Defamation Suit Hearing in H.A.M. v. Karen Read & Aidan Kearney | May 26, 2026

Added: 2026-05-29

[00:00:00]Your honor, the next matter before the court is Barnstable Docket number 2672, CD 00125. Jennifer McCabe at all versus Karen Reed at all. Council, if you could please step forward and state your name for the record and the plaintiff.

[00:00:22]>> Good afternoon, your honor. Jim Tubsbury on map of the planes, Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, and Colin Albert.

[00:00:29]>> Good afternoon.

[00:00:31]>> Good afternoon, your honor. Chris Maddie, I have an application for Prohawk VJ admission pending. Also on behalf of the plaintiff. Okay, so for the defendant.

[00:00:41]>> Good afternoon, your honor. Damon Celix on behalf of the defendant Karen Reed.

[00:00:45]>> Good afternoon. Good afternoon, your honor. Aaron Rosenberg on behalf of Karen Reed.

[00:00:49]>> Good afternoon.

[00:00:49]>> Good afternoon, your honor. Jeffrey Pile on behalf of defendant Aiden Carney.

[00:00:53]>> Good afternoon. So there's three pending motions for admission. Prohawk Viche for attorney Murphy and Attorney Mate. Is that how you say it?

[00:01:14]>> Yes sir.

[00:01:14]>> Maddie.

[00:01:15]>> Yes sir.

[00:01:15]>> Thank you. And for attorney. So they were either all asented to or there was no objection to any of them. Is that correct? Anyone want to be heard any further on any of these? Okay. So I'll allow those motions. The one for attorney Murphy is paper number 15.

[00:01:35]Clerk Donovan. The one for attorney Maddie is paper 16. And the one for attorney is paper 17. So those will all be allowed.

[00:01:47]>> Thank you.

[00:01:52]So, attorney Tuxberry, the complaint that was filed, >> yes, >> a lot of pages, nothing wrong with that.

[00:02:01]A lot of footnotes, about 60 of them.

[00:02:03]>> Yes.

[00:02:04]>> With links referenced therein, which is helpful helpful. So, you can click on finding them usually, but it's not great for establishing a record.

[00:02:14]>> Okay. So at some point in the future if you could have all of those links and all those documents that are referenced put on a thumb drive >> so that we court will have a a record of it.

[00:02:26]>> Yes. Yes, we can do that. We figure it's better to link them than quote them cuz they're quite lengthy time. So certainly do that.

[00:02:32]>> No, I I get it. Um, so we're here on a rule 16 conference and I'd like to have the court officer give me a copy of the rule just so we can all make sure we're on the same page what we're doing here.

[00:03:02]And one of the goals of a rule 16 conference can be to try and avoid lengthy litigation and reduce costs for the parties. So that's one thing I think we want to do here. Rule 16, as you all know, has 11 items that are listed to be covered at a rule 16 conference.

[00:03:24]I'm going to take a wild guess and I bet bet 8, nine, and 10 really aren't worth talking about. So unless someone disagrees with me, we won't talk about those issues. Okay? But we will talk about the other ones. And one of them is simplification of the issues. Now, as I said, it's a long complaint. There's 14 counts, but when you cut through it all, there's the defamation claim. There's the intentional infliction of emotional distress. There's the negligent infliction of emotional distress. civil conspiracy and then the 93A against Mr. Carney alone. Um, and because when you file it, the forms on the civil action cover sheet don't allow you to provide a lot of information. So, it says defamation.

[00:04:15]It went automatically to an average track. And under an average track, this case could last or go on for well over three years, which I don't think is really necessary. I think it's probably better suited to a fast track, which would get the case done in about 2 years. So, does anyone have any issue with that?

[00:04:40]>> Plaintiffs agree with that assessment.

[00:04:41]>> That is fine with the defense. Judge, >> I'm not sure that Mr. cares. I would agree with that, your honor, for a couple reasons. The um >> well, you're here for Mr. Carney, so tell me why >> the um the likely schedule of this case, and we can talk about that. Uh although I'm not sure it falls under rule 16 exactly, is that um I believe that both defendants intend to file anti-slap motions to dismiss.

[00:05:05]>> Well, that's great. That's allowed for under any tracking order, >> and those stay discovery. And so that could put in some delay into the process already.

