COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSTHE TRIAL COURT

SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

SUFFOLK, ss. Civil Action NO.07-4380-D

)

WILLIAM GABOVITCH, d/b/a )WILLIAM GABOVITCH & COMPANY, )

)Plaintiff )

)v. )

)MELVIN GOOBER AND )BARBARA JURCZAK )

)Defendants )

)

PLAINTIFF’S WILLIAM GABOVITCH’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF-IN-COUNTERCLAIM MELVIN GOOBER’S CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Plaintiff/Defendant-Counterclaim, William Gabovitch

(“Gabovitch”), d/b/a William Gabovitch & Company submits

the following Opposition to the Defendant/Plaintiff-in-

Counterclaim Melvin Goober’s Cross Motion to Compel

Responses and the Production of Documents as follows:

1. First of all, Gabovitch had two telephone

conferences with Goober’s counsel to make arrangements for

access to documents requested. As Gabovitch has been

diagnosed as having an abdominal aneurism of the aorta

which could burst with almost immediate fatal results, he

advised Goober’s counsel that he cannot try to lift the

file boxes of documents removed by the movers from the

closed offices of William Gabovitch & Company to his home.

As a result, in two telephone conferences

Gabovitch requested that the document production be held

at his home, where defendant’s counsel could have full and

free access to all the records and use the printer to make

copies.

2. In the meantime, there had been hearings

conducted in the offices of the Massachusetts Division of

Unemployment Assistance on the appeal of Co-defendant

Barbara Jurczak to the denial of her claim of unemployment

2

compensation filed when she quit the firm, going to work

for Goober as an “independent contractor” at $35 per hour.

When the official transcript (“A True Copy”) of

the taped proceedings was eventually received by the

Plaintiff and in response to the question as to why Goober

did not appear as a witness to support her testimony at

the hearing, the following sworn testimony ensued:

“BARBARA JURCZAK: ...he was actually going

to be here as a witness but he had to go to

an appointment at Mass. Eye and Ear. He’s

having a problem with a corneal transplant

that’s being rejected.”

3. Now we come to an answer as to why the Defendant

demands the production of 46 years of the following

records from 1962:

Request 6: The general ledgers

Request 7. The cash disbursement journals

Request 8. The accounts receivable cards

3

Request 9. The bank statements and cancelled checks

The answer lies in Request 18, a list of

prospective customers approached by Gabovitch who might

now be approached by Goober or his representatives to sell

the Practice, avoid the constructive trust that this

litigation requests, and satisfy his legal fee

obligations.

4. It is also worthy of note that the Defendant

issued 31 document requests but only 2 interrogatories

with those both being as to possible experts. Typically,

experienced buyers of accounting practices, as well as any

other businesses, will require as part of their due

diligence requirements at least 5 years’ of books and

records with 5 years of federal and state tax returns

“from 2002 to the present.”

5. The request for sanctions to threaten and

intimidate the Plaintiff is merely an attempt to persuade

the Court to aid and abet the Co-defendants in their

4

Conspiracy, outlined in Count I, to perpetrate a

fraudulent conversion of the solely-owned practice of

Gabovitch.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to

limit the discovery in this case to only the Defendant’s

legitimate litigation needs in this particular case and

the Plaintiff will keep open his offer to allow

Defendant’s counsel to inspect and copy such existing

records as designated by this honorable Court, at no

expense, in his home.

Respectfully submitted,

William Gabovitch Esq., pro seBBO No. 18196033 Old Nugent Farm Rd.Gloucester, MA 01930(978) 281-6607

5

Dated: June 20, 2008

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the above Document has been served upon the attorneys for the Defendants, Robin Stein, Esquire, of MacLean Holloway Doherty Ardiff & Morse, P.C., 8 Essex Center Drive, Peabody, MA 01960, and Brian T. MacDonough of Shlepsky O’Connell Casey Hartley Nichon Yelen LLP, 225 Franklin St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02116-2898, by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day of June, 2008.

William Gabovitch

7