A necessary reassertion of judicial power that strips away the facade of institutional privilege used to obstruct the discovery process. It serves as a blunt reminder that no chain of command can insulate a witness from the fundamental requirements of civil justice.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Judge Tells Lawyers: COLIN MUST BE DEPOSED!
Added:Folks, Judge Gild Day has had enough. He wants Colin produced come hell or high water. It doesn't matter who you have to talk to in the military. It doesn't matter how far you have to go up to chain of command. Colin Albert shall be produced. So orders Judge Gild Day.
Games are done. Bets are off. The strategy of the defense is irrelevant for purposes of your desires. Mr. Maddie, bring Colin home.
>> He doesn't say anything new. You must follow the law. He was present, so I think you can answer whether or not it happened or not.
>> Have you had any conversation with the prosecutor?
>> I could say the same thing by taking Amber Heard as a client.
>> Mentive, don't you think?
>> Oh, hardly.
>> Are you able to estimate of those thousand different types of cases dealing with accident reconstruction?
We're not with the jury present. That was >> Have you reached a verdict? We the jury find the defendant not guilty.
>> Not guilty.
>> Not guilty.
>> Not guilty.
>> Not guilty.
>> Well, hello everybody and welcome back to Buckle Up. It is the law with attorney Larry Foreman. And folks, today we are going to continue the next hearing of June 22nd where Colin Albert once again is the main topic of conversation. At the end of the hearing, there is also a very brief snippet that you will hear where they talk about the plaintiff's motion to compel Karen Reed to produce documents. So, we'll cover that, of course, at the end. But the most important piece here, folks, and this is what you have to pay attention to as you like this video, come below, subscribe to this channel, is the fact that Judge Gil Day has had enough.
Tuxberry tried it. Now, it's Mattiey's turn. Chris Maddie, the guy who represented the Sandy Hook families against Alex Jones. The easiest case in history, one might say. A$ 1.4 billion dollar verdict that someone asleep at the wheel could have done. Well, this man is now trying his hand. And I want you to pay attention to something very magnificent. What you'll see are two lawyers going head-to-head. Very intelligent lawyers, very skilled lawyers, very talented lawyers. Watch Chris Mattiey's evolution arguing on behalf of Colin starting all the way with we can't, we won't, it won't happen. And suddenly it starts evolving and eventually turns into oh, you'll see. Pay attention to that evolution. As Chris speaks, I want you to keep my words in the back of your mind. Let's get into the video from yesterday, June 22nd. This is O'Keefe versus Reed, the wrongful death action discussing third-party culprit witness Colin Albert's deposition and his military absence. Let's get into it.
>> 83 CV 00692 Paul O'Keefe individually and personal representative of the estate John Joseph O'Keefe III at all versus CNC hospitality LLC doing business as CNF McCarthy's at all. Council, if you could please state your name for the record.
We can start with plain text. Good afternoon, your honor Dan Buck on behalf of the plaintiffs.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, your honor Aaron Rosenberg on behalf of defendant Karen Reed.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, your honor Sarah Shipley on behalf of the defendant Karen Reed.
>> And good afternoon, your honor Chris Maddie on behalf of nonparty witness Colin Albert. And I'd like to thank the court for its consideration of allowing me to participate today, even though I'm proh case and not ON THIS ONE. OH, WE GET Chris Maddie, the Alex Jones defeater, man himself. And listen, folks, I've been reading your comments. Like, I understand a person who was literally asleep and half dead drooling could have beat Alex Jones in that case. Yes, I we all understand that. But still, a $1.4 billion verdict, and you're probably going to collect like 10% of that or something like that, maybe even 5%. 5% of a $1.4 billion verdict, that's still like $70 million. You know what I mean?
For the the families, of course, because Chris himself said that he is not taking a cut. He is there instead of Tuxberry because I remember Tuxberry said he's going to be unavailable and he was going to send his lackey, but he sent the big dog. So, this is going to be interesting. Remember, they were joking about how uh we won't tell anybody about the fact that you are you're sending in someone who is not proh, but I'm going to entertain motions because he's proh, the defamation case.
This is the wrongful death case, the Colin Albert hearing from yesterday.
>> No problems. Without objection. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So, does the email you sent this morning, Attorney Rosenberg, to the clerk um reflect the present status of the parties?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Okay. And with respect to I mean, you basically have two categories that are the subject of discussion, correct? The communications with the deponent's parents would be one category and then the other one would be communications with others.
>> Yeah, that that's that's not exactly how we'd been discussing it last, but I I see how you're saying that. Yeah.
>> Okay. And then in the email to attorney Maddie today, or I don't know when it was, I guess it was on Friday.
>> Yeah, Friday, I think. Um, you reference a date range of January 28th, 2022 through December 31st, 2023.
What category does that relate to?
>> So we So for it would it would relate to both in part. So, so as you know we originally had >> just tell me well it would relate to >> so remember what they're talking about the judge is asking you have narrowed down your scope of the things that you are asking for Colin to produce visav his text messages originally it was like a 4-year span January 1st 2022 all the way to like January or June of 2026 so it was like a 4 and 1/2 year whatever span then He dialed it back. He said, "Okay, let's make it four months, January 29th through like May 29th or something like that, 2022."
And now Rosenberg is actually reigging on that cuz they never acquiesced. So he's like, "Okay, let's make it as broad as possible." That didn't work. Let's try to make it as short as possible.
That didn't work. Well, now we have the judge kind of having the wind under our sales. So how about we expand it a little bit? We don't go too crazy, but we also don't go too narrow because now we can get the judge to agree with us potentially. So, he's using this strategy in order to kind of get the judge on his side and maybe get a little bit more from Colin through his lawyers.
And I've I've also, like I said, I've been reading your comments. It's Judge Gilde. That's how you pronounce it as I understand. Judge Gilde. I've been pronouncing it judge Gildia because I was reading it phonetically. is G I L D E A. Judge Gild Day is how you pronounce the judge's name. So, my apologies, your honor. That was not intentional. Have you been injured in an accident? Have you been hurt by a doctor? Have you suffered from a dog bite? Have you lost a loved one due to someone else's negligence? Call us 1844774.