[00:05:17]>> How much time amendment of this of the tracking order down the road?

[00:05:20]>> How much time do the defendants need to file their anti-slap motion and dismiss?

[00:05:25]>> We intend to serve ours by the end of this week. Uh you know the defense the plaintiffs may uh wish to amend their pleadings at some point. So we could be looking at motion practice on a motion to dismiss for a while.

[00:05:38]>> Just stick to my question if you could.

[00:05:40]you need till the end of this week >> to serve under that.

[00:05:43]>> How much time do the plaintiffs need to respond?

[00:05:47]>> Um, they have indicated they're going to ask for an extension of pages to 30 pages. Uh, we don't know the substance of their arguments yet and just general anti-slab. So, we also have a reply for it due in a related federal proceeding.

[00:05:59]So, under the 10day rule, we'd ask for probably um an extra a full month to respond.

[00:06:07]>> Why?

[00:06:08]I just don't I'm we have a reply brief due next week and then I just don't know what the arguments are going to be. Um >> well you can pretty much guess right that it's a petitioning activity and >> the only issue your honor is obviously under anti-slap you obviously the non-moving party needs to marshall Evans facts to support it. So that's my one caveat asking for the 30 days and on top of that there's an issue relating to us getting some documents that's you I can discuss that in a little bit your honor.

[00:06:37]>> What what's the issue? Sure. It this case started out, we filed it in April, your honor. Uh, defendant Reed served some discovery right out of the gate on us as well as to the Norfol County DA's office. Nor County DA responded and said, you know, we've already provided you a document production and the wrongful death action, and you'll find responsive materials in that production.

[00:06:59]So, I called the DA's office and said, could I have the production that you referred to in your subpoena response?

[00:07:05]And he said, "Sure. just send me a SP asking for that stuff and issue a protective order in this case. I did that. He's happy to produce it. We just need a protective order and the protective order is the same one in the wrongful death proceedings. But so far both defendants have objected to that arguing no discovery should happen at all and and that therefore no protective order is necessary. So obviously the materials in the wrongful death suit would be >> Hang on. You filed the discovery. How do you object to dealing with the issue?

[00:07:35]Your honor, the discovery that we that we compounded at the beginning of this case is completely limited to to to certain aspects about documents that the plaintiffs received that we were not certain where they came from. We haven't propounded actual discovery. We, as council for Mr. Kernney has represented, we also are going to be moving to dismiss under the anti-sla statute. We have until June 10th by agreement with council for the plaintiffs to file to serve that motion. That filing of that those motions automatically stays discovery.

[00:08:16]>> They're not filed yet.

[00:08:18]>> I understand.

[00:08:19]>> The clock is ticking. He's got to deal with he's got to deal with the issue of the Northfor DAS. So, tell you what, why don't we come back next week and we'll talk about the issues with the protective order. So, if you can get the protective order that you propose to the court and if you have some issues and let me know what they are.

[00:08:40]>> We've received a motion from council regarding the protective order. Our opposition is due today. So, we'll serve that. So, you the court will have the motion in opposition. So, that would >> Yeah, that's I was going to say the same thing. So, when do you want to come back next week to deal with that issue?

[00:09:06]>> Hey, Kelsey.

[00:09:15]We have the trial. You got to go for it. Okay. All right. So, >> it's already got us.

[00:09:24]>> Friday is not Friday the 5th is not a good day. So, what's good for the plaintiffs?

[00:09:30]>> Um, plans are good any day but Friday was the Monday I was >> defendants. I can't do Thursday. If you can do it, that's fine.

[00:09:38]>> Your we'll make that work. Yes, that's fine.

[00:09:42]>> Any day but Friday.

[00:09:44]>> Thursday would work.

[00:09:45]>> Just we also have our uh next status conference on Wednesday with your honor.

[00:09:49]>> Right. In the other case, >> we don't want to mention the two.

[00:09:52]>> Yeah, that's up to you. That's up to you. Your honor, >> first Thursday, judge works.

[00:09:57]>> I personally may not be able to appear at all next week, but someone from my office can appear next week.

[00:10:02]>> Okay. All right. So, Kelsey will put it on for Thursday the 4th.

[00:10:07]>> Okay.

[00:10:09]>> Maybe we'll put it on at 10:00 in the morning. Okay. Does that work for everyone?

