The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P applied to D for permission to build a wireless communication tower. P sued D alleging that the decision was arbitrary and effectively prevented it from providing cellular coverage in a significant area, thus violating both the Massachusetts Zoning Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c). On May 30, 2001, the district court entered a scheduling order that required P to effectuate certain basic discovery, designate its expert witnesses, and disclose specified information about those witnesses and their findings. The deadline came and went, and nothing was done. The parties jointly moved to revise the scheduling order. P asked the court to extend the date for furnishing discovery materials to August 17, 2001, and to set a deadline of October 19, 2001, for the filing of P's anticipated summary judgment motion. It was granted, and P once again failed. On November 6, the court directed P to show cause why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice. P moved for a further extension of the lapsed due dates. P asserted that Ds had not objected to the requested extension of the scheduling order; and that Ds would not be prejudiced by a further delay. P gave no reason for its noncompliance beyond a general statement that its counsel had been preoccupied with the handling of other matters. The district court dismissed the case for failure to comply with court orders and want of prosecution. P eventually appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.