Get a trial lawyer to get you the most money you deserve.
>> For the for the non-parent category, start with that. It would relate it would relate entirely to that.
>> Okay? And then for the parents, there are two separate proposals we made. One was >> A and B in the email.
>> Correct. So it would apply to be in that email as well. So it would apply to everyone.
>> Okay. And then are the communications that you talked about the period of January 28th 2022 through April 30th 2022 which were a subset of the parent ones.
>> Correct.
>> Are those limited by the which relate to language?
>> No. And and there was a reason for that.
So obviously one of the disputed issues as you can see in the papers is uh Mr. Albert's timing for being at and then departing 34 Fair View. We believe that we're entitled to discovery that encompasses communications around that fact. And there could be and I would imagine would be communications in the immediate or close to immediate days or months after the an event like this between close family members that would reflect those movements and would be relevant to those movements. However, we recognize that asking for every communication between a parent and their son can't be years. It can't even be the year, two years that we've limited ourselves to. So, what we're trying to do is have a much smaller scope where we we request all communications.
Obviously, if there's attorney client privilege or something like that, that is, you know, they can make that claim.
But we're requesting all communications within a very small period of time and then the parents would be lumped back in with everyone else for the remainder of the period through December 31st, 2023.
>> Okay. So, I take that back. So, it's it's slightly modified. It's still like that 3 4 month period that they initially asked for for the text messages between Colin and his parents and then everybody else and the parents are kind of be going to be kind of lumped in through December 31st. Maybe that was the original request as well.
That's starting to smell like it is >> period of time is what >> our last proposal was January 28th, 2022 through April 30th, 2022.
And why do you suggest it should not be limited to the the issues otherwise identified?
>> Because let's just take for example that there's a communication about when when you got picked up that wouldn't relate necessarily to the categories that we have listed here, right? The the death of Mr. O'Keefe, the investigation into Mr. O'Keefe. I would say it's relevant obviously, but you could see communications about timing, uh, who was driving, uh, how they knew to go pick you up, uh, etc. I'm just giving you examples now, but things that would not otherwise fall within that category. And we're not asking for that with everyone, but we are asking with it for it in as between Colin and his parents. Remember something that I think everybody as we're watching this collectively is missing that is absolutely astonishingly amazing is that we now have a judge just judge Gilde is listening to these arguments very carefully very meticulously. He is entertaining these arguments. He is paying attention to what attorney Rosenberg has to say with respect to the third party culprit claim. Has anyone ever like just stopped and smelled the roses? Night and day between Gild Day and Auntie Bev, wouldn't you say? Because when Jackson and Yianetti tried to show to the jury that there might have been someone else at the house and there could be a third party killer, Auntie Bev said, "No third party culprit will be permitted in my trial. Judge Gild Day is listening over and over and over and over again." And right now, we're still just talking about Colin. Don't forget, we're not talking about anybody else just yet.
They will come later. But as far as Colin is concerned and Colin alone, Judge Gild Day is saying full speed ahead and we're going to see obviously a lot more where it leads and where Chris Maddie is with procuring Colin because this is what this hearing is about.
Judge wants Colin and he wants him now.
No waiting until fall as Tuxberry argued on June 17th. If you've missed that hearing, go check out it's on my channel. Procure Colin now, says the judge. I am not going to let you sit on it until fall. I don't care where he is.
He was served with a subpoena. He will be produced. So, I just love the fact that we have a judge that is actually like, yeah, third party culprit is going to fly in my courtroom. And that is everything the defense needs in order to allow the depositions of the house defendants to move forward so that they can start digging their heels into what actually happened. And hopefully something will be uncovered. All it takes is one little thread, one tiny little thread that they might start being able to pull and the whole fabric of their lies will crumble and fall apart. That's how fragile lies are. You know, again, I I'm referencing this for the third time. I read your comments.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we attempt to deceive. A lot of you have been writing that and you're absolutely right. You know, it's absolutely true.
you're when you're using a lot of string, but all it takes is one little weak link and Colin is that weak link.
That's why they want Colin first because if he falls, if he's going to be the first domino to fall, well, then the rest of them fall with it.
>> Um, but isn't is you don't believe there's any way to limit the scope of that request to other than all?
Uh, I we could try to limit it to say uh >> Well, I I take it if you haven't communicated since Friday afternoon, you haven't been trying, right?
>> Well, our you as you saw in the communication, I haven't been trying.
Correct. Because I made a proposal, a final proposal on Friday that you just referred to and I the response I got was was we're we're comfortable with our last proposal. Let me hear from Mana.
>> Yes, your honor. And I'm maybe at a bit of a disadvantage because I don't believe I was copied on the email correspondence this morning. And if I wasn't if if I if I was, please correct me, Attorney Rosenberg. Um, but I don't think I was copied on.
>> That's my fault. Your your co-consel was. I apologize.
>> I tell you what, it'd be helpful if you go went and familiarized yourself with it. So, why don't we get a copy?
>> Yeah. Here you can take a short break.
You didn't have to read it in front of everyone.
>> Well, it was just forwarding.
>> We'll take a short break and let you read that. So, you're up to speed like everyone else said.
>> Thank you, honor.
>> All right. Far out.
>> Had a chance to look at it.
>> I did, your honor. Yes. And it was just a transmitt email that included the rest of our correspondent, so I'm comfortable with that.
>> Okay. So, what do you say to whether or not the scope of the request for that limited time period could be reduced from everything to something less?
>> Yes, your honor. you know, our proposal which we made to defense council, we thought was was quite broad and actually should capture um information concerning, for example, Mr. Albert's movements on January 28th. What we suggested was that >> Well, they didn't take it that way, I guess, right? Well, they may not have, but what we suggested and and perhaps the court, you can tell me if you think this is fairly broad in scope, but what we've suggested is >> right right now, it doesn't matter what I think. What what matters is what the two of you think and what you can agree to.