[00:10:14]>> Yes, yes, your honor. Great.

[00:10:17]All right. So now let's set a date for the soontobe filed anti-slap motions. So you're going to have everything by June 10th.

[00:10:29]>> Yes.

[00:10:30]>> I don't think the rule necessarily gives you 30 days.

[00:10:33]>> No, I think the rule just gives me 10 days by default. Right. And >> so again, I I I expect these will be lengthy motions and and the fact intensive nature of it. And as as your honor is familiar, this is not a new case for some parties. You know, obviously defendant Reed has been involved with millions of pages of documents and discovered for years. We still have yet to get much of anything.

[00:10:55]So that's why I'm asking for more time, but if your honor says less than 30, we'll make whatever works.

[00:11:07]anyone working in the week of 4th of July?

[00:11:11]>> No, your honor. I'll be in uh Europe.

[00:11:15]>> How about that other person in your office?

[00:11:19]>> They're what?

[00:11:21]>> I'm sorry, your honor.

[00:11:22]>> What about the other people in your office? The one you sending next week?

[00:11:25]Uh >> I don't know if they're scheduled for the 4th of July.

[00:11:29]>> I'm available the week the week of the 6th of July.

[00:11:33]I'm also available that would >> Are we I'm sorry I made this. Are we discussing a hearing on the anti-slap motions that time? That would be something that I would wish to argue myself given my expertise in that area.

[00:11:45]So, I would ask that it be pushed a little bit later in July >> so I can get back from my vacation. Um, >> when are you when are you coming? When are you leaving? I'm leaving I believe on >> not that I want you to hear your vacation please everyone but >> I I will be back during the week of July 13th.

[00:12:19]Um and I'll be around for part of the following week, the 20th and 21st.

[00:12:36]What about the week of June 22nd?

[00:12:44]Your 10 10 days would give you to like the 20th. We give you 20 days or the week of the you can't be here the 29th or the 30th.

[00:12:55]Um, your honor, I believe that we leave on the 1st. If my calendar is accurate, if my calendar is not accurate, my wife will probably kill me. Uh, >> not believe I'm around on the 29th.

[00:13:09]>> And unfortunately, honor, that's I'll be on vacation then, too. Um, that time. My wife's birthday is the 4th of July, so tend to go away right.

[00:13:18]>> Sorry for airing that.

[00:13:19]>> Really tonging on my heart.

[00:13:20]>> I know. I know. She'd kill me for saying that.

[00:13:24]We won't ask you how old she is.

[00:13:26]>> You will not get an answer from me, even if I'm compelled.

[00:13:36]>> July 13th, 14th.

[00:13:41]>> The 14th would be fine with us, your honor.

[00:13:45]>> What's on that week, Kelsey?

[00:13:48]>> Looks clear, right?

[00:13:50]>> 14th is fine for us, judge. Thank you.

[00:13:52]in planets as well. Your honor, why don't we do Monday the 13th? Well, no, do 14th. We'll do it at 2:00 in the afternoon.

[00:14:29]>> So, let's your honor, one um housekeeping uh matter regarding the filing schedule of this motion. The statute provides that the motion for relief under the NISLAP last be filed within 60 days of service process on defended. My client was served I believe on June 21st. uh based on the schedule we may be a little bit over that timing based on the extension of time that we've received and the other side has received uh I don't understand conferences with the pleasant council understand they have any >> not at all okay >> so number two on the rule 16 list I You're going to have to take a look at the motion to dismiss to see whether or not you need to amend.

[00:15:24]>> Do you anticipate any other need to amend?

[00:15:28]>> Um the only other reason no probably in in light of the motion would probably be the biggest grounds. Obviously we've in our since filing the complaint we've uncovered information about additional statements and there have been additional defamatory statements by one of the defendants since that time. At the end of the day, how much do we need to you know add to the complaint? As you already noted, it's 50 pages. Um, so we would anticipate perhaps in response to the motion, but it would kind of be dual purpose if we did. So, >> um, we can talk about obtaining admissions, but I doubt that's going to be too productive.

[00:16:06]>> Suggestion, >> hopeful, can try, right?

[00:16:11]um documents.

