
Important Update for Parties in Chambers et al v. Hologic, Inc. Litigation: Filings to be Directed to 22-cv-11895-ADB
Boston, MA – A recent notification from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has provided an important procedural update for those involved in the litigation concerning Chambers et al. v. Hologic, Inc. Parties involved in this matter are hereby advised that all future filings are to be made in case number 22-cv-11895-ADB.
This directive, issued by the District of Massachusetts and noted on the government’s official repository, govinfo.gov, indicates a consolidation or redirection of the legal proceedings under a new case number. While the specific reasons for this change are not detailed in the announcement, such administrative adjustments are not uncommon in complex litigation to streamline processes and ensure efficient case management.
For any attorneys, litigants, or other interested parties, it is crucial to note this change and ensure that all subsequent documents, motions, briefs, and other submissions are correctly filed under case number 22-cv-11895-ADB. Failure to adhere to this instruction may result in delays or the rejection of filings.
The District of Massachusetts is committed to providing accessible and transparent information regarding court proceedings. This notification serves as a clear directive to ensure that all parties are operating under the correct case designation moving forward.
We encourage all involved to consult the relevant court dockets and rules for any further details or specific filing requirements related to case number 22-cv-11895-ADB.
AI has delivered the news.
The answer to the following question is obtained from Google Gemini.
govinfo.gov District CourtDistrict of Massachusetts published ’23-10260 – Chambers et al v. Hologic, Inc. DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE: ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN 22-cv-11895-ADB’ at 2025-08-12 21:12. Please write a detailed article about this news in a polite tone with relevant information. Please reply in English with the article only.