>> Yeah. So, our belief is that anything that Mr. Albert may have, any communications or documents that he may have relating to the facts and circumstances of Mr. O'Keefe's death or the in the law enforcement investigation into Mr. O'Keefe's death would encompass any responsive material that would be relevant to this matter. Um, and we're willing to do that. We're willing to do that for a 3 and 1/2 year period and we're willing to do it with respect to every individual that they've asked for communications to or from.
>> Wait, what? This is a complete flipping of the script. Tuxbury was like, "It's overly broad. We're not going to produce it and we're not going to do it." And Mattiey's like, "You want it? You can have it. I don't care." It's like we the lawyers on the same team can't even agree on what the right move is. That is absolutely staggering. What is going on here? It's like the the Russians have a saying. The left hand is erasing everything that the right hand is writing. Or flip it and reverse it if for you my gesture is mirrored. You get the point. This is crazy. Maddie is just like, "You want it? We'll give it to you." And notice how the judge even said, "I'm irrelevant here. You two agree amongst yourselves." Because it's true. The judge is is he doesn't want to babysit this crap. But he has to because the plaintiffs, excuse me, the third party um attorneys for Colin Albert were refusing to produce his presence. Bring him by his skin and just dump him on a table or in front of a table on a chair so he can get deposed, said the judge.
This is kind of bonkers. I don't understand what's happening here. I guess they brought the big guns and big guns is like, "Listen, stop fighting the unnecessary fight." Tuxberry is like bought and paid for. Maddie is just like, "Listen, we're going to give it to you." And so I think everybody, including Rosenberg, is probably confused right now. Like, what is going on here?
>> So, this to me is a little bit of a situation where Miss Reed won't take yes for an answer. We're actually agreeing to provide anything that we may have relating to the facts of John O'Keefe's death, which is the central issue in this case, or the investigation into his death, which as I understand it would encompass what Miss Reed has claimed um is a false narrative surrounding I'm sorry, what the plaintiff would claim is her false narrative surrounding that death. So we are comfortable that that frankly that we've kind of bent over backwards to include a 3 and 1/2 year time period of two very broad categories. I offered to discuss search terms with council that we could agree to um in order to come up with materials that might be responsive. And so for example if council felt that the category we've suggested would not encompass the timing of when Mr. Albert left 34 fair view. The way around that is just to agree to a search term that would capture those communications because we have >> even Rosenberg looks confused. Sorry, I'll let him finish speaking.
>> No. Um, we have no objection that those would be responsive and within the category we've suggested.
>> This is the first time since February in the last 4 and 1/2 months, February, March, April, May, half of June, almost all of June, almost five full months that we are hearing, oh, you know what?
Actually, we have no objection. We'll give it to you. took Maddie to show up in court and to just kind of wave the white flag saying we need to stop fighting this guys. This is not the hill we want to die on. Trust me.
Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating turn of events. Look at it from their perspective. And even Rosenberg is just like sitting there. He's just like his face says it all. He's like search terms that we can agree on. Like I guess they even they just started this conversation recently. Maybe because of the judge.
Maybe it's finally being forced down their throats, Collins lawyers throats.
So they're like, "Okay, fine. We'll just acquies. We'll just we'll just give you everything." Which again, just because you say you're going to give everything doesn't necessarily mean you're actually going to give everything. So I guess that's another thing that remains to be seen. What is actually going to be turned over and what is going to not be turned over? Oi, what a giant cluster.
What a mess. But what we what we object to is a unscoped request for materials particularly relating to communications he may have had with his parents and the very very broad categories that seem designed to capture information that is not relevant to the issues in this case which as I understand it are one the facts and circumstances surrounding officer O'Keefe's death.
>> Hang on.
>> Yep.
>> Give him a chance to respond.
>> Okay. So, so I think the problem is with doing search terms and I think this is where Rosenberg I I think I I see where this is going. I might have gotten a little bit ahead of myself searching for search terms. Do you honestly think Colin I know how I know how we think how dumb he is and how we know how dumb he is. Not the point. The point is do you really think Colin is going to be texting mommy and daddy going by the way great job pulling off that heist by claiming that I left at 12:10 a.m. Shout out Proctor and Buchananic. smiley face, you know, heart and 100 emoji. Like, come on. The problem is with key terms, search terms. Mattie is smart. I think he knows that the search terms are going to pull out nothing. They're going to pull up nothing of value for Rosenberg.
But if Rosenberg gets his dirty dirty little hands on everything, well then he might be able to see how they speak in code and decipher what that code is or was. So that's a very sneaky way of going about I will provide everything that you ask for. Just tell me what you want. No, not providing that. Not not that. I'm not providing that either. No, not providing that. But I will provide this key term that you asked for. But I'm not providing that. Not providing that. Not providing that. Sure, I'll provide this key term also because those key terms produce absolutely nothing.
You see the game? It's a sneaky tactic that Mattie is playing. So, I take some of the stuff I said back. It's dirty.
It's so dirty. And and they're supposed to be like he's sitting at Pliff's council table. There's clearly not on the side of Karen Reed, obviously. I mean, we already know that. But I'm just saying optics are everything.
>> Yeah. I'm actually going to address what I think Mr. Mattie was about to address.
This case isn't just about what happened to John O'Keefe. It is that's that's part of the wrongful death claims that the plaintiffs have alleged. But as your honor is aware, they have these false narrative, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction claims, which relate to, as they call it, the false narrative. That includes the investigators, the investigation, and what Miss Reed said in both her criminal trial and her other uh other statements that something happened to Mr. O'Keefe within the house. That's that is the false narrative. So, it's it can't be limited to just the death of John O'Keefe. I'll give you one example.
If if uh Colin Albert had sent a text about Karen Reed but not about the death of John O'Keefe and specifically the circumstances, I believe that's well within the scope of discovery in this case and it would be excluded by what uh the Mr. Albert's council has proposed.
Similarly, >> exactly what I was saying, some keywords are going to carry some text messages, other keywords are not going to carry those same text messages, but the topic remains the same. You can't search by what was the topic of conversation. You can only search by keywords. What Mattie is proposing is highly limited and it is beyond the limitations that Rosenberg is comfortable with. And I completely agree with him. He wants more. He wants the whole kitten kaboodleoodle. He does not want like imagine if all of Colin's text messages are a giant 1,000piece puzzle.