[00:16:15]There should be some talk early on about documents, both agreeing to certain documents and what you're going to object to so we can address those issues quickly. And then that plays into um number six about electronically stored document. So why don't you send them what you had in the other case to start?

[00:16:48]Didn't you come up with some protocol?

[00:16:51]>> We uh we did I I I am confident that we can work out a protocol right at the outset that works for this case. I'm happy to work with plaintiffs council to do that. I think we we all do ESI a lot.

[00:17:04]So I'm I don't think that'll be an issue here.

[00:17:07]>> Are you speaking for all three of you now? We're just speaking for these two.

[00:17:11]>> My client has not previously been involved in any of these litigations of course. Uh but we are happy to work with council on that issue as well.

[00:17:20]>> Okay. So hopefully you can try and agree on that before the hearing date on the anti-slap motions. All right.

[00:17:38]How about number uh seven?

[00:17:41]Claims of privilege.

[00:17:44]Given the number of allegations in the complaint involving the parties and their lawyers, I had to anticipate it's going to be an issue.

[00:17:55]>> Yes, your honor, there is um the allegations speak to communications with council. Um so we have to work through those and we'll be asserting the appropriate objections and and asserting the misreads rights to protect that privilege.

[00:18:11]>> Right. I'm sure you will. But some of the discussions in manner manner in which maybe parties themselves allowed information to become public may raise some issues with those claims of privilege. So, how about we start with what's in the complaint and maybe you could work toward identifying issues you have with some of the statements in the complaint cuz ultimately we're going to have to deal with them on a statement bystatement basis, I think.

[00:18:49]>> We certainly can do that.

[00:18:53]>> Yeah, I mean we I shared his statement.

[00:18:55]I think there'll be some complex privilege issues potentially in this case as your honor alluded to given attorneys being used and third parties involved in these statements and what they were disclosing and and additional information we've learned. So, you know, I'm amendable to teeing these issues up.

[00:19:08]You know, part of we need to kind of see what the nature of the privilege assertion ultimately is and whether or not it it stands. But I think um you know, plaintiffs are obviously agreeable to addressing those as early as possible.

[00:19:19]Your honor, in terms of the best way to address that so the court can adjudicate the issue, would you prefer that we submit some type of a compendium of what we ad think is pre protected privileged allow them to respond and then bring it to the court's attention? How would you like us to do that?

[00:19:39]>> I would welcome you working to try and agree on what you can agree on and agree on what you're going to disagree on.

[00:19:48]Okay. So, work that out however you want and we'll pick a date if you want to get some dates on the books now because I know everyone's going to be busy. Um, do we want to pick a date in August that we could deal with the privilege issues?

[00:20:06]>> You don't have to. I'm just offering it up.

[00:20:08]>> I I would suggest, your honor, and I'm going to speak for the defendants, that maybe we confer and then we we can come to you with a date. It might be the easier way of doing it then because I'm not even sure what the parameters of it will be until we have a chance to to see their position and go forward. That's just my my two cents.

[00:20:23]>> I'm I'm betting though that there's going to be some things you don't agree on.

[00:20:27]>> Your honor, assuredly there's going to be areas we don't agree on. It's just what are those specifically because privilege fights are very detailed and and back specific. So, I think we need to understand what they're ultimately going to be, what the assertion is going to be. So, that's why I'm just just putting out there that >> I agree with that judge. Okay.

[00:20:46]I don't have a dog in this right now. I think >> Well, you might, right?

[00:20:54]>> Well, in the sense that uh Mr. Carney's lawyer is not involved in any communications uh alleged in the complaint to my understanding.

[00:21:04]>> No communications alleged between Mr. Carney and his attorney.

[00:21:10]>> Um I I believe in the complaint there are not any. Uh, obviously there's a lot of communication between him and and defendant Reed's attorneys as outlined in there. Um, but I can't just the top of my head recall any. I don't remember him having an attorney during the course of the core of the conspiracy, the defamation that we fleeing there. Um, but there's nothing in the complaint as far as I recall. So, >> okay. Does anyone anticipate anticipate any expert witnesses?

[00:21:44]Yeah.

[00:21:46]>> Well, the the underlying lawsuit has the need for expert witnesses. So, but in terms of the claims in this case, I we I need to assess that, judge. I'm not certain at this point. But >> when you say the underlying lawsuit, >> well, the the underlying lawsuit, the death of John O'Keefe, obviously there's a dispute about >> Oh, no. I'm just talking in this case.

