MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The pro se plaintiff, Lee Fruzzetti, appeals from the allowance of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Corfinio Restaurant C.E.O. We affirm.
Background. The following material facts are not in dispute.
2
On January 28, 2018, at approximately 9 p.m., the plaintiff drove past the defendants restaurant and noticed a car belonging to his former girlfriend, Heidi Cooper, parked in the parking lot. The plaintiff stopped in the parking lot and observed Cooper inside with a male companion, Michael Varner. The restaurant closed at 9 p.m., and at the time, the doors were locked to patrons entering. The plaintiff approached a restaurant window and began yelling at Cooper. Cooper and Varner came out of the restaurant, and the two men (the plaintiff and Varner) began sparring, without any blows landing. The plaintiff appeared to wield a weapon which was later determined to be a key fob with a key that opened with a spring motion. When the sparring ended and the plaintiff returned to his truck, Varner followed him and kicked the side of the plaintiffs truck. The plaintiff left the parking lot, and Varner returned to the inside of the restaurant.
3
The plaintiff commenced this action which, as characterized by the judge, alleged that the defendant negligently overserved Varner alcohol and negligently failed to provide security. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and a Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to present any record evidence that either Varner was intoxicated or that the defendant had overserved him.
4
Moreover, the judge concluded that, on the record presented, the defendant owed no duty to prevent Varner from leaving the restaurant in order to provide security to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judge entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
Discussion. The thrust of the plaintiffs argument on appeal is that that the judge should not have granted summary judgment for the defendant without allowing further discovery. The plaintiff does not cite to any relevant legal authority to support his argument, and as a result, his claim fails to rise to the level of adequate appellate argument. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). The plaintiff also failed to file a record appendix containing documents from the summary judgment record necessary for proper appellate review.
5
“It is the appellants burden to provide us with a complete record.” G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 397 n.13 (2018). See Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019). Because pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and requirements as parties who are represented by counsel, see Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Assn., Local 1710, IAFF, 408 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.4 (1990), on these grounds alone, we could affirm.
That notwithstanding, on this record it is clear the plaintiffs substantive argument is waived. The judge allowed the defendants motion to extend the discovery deadline over the plaintiffs objection, and when the defendant sought to further extend the discovery deadline, the plaintiff opposed the motions. Thereafter, when faced with the defendants summary judgment motion, there is nothing in the record that reflects that the plaintiff availed himself of the procedure in Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (f), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). Under rule 56 (f), “[a] continuance is appropriate if the party opposing a summary judgment motion shows that it cannot, without further discovery, ‘present by affidavits facts essential to justify [its] opposition.’ ” Commonwealth v. Fall River Motor Sales, Inc., 409 Mass. 302, 307 (1991), quoting Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (f). In order to obtain additional discovery prior to a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff was required to “make a ‘minimal, threshold showing that there [was] a factual basis to support [his] complaint.’ ” Alphas Co. v. Kilduff, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 104, 107-108 (2008), quoting E.A. Miller, Inc. v. South Shore Bank, 405 Mass. 95, 100 (1989). He did not. “By failing to invoke rule 56 (f), [the plaintiff] waived [his] right to further discovery before the judge issued his decision on [the defendants] motion for summary judgment.” Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 387, 401 (2003).
6
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2
. We draw the facts from the judges memorandum of decision on the defendants motion for summary judgment, which was included in the addendum to the defendants brief, and which the plaintiff does not contest on appeal.
3
. The incident was captured on the restaurants surveillance video. The video recording was provided to the police, and was also submitted as an exhibit to the defendants motion for summary judgment.
4
. The record evidence showed that Varner consumed one drink at the restaurant.
5
. The plaintiff failed to include in the record on appeal the defendants motion for summary judgment, and the statement of undisputed facts and accompanying exhibits, including the video recording. The plaintiff also failed to include the judges memorandum of decision on the motion for summary judgment, but as noted supra, the memorandum was included in the addendum to the defendants brief.
6
. To the extent the plaintiff contends that the defendant violated an automatic disclosure obligation, neither Rule 14(a)(1)(A) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, 444 Mass. 1501 (2005), or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cited by the plaintiff, apply to civil cases in State court. Additionally, to the extent the plaintiff contends that his July 19, 2021 motion to compel discovery should have been allowed, he has not provided us with the motion and, thus, we cannot review it. See G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. at 397 n.13.