Mattie is saying, "Well, you search for you tell me what search terms you want and we will search for them." So, blue sky. Any any blue sky? No. Green grass.
Any green grass? No. Sunshine. Oh. Oh, we got one sunshine out of a thousand.
Right. Here you go. You get one. That's what Maddie wants to do. Rosenberg says, "Uh-uh. No. I want all the puzzle pieces, regardless of context, regardless of topic of conversation from January 29th until April 29th, whatever.
Let's call it the 3mon span. Well, now you're entitled to 300 puzzle pieces.
Here you go." That's what Rosenberg wants essentially, if you want an analogy. And Mattie is refusing to give that >> if Mr. Albert said something about his relationship >> because he's claiming it's overly broad >> ship with investigators which is a main part of that quote unquote false narrative in this case and that Mr. Albert himself is suing Miss Reed about that necessarily wouldn't have been included. So, so it needs to be broader.
I'm more than happy to work on search terms with uh Mr. Albert's council. In fact, I think that's a very efficient way to do that. But we need to uh either agree on which we haven't been able to or establish through your honor what the scope and the categories that are rightfully at play here are. And then we will I'm more than happy to work with them on search terms immediately to get to those categories. But I think you can hear that we've still got differences here. And this is not unscoped. You can see we proposed terms. We limited it from the subpoena. There are specific topics that we're asking for, not even of everyone, but only of certain individuals. And those topics are Miss Reed, Mr. O'Keefe, the investigation, the state police and Canton police, the Norfol DA, and the US attorney or DOJ.
That's not everything under the sun. And to the extent there are categories or individuals where Mr. Albert has none, as as I've said repeatedly, we will accept that. If council represents, there were no documents as to, you know, individuals A through D.
>> If council represents, so he wants Maddie on the line because if he says, "Yes, I represent that." And later it comes out that actually there are text messages that include these topics that you failed to produce. Well, now council's in trouble and not Colin Albert. And that is much much worse for the attorneys because now the attorneys are under the gun rather than a simple nobody like Colin.
>> Then we're done with those. And additionally, if there was some extreme burden, right, there was one term or subject matter that was bringing back thousands of messages and it was going to be burdensome in order to go through and produce those, we would have considered that. But we haven't heard any of that in the communications or in the multiple hearings we've now had.
It's just this overall this is too broad and we heard your honor about the time scope. We cut it more than in half. Uh we addressed the terms but at a certain point we're entitled to the discovery that we're seeking pursuant to our subpoena.
>> May I respond briefly, your honor?
>> Absolutely. So on the false narrative claim, what Miss Reed apparently wants to present as a defense in the wrongful death case to the emotional distress count is that what she said was in fact true. Whatever she claims happened inside the house to the extent there's any evidence at all that she is at some point going to present to this court, then that would be captured by precisely what we've proposed. the circumstances surrounding John O'Keefe's death. So, let's just take a parallel universe where the Mr. O'Keefe as Miss Reed alleges went into the house and something happened there. If Mr. Albert has any documents relating to that parallel universe, it would be captured by exactly what we proposed because what we are proposing to do is to provide any documents, any communications concerning the circumstances surrounding John O'Keefe's death.
>> That is bull crap. and he knows it.
Because here's the problem. When you don't know exactly what you're looking for, if there is a smoking gun, you need to be able to receive, you know, 60,000 pages of text messages and just sift through them one by one. Yes, it's tedious. Yes, it's going to take forever, but you will then find it. But if instead of looking at these 60,000 pages, you're only given seven of them and you are told that the other 59,993 pages well don't have anything. Trust me, bro. Come on. Maddie knows this. And he's trying to kind of pull the veil over the judge's face and and pull the veil over Rosenberg's face and just pretend like, come on, we can all agree what's the problem here. Wow, he is a lot sneakier than I thought. That is brilliant. That is a brilliant strategy.
Let's see how Rosenberg defends against it and what the judge has to say.
>> So that's number one. With respect to their claim that they should be entitled to any communication about Miss Reed, Mr. Albert was a and is a victim in a criminal case that's been brought against Eden Cernney that as I understand it, Miss Reed was at one point a subject of as well. She was not charged, but I'm highlighting this as an example of why Mr. Albert might very well have communications about Miss Reed that have nothing to do with the issues in this case. They would want us to produce a communication in which Mr. Albert pointed out that Miss Reed had a dog or a cat, which has no relevance to this case, or that Miss Reed had launched a defamation campaign against him, which also has no relevance to this case. It may have relevance to some other case, but it has no relevance to whether or not Mr. O'Keefe, I'm sorry, the circumstances surrounding his death, which again we agree. Anything relating to that, they should get. Anything relating to the false narrative claim, which again has to do with the circumstances surrounding John McKe's death, they should get. We've agreed to give that to him for a 3 and 1/2 year period.
>> Okay. All right. Time out. We need to unpack this because he just said a lot of stuff. So, he's saying that, of course, your honor, as you're aware, there's this parallel defamation case that is running parallel to the John O'Keefe wrongful death claim. Both civil cases. And running parallel to that is also the Aiden Carney criminal prosecution. So, we've got three. He's not even talking about the federal case yet, but he already brought those three in. and he's saying that Colin may have text messages out there talking about Karen Reed and the defamation against him, which maybe that's kind of part of where the smoking gun sleeps and Maddie doesn't want it procured. Maybe. I don't know. But specifically, that's where he went. He went there. He said that as you just heard, he said that there may be text messages between Colin and his parents and all these other people talking about Karen Reed that is relevant to the harassment that he has endured when in reality he has been talking about the defamation and the cases and you know I'm wondering if there's a let's gut this freaking nerd line from the social network when the Winklvi finally decided to go after Mark Zuckerberg. Phenomenal movie by the way.
I'm wondering if there is a let's gut the freaking woman a text from Colin somewhere and that Mattie knows about after speaking with Colin, his client, that he knows they should not be having to produce or a series of text messages.