[00:22:11]>> We need to assess that. I don't I don't don't have an answer for you at the moment. Judge, >> we would anticipate several experts, you know, questions of damages, internet usage, potentially issues relating to the the the death of Officer O'Keefe potentially. Um, and part of it plays into what's the state of issue resolution by that time. Um so it's kind of difficult to predict looking forward but we anticipate um at the outset having several experts.

[00:22:39]>> Okay. Well, I encourage you to give it some thought because that's the purpose of rule 16 to try and get ahead of it a little. All right.

[00:22:50]So the timing and extent of discovery, the timing, if we put this on a fast track, discovery and depositions served in non-expert depositions completed would be February 10, 2027.

[00:23:21]Attorney Tuxberry, have you given thought to how many people you think you need to depose? Oh, >> we have, your honor. You know, it's it it depends. I think in this case, it's unique, your honor, because obviously there's been a criminal trial. There's been testimony taken. There's been grand jury testimony taken. We don't have those transcripts. We're trying to get those, but there's been that. There is a a pending wrongful death lawsuit that your honor is overseeing. there's depositions going to be taken in that case. So I I think about this case, I think about the ability to leverage you for discovery purposes prior testimony.

[00:23:52]Hopefully we'll be able to do that where so that people are either no need to take them because they've already been deposed. Even though I wasn't there, I have stuff information there, but we anticipate somewhere between 15 to two dozen is what our current um estimate of what we think of witnesses would be. Um and in terms of timing, your honor, we weren't that far off from what you suggested. I think the big the big X factor for us is is the length of time on the you know how long it takes to adjudicate the NSA motion whether there's introductory appeal you know um but we we think discovery February you know midspring is very reasonable but with that caveat of how long that briefing takes >> February is in the winter though >> I don't know if that's good >> they want to extend it already >> and last I checked in that other case there there wouldn't be a lot of transcripts available at this point. So maybe that's changed a little bit.

[00:24:48]>> We've only one, your honor. Yes, >> we're trying. We're trying in that one.

[00:24:52]Um in terms of the number of witnesses, I I generally agree with Mr. Tuxberry, but in terms of the number of witnesses and the time frame seems to be fine depending on how the anti-slap motion is uh is >> okay. And I know you already think it's not your client thinks it's not enough time, but >> I would suggest that it's probably not enough time, but >> we're going to do our best.

[00:25:20]>> Okay. Anything else anyone wants to talk about? The one thing, your honor, we talked about the the the hearing on the 14th for the index lap motion. We hadn't talked about an opposition date for, you know, our opposition to two motions. One will be June 10th and one will be next week. I I would propose honor if it's amenable July 7th for responses to both.

[00:25:47]>> That's fine.

[00:25:47]>> All right. Thank you, honor.

[00:25:49]>> Your honor, would we be up uh provided with an opportunity in the event we need to submit a reply?

[00:25:55]>> As long as you get it done by the end of that week.

[00:26:00]I got to read it ahead of time. done by the 10th. Does that work?

[00:26:05]>> Uh, I'll be away in Europe that time, but we'll have to do what we can.

[00:26:12]>> I'm not looking to ruin your vacation.

[00:26:14]All right. So, if you're saying you have someone else that can help you out dealing with it, fine.

[00:26:19]>> I do.

[00:26:20]>> Okay, good.

[00:26:22]>> Any other issues from the plaintiff's perspective?

[00:26:25]>> I think we've covered everything, your honor.

[00:26:27]>> Any of the defendants?

[00:26:28]>> No, your honor. Thank you.

[00:26:30]>> Okay.

[00:26:30]>> No, your honor. All right. Thanks very much.

[00:26:35]Thank you.

[00:26:36]>> Thank you all. So, the matter is continues to June 4th, 226 at 10 a.m.

[00:26:39]for the hearing on the protective order.

[00:26:41]This further continues to July 14th, 2026 at 2 p.m. for the hearing on the Indian.

[00:26:47]Thank you all.

[00:26:48]>> Yeah. Hopefully you can agree on the protective order. If you do, let us know as soon as you can so we can put something else on that day. All right.

[00:26:54]Certainly. Thank you.