based on information learned through discovery. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Mr. Bradley is barred from relief because his Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 17 of 18 The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because of Mr. Bradley s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Mr. Bradley is barred from relief because, to the extent he has suffered any harm or damages, such harm or damages were the result of his own conduct. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Recovery on the Complaint and each purported cause of action therein, is barred in whole or in part, by Mr. Bradley s failure to mitigate his alleged damages, if any. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Defendants pray this Court: (i) enter judgment dismissing this Complaint and (ii) award it all reasonable costs, fees and other relief this Court deems necessary and proper. Jury Trial Claim Defendants hereby request a trial by jury on all claims so triable. Respectfully submitted, TIMOTHY J. CRUZ, MICHAEL HORAN, FRANK J. MIDDLETON, and the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PLYMOUTH COUNTY Defendants By their attorney, MARTHA COAKLEY 17
Case 1:13-cv-12927-RGS Document 12 Filed 04/04/14 Page 18 of 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Bret A. Cohen Bret A. Cohen Special Assistant Attorney General BBO # 637830 MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 (617) 542-6000 bacohen@mintz.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 4, 2014 a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically through the CM/ECF System and will be sent electronically to counsel of record. /s/ Bret A. Cohen Bret A. Cohen 18