I guarantee that Colin has been saying some crap. Oh, there is no way that he hasn't. And the lawyers are like, "Well, give it to us. We want a copy. We would like to see it." Rosenberg, that is. And Maddie is like, "No, no, no, no, no. you shouldn't be entitled to it and here's why. But the reasons are bogus. Well, let's see what Rosenberg has to say.
>> So, I'm not I'm not understanding yet why the very very broad scope, which I think council would acknowledge, would necessarily result in communications that are not relevant to anything here.
Why the court should bless something like that when what we've proposed, I think broadly encompasses all of the claims in this case.
>> Too narrow.
>> Just two quick points.
one, the false narrative is not just about the death of John O'Keefe. The part of part of that alleged false narrative is the cover up and conspiracy side of things that necessarily came after Mr. O'Keefe died. So, it it's it's a it's inaccurate to say that we can capture anything relevant to this case by stopping on January 29th, 2022 or thereabouts. Secondly, as we're all aware, this is a third party subpoena.
At a certain point, the third party is not in a position withstanding to argue about specifics OF RELEVANCE.
>> OH, THAT'S BRILLIANT. That is brilliant.
Rosenberg is actually defaulting back to who these people are. Colin is not even a party to the lawsuit. He's a third-p partyy witness, a third party culprit that allegedly was and we all think absolutely was at 34 Fair View at the time of John O'Keefe's death. I think Colin knows this for a fact and everybody's been trying to cover up, you know, cover this up and cover for him.
Remember all that ignition data from trial number one and trial number two that Alan Jackson was grilling the people from I think it was Celbrite and Yeah. the the fact that Karen Reed connected to John's Wi-Fi and they claimed that the timeline of where Karen hit John was came after she already arrived at John O'Keefe's home when she connected to his Wi-Fi. Like basically physically impossible. Same with Alli McCabe and Colin Albert. Colin Albert is claiming that Alani McCabe came to pick him up before John ever got near the house like 12:10 a.m. or whatever with the doctorred text messages that clearly don't have the proper timeline that a screenshot would have from an iPhone.
And so the 360 data from Ali McCabe, remember, also confirms that Ally was nowhere near 34 Fair View that day. So everything is starting to fall apart.
The whole house of cards is collapsing.
Mattie is trying to protect his his client. Mattie is trying to protect his client. And Rosenberg is explaining why.
Oh, absolutely not. We need this stuff.
And here's why.
>> Standing to argue about burden and undue burden on a third party. And >> they don't have a standing ground to start arguing about who, what, where, when, why, and how. We just need them produced. We need the documents. We need the witness. End of story. Default to the legal. when you start getting too see Mattie just wants to be lost in the facts and Rosenberg is like okay wait let's take a step back let's let's bring it back to the law and that is that's a true lawyer right there >> we recognize that and that's why we made changes but but a relevance objection like this is misplaced at this point it we are we are entitled to put document requests in in a subpoena that are intended reasonably intended to gather relevant topics I think a term that relates to communications about Karen Reed and about John O'Keefe is well within that scope as rule 26 uses the phrase relevance.
>> I'm not trying to get the last words. I just had a couple things I wanted to add.
>> I got all I have to know.
>> Um first, if what she's claiming is that there was a grand conspiracy and a cover up. Okay.
the date range we have proposed to the extent there were any communications in furtherance of this conspiracy and cover up would more than adequately capture them. We're proposing a 3 and 1/2 year period. And so if as Miss Reed apparently purports to believe there was a grand conspiracy that was occurring in 2022 and 2023 and there were communications about the circumstances of Mr. O'Keefe's death at that time and the fact that all these people dozens and dozens of people apparently were conspiring then those will be produced in this case under the subject matter that we have um scoped here. Um I also just on the relevancy thing we've cited um authority in our brief your honor that the party propounding the discovery has the burden of showing some relevance. Um and so this is absolutely an issue that the court should have to decide when cons.
>> Okay. So this is also important. So Mattie realizes he might be in a losing battle. So he also defaults to the law.
He is saying well actually the law says it is the plaintiff who has the burden to show why this discovery is relevant and necessary in order to further whatever objective that they are trying to achieve which is Colin was at the house, Colin was the murderer, blah blah blah. That's all nonsense, judge. Why?
Because they can't prove it. They don't have anything. Well, the problem is it's a catch 22. In order to get it, we need to prove that we need it because it's there. But we can't prove that it's there until we get eyes on it and show you that it's there. But we can't get it until we tell you that it's there. And it just becomes an infinite or aorous snake eating itself.
>> Considering what is an appropriate scope here, um, obviously you don't have to decide what information and evidence may be admissible or not. that's not the issue. But the reason that that inquiry about relevance exists and it's important for the court to conduct is because otherwise parties would engage in fishing expeditions all the time, which I know this court doesn't want, we don't want um but which Miss Reed seems to be seeking.
One example of of something that would not be limited to the about circumstances of Mr. hero keeps death.
There are allegations that Miss Reed has made in multiple lawsuits, including this one, that certain of uh the individuals in the House deleted phones or or deleted contents of phones or devices. That obviously happened well after Mr. O'Keefe's death. If there was a text, and I'm not saying it exists cuz we don't know if it does, but if there was a text between Mr. Albert and someone who was someone else who was in the house that said, "Get rid of your phone." that would be very very very relevant to the alleged false narrative claims and the conspiracy that Mr. Reed has alleged and it would absolutely not be covered by the circumstances surrounding Mr. O'Keefe's death. There are plenty more, but I think that highlights the concern.
>> That's huge. And I don't I don't think I need to translate this part. You guys got it. It is imperative for them to get access to ideally all of Colin's phone because all of those phones that were destroyed like Matthew McCabe who upgraded and Higgins who went to the military base and and Brian Albert upgrading his phone and all of that garbage and all of that nonsense. They may have been communicating with Colin Albert and some of those text messages might be in his phone even if he deleted them. Those are still recoverable. And anything related to phone destruction in September, I think it was September 20 something, 2023 when the Macalberts were tipped off a day ahead of the order coming in. Do not destroy your phones.
They're like, "Okay, well, I upgraded my phone the night before. What a coincidence." Oh, and by the way, I asked them to delete all of the data because uh I can ask them to preserve the data or delete the data and I ask them to delete. What a coincidence. Wow, that is crazy. So many coincidences in this case.
>> They say it's included. You say it isn't.
>> Well, they say generally it's included, but if it were included, if the if the answer was >> it's stated on the record on two areas that they're going to produce what you're looking for.
>> Right. But but as as your honor is aware, it's not our job to give them the specific examples of documents that may exist in their client's possession, custody, or control. It's our obligation to give them a sufficiently limited amount that it doesn't impose an undue burden on them, but categories and that's what we've given. They've taken those categories and significantly narrowed it. And I recognize that Mr. Maddie and I believe Mr. Matty that the two examples that he's commented on today he says would fall in in their narrow very narrow categories. And that's great. But I think there is there are tons of other things that would be very relevant that would fall well outside that. And I don't think that's proper.
>> Anything else?
>> No. Thank you.
>> Anything else?
>> Not on this. I just wanted to briefly update you about a different motion. Are you >> Hey, Buck. Do you want to >> jump in or you?
>> No, I'm sorry. Just one one other stay seated.
>> Yeah, you know me well enough.
>> I don't want to steal attorney Buck's thunder. I There there is the outstanding issue, your honor, um about Mr. Albert's availability for a deposition. And I know we started discussing the scope and so >> Okay, so now we're getting into Brian Albert's availability for the deposition. This is going to be good. From what I heard from Boozy Beauty, by the way, who was there, she's sitting in the courtroom. You just can't see her cuz the camera hasn't panned that way. It's It's good stuff. So, let's watch.
>> Happy to discuss that whenever it makes sense for the court.
>> Go right ahead.
>> Okay. Um, your honor, since last week, we have made inquiries uh of the United States Army at Fort Jackson, and we've also done some research about uh how a deposition of an active duty um service member would be arranged. Um, and bottom line up front, Mr. Albert as a traininee in the United States Army is under the command and control of his commanding officer. And so if Miss Reed wishes to take his deposition.
Yes, sir.
>> Just curious, does did your research include a subpoena that already was served?
It >> Well, your honor, I so I guess the the question you're raising >> and that's a big big big point because if you are already drafted into the army and then suddenly, you know, you get a subpoena, that's one area of law. But what happens if you have a subpoena and then you use the army to try and escape that subpoena by making yourself voluntarily unavailable. That's what the distinction the judge is trying to draw.
And he's asking Chris Maddie if he has done his research on in this regard and if he has an answer for him >> is if Mr. Albert had been served with a subpoena.
>> She had been pri correct prior to entering the military. And let's presume for a second that that subpoena remains valid. Even though I know you, you know, we take a different position. Um, and he then enters the United States Army in the interim, the United States Army has custody of his person. And so if the deposition is going to take place after the date upon which it was originally scheduled, April 29th, I think, um, then the only way for that deposition to occur is with the consent of the United States Army. Um and the way and and there is a process for that. What would happen is attorney Reed's council um Miss Reed's counsel or we could help facilitate this process would reach out to the staff judge advocate at Fort Jackson um and let them know that there is a request for a nonpart >> Oh, okay. So, we just learned another new piece of information and I immediately immediately I saw Rosenberg running to his notepad to write it down as well. for Jackson is in South Carolina. So Colin is in South Carolina.
>> Already in civil litigation pending in Massachusetts to take Mr. Albert's deposition. And I've never done that before, so I don't know exactly how that process would play out, but I know that that would be the necessary first step.
Now, I've called the staff judge advocate four times at Fort Jackson between last week and this morning. I've left four messages. I haven't heard back. I've also consulted with a colleague who's a former JAG officer um with two combat deployments. She advised me that the process would definitely include the staff judge advocate at Fort Jackson, may also include the army litigation division, which is the main legal component of the United States Army, and that that process would just have to play out. But the reality is neither we nor Mr. Albert have any authority to present him for a deposition while he is in basic training. He's not given any leave. He's not given um any visitation at Fort Jackson. He has very limited access to telephone. His day starts at 4:30 in the morning, ends at 9:00 p.m., and it's entirely structured. And the basic combat training program is phased so that phase two builds on phase one, phase three builds on phase two. And this is why people have been saying that if Colin has to get pulled out of basic for a few days, he may have to restart the entirety of basic training because the whole point is that it's rigorous and it's a simple, you know, direct path to like it's brainwashing. You you're turned into a soldier. You're turned into a killing machine for the United States government. That's essentially what basic training is. I mean, that's there I don't think anybody has as any anything uh to say about that in that regard. You can't it can't be interrupted so that oh well okay we'll let you do that and then you go and take care of your family needs and you like no your ass is mine says Uncle Sam you work for me now so we're not going to be able to pull him out is bogus it is a complete sham Chris Maddie can pull Colin Albert out but the problem is it is going to interrupt the flow for Colin and he's going to have to start his shindig over which sounds like a Colin problem not like Miss Reed or Judge Gild Day's problem.
>> This is a 10-week program um after which we understand he will be granted leave.
And so what I asked council uh last week was listen if Judge Gil Day were to permit given the burden that um forcing Mr. Albert to submit to a deposition while he's in basic training would impose. If Judge Gil Day were to permit an enlargement of the scheduling order for the sole purpose of conducting this deposition after Mr. or Albert completes basic training and if the other defendants if the other parties agreed to that would you and they said no and I asked them why and they said they had strategic reasons and what what it made me wonder is why they hadn't taken his deposition in the many many months during which this case has been pending and why they didn't take his deposition when he actually sat for it two weeks ago. Maybe because Colin was available unequivocally, unabated at the time. But then as the clock began to tick and Colin realized, "Oh crap, it's now or never. You know what? I'm just going to join the army." That argument doesn't work, Maddie. And you know it, you sneaky snake. Don't forget to like this video. Come support the channel.
>> Well, the answer to the latter question is they didn't have the documents. And they had said in their discussions with you that they wanted the documents before they took the deposition.
>> Yep. and they don't have the documents now, judge. And so what I'm saying is given the burden that this would >> So he's like he's reaffirming everything the judge Gild day wants like so give them the stuff. Well we they don't have it and we're not going to give it kind of like it's a tongue-in-cheek argument.
Obviously he's not going to say that second part, but that's what he means.
It's sick. What is this guy doing? Yeah, he can beat Alex Jones, but he can't beat poor little Ms. Reed. Crazy >> on Mr. Albert and the fact that he's already been >> excuse me for inter but the burden is self-imposed because there was a subpoena and as I've said a number of times a subpoena has to mean something.
>> The burden is selfimposed.
A subpoena has been issued and a subpoena has to mean something and that something is it must be abided by. Judge Gild Day is not taking any of this army crap to hard. He gets it. He understands. Okay, he's in basic training. Pull him out. Pick a date.
Pick several dates for him to be available for deposition. Pull him out of basic. Get him to post and then send him back. I don't care. But the subpoena has been issued. And subpoena powers have powers. And I had a lot of soldiers and former military and navy, marines, etc. Air Force. I think it was one air force. I remember reading you. You guys know what you said. You told me that the army does not mess around with court stuff. When courts require your presence, they will procure you. So just because it's taken him a whole week. Oh my god, Chris Maddie, you've been you've been calling this guy four times all week and he has not gotten back to you, don't worry, he'll get back to you. Give him time. It has to go up the chain of command. The army has very strict rules, has very strict policies and procedures in place for everything, including that.
You think this is the first time a soldier has received a subpoena to appear for a deposition, especially when he's also a plaintiff in a related case?
Come on, come.
And there was also some agreement between the attorneys and the words and actions of an attorneys need to mean something too. Your honor, let me let me just say a couple things in response.
First of all, I am not aware of any agreement between attorneys. I've read that email traffic. I was not the one negotiating this, but I've read that email traffic and that deposition was cancelled. And if they want to take a deposition of him on a different date, they can issue a subpoena for a different date. But but it is my understanding that there was no agreement. I also want to just say >> okay so now Chris Maddie is like all right looks like I'm losing. Let me go to my backup argument. My backup argument is well the subpoena itself the original subpoena. First of all in February he was never served. April 21st he was finally served for April 29th.
You guys canled it. Then he showed up in May. You didn't show up. That's a you problem. End of story. Basically he's not getting deposed. Leave him alone.
He's trying that. That's bold. Let's see how far it takes him.
>> One thing in response to the idea that Mr. Albert has imposed a burn on himself.
if he is told that his deposition is being cancelled and then he alerts everybody to the fact that he's decided to enlist in the United States Army to serve his country and tells everybody that he's going to be available for a deposition in a compressed period of time and one party decides not to take advantage of that and then he enlists and subjects himself to basic training and the idea is that he was supposed to organize his life choices as a non-party witness around when Miss Reed might ultimately decide to take his deposition. I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's imposed this burden on himself. He's undertaking a burden to serve our country, made himself available for a deposition, and now all we're saying is under these circumstances, wouldn't it make sense to conduct this particular deposition when the young man has completed his basic training and after which we've resolved all these issues about documents >> and it seems like a reasonable request.
He's look look at how he's standing up for for Colin. Colin is just here to serve our country. He is just here to do his civic duty, your honor. And why why can't we just let him do that? What's the problem here? It sounds so patriotic. You almost want to rally behind him. Like think about it. Just take Colin out of the picture. If he was talking about anybody else, you just want to say, "Yeah, what's the problem?
Just let him let him finish out." If they don't know the context, obviously context is everything. Now I see why they hired him.
>> Deposition wasn't cancelled, your honor.
You can read the emails yourself. I'm the one who wrote it. Said the deposition will be rescheduled when we resolve the pending dispute over the documents. Mr. Mattie points out we still don't have the documents. That's because they still haven't agreed to produce the documents and we need to be back here with your honor for a second hearing to get what we believe is a significantly narrowed scope which we proposed last week after your honor uh provided some feedback on the initial scope. Also, subpoena is not a request.
Mr. Mattie said a request that he be deposed. It's not a request. It's a court order. The case law is clear. A subpoena is a court order. And obviously we're not looking, as I've said, to impose an unfair burden. We we recognized that the service didn't happen in time and immediately said, "Yeah, that's too tight. We will reschedu it." To now argue that by saying, "We will reschedu it," which is exactly what the email says, that we canled the deposition and rendered the subpoena ineffective is I I think absurd. And it and it flies in the face of the obligation that a party serving a subpoena has, as your honor pointed out, to work with the recipient in order to do it in an efficient way, not impose an undue burden. Okay, TLDDR, what they're everything that guy said is bull crap.
Um, essentially to sit there and argue that deposition was canceled in April is not true. It was rescheduled. It was rescheduled because of your failure to produce documents which you just admitted. Therefore, procure Colin. End of story.
>> I also haven't heard any of this until right now. We've been confirring. I heard that it's difficult, but the specifics of of the steps that have been trying that they've been trying to take, we haven't heard. I would have a couple questions. One, was Mr. Albert asked to identify this uh proceeding and the subpoena that he had received when he enlisted in the military? if he was, does that impact his ability to come back to Massachusetts to appear pursuant to the subpoena that was issued in this case? Um, at the end of the day, everyone here, I think, respects a decision to serve our country, but the timing of this is extremely relevant >> right there.
>> Yes, we respect the fact that he wants to serve our country, but it's the timing of his decision. He chose to go and serve our country, you know, under the guise of serving OUR COUNTRY TO AVOID THE SUBPOENA. What you, your honor, Judge Gilde, has already said. So why do we keep coming back to this issue? Very good work, Rosenberg. Very good work. This is this is some of the most outstanding lawyer work I think I have ever seen, folks. These are like top titans each in their respective field, one plaintiff, one defense, just ripping each other in open court. It it I'm sorry I am I have stars in my eyes.
Like I am fangirling even over Chris too. It's the style of his argument that I'm falling in love with. Forget the content. It's the style. It is just magnificent. The way that they argue is just outstanding. the fallback arguments, the back and forth. It's it's it's so pleasurable to watch. I mean, it's nothing like Lai versus Jackson.
It's literally like an ant trying to pick up an elephant. That doesn't work.
You're not going to win, Lai. Sit down.
Or Hank Brennan going up against Allessie. Not going to work. Sit down.
This is two worthy adversaries going head-to-head. And I'm just I'm salivating just watching this. the deposition, uh, the subpoena. We had the back and forth where we said we would reschedu. We waited three weeks for a response on the documents. We got an email that said in effect he's available for the next 13 days and then he's gone.
That's not appropriate and that's not in compliance with a subpoena that's issued by council through this court.
And if there's if there's something we need to do in order to make it more possible, I'm more than willing to hear what we what we can do to help do that.
But there's been no proposal. It's just he can't do that. And to address briefly this idea of extending the scheduling order, as your honor is aware, we've been working over the course of of many months now with the understanding from your honor that that is a hard deadline and we need to do everything we can to get everything done in that deadline.
And we've made tons of decisions in reliance on that and you've effectively kept us to that. We've got depositions, many this week that we're taking.
Plaintiffs have taken a number. Things are moving forward. be completely unfair for us to now have the deposition that we noticed early on in the schedule be put way back in fact after the deadline that we've all been operating under.
>> Your honor, I I don't understand any prejudice to Miss Reed or her counsel for taking this deposition 3 weeks after the August 17th deadline.
I I'm not understanding what the prejudice might be. Yeah. Do you understand and respect the need for court order deadlines here?
>> I don't know what their strategy is >> exactly. He took the words out of my mouth. I was literally just about to pause and say something like that. I don't know what their strategy is. Maybe they wanted to pose Colin first for a specific reason. We all know what it is.
If we wait until much much later, Colin is going to talk to all these witnesses who have already been deposed and he's going to be guided in a certain fashion.
But Colin being the weakest link, if they can depose him first or be one of the first house defendants to be deposed, he's going to color the rest of all of the depositions that are going to follow.
So it is going to prejudice Ms. Reed, contrary to what Chris Matty just said, to depose Colin in August, September, whatever, after he's done with his basic training, he cowardly I know it sounds weird. You you're going to serve your country. How can that be a cowardly move? Well, he's running away from something under the guise of serving his country. That's the cowardly part. So he is cowardly running away from his obligation to be deposed as a third-party witness in a wrongful death action by serving his country and being patriotic and the bigger man. Can I think of many more ironic things as ironic as this scenario? That being said, whatever their strategy was apparently meant that they weren't going to take his deposition in the first year in which this case was pending and then decided that they would take it and then then when there was a dispute about documents, our position is they canceled it. Our position is that there is not a valid subpoena to be enforced right now.
However, given the importance of working collaboratively with council, we are going to continue to do that. And if the court tells us that we need to find a way to pull Colin Albert out of basic training, we will go ahead and see what that process is.
>> Okay. So Chris is at least giving the court the latitude so generous of him that if Judge Gild comes to us and says, "Pull Colin out of basic. He is going to be deposed." We will make that happen.
Why couldn't we start there? You know why? Because Maddie knows he's losing.
He knows he's about to lose this argument. So, he is taking the wind out of Judge Gild's sales by having to say, it's reverse psychology 101. You're going to procure Colin Albert. He goes, "We will procure him. If you want him, we will procure him." Well, then why didn't you start with that? This is how you know it's a reverse psychology trick and not because he would have just started with that. Your honor, we're ready to procure him. Oh, I'm I'm working on that right now and that's the end of the argument. He tried everything else first. Failed. Failed. Failed.
Failed. Okay, we'll procure him. Don't worry. Just say the word. Just say the word. We've been sitting here for half an hour. I know you've been sitting with me for just about an hour, but this without my commentary is about half an hour so far. It we could have started.
This hearing could have been 10 minutes.
No, Chris tried. He failed. And now he's taking the arrow out of Judge Gild's quiver and says, "If you want us to procure him, we'll procure him." Like it like like Wait, what? What did What did you just say? Why don't you lead with that? You see how how ridiculous this is? But like I said, this is really good lawyer work >> and and pursue it. But I don't think that's fair to him. I really don't. And and I don't think attorney Rosenberg thinks that's fair to him. When we could take this deposition just a few weeks after one witness then he will have finished basic combat training. He will be on leave. you won't need to go through this process which I'm just now learning about about trying to persuade the United States Army that [ __ ] they should release.
>> And there's another element to this that actually just hit me. So Colin Albert is going to be going through this basic training, this rigorous military style training. Right now, he is a fragile little girl flowing in the wind with his skirt showing his undies, you know, like very Marilyn Monroe style if if you get the image in your head. And he's terrified. What if they also sent him to the military in order to toughen him up so that he spends the summer, you know, turning into a man and comes back ready to tackle any and all questions brought to him by these council. That's another theory for you. Let me know in the comments below what you think.
>> A witness for a civil proceeding in Massachusetts when they don't even let him have his phone.
However, if that's the course of action that the court wants us to take, we will work with attorney Rosenberg to try to facilitate that. I just think it's highly unfair to this young man.
To be clear, I I do think I I understand the the burden it imposes, but as your honor said, it's a self-imposed burden that he he knew he had the subpoena. he uh decided to enlist when he decided to enlist and that resulted in him being avail unavailable less than two weeks after he could give the other side notice. So this is not someone who was already enlisted who we tried to serve a subpoena or say served a subpoena when someone was back on leave and then they ended up back under the control of the military. That's not what happened here.
the timing is set out very clearly in the communications that are part of the record. And I I think I think not only is it fair under the circumstances, I think it's required and I I would ask the court to order Mr. Albert's counsel to present him and I represent to you that we will work with them and do what we need to do to assist that.
>> Well, first of all, he was available for a deposition.
>> Oh, God.
>> He was he sat for a deposition in this case. And secondly, judge, in all difference, if you order us to make efforts to arrange his appearance at a deposition, we will do that.
>> Okay.
>> But we do not have authority to produce him on our own. The United States military does.
>> Think it would be a great idea if you found out more.
>> We'll continue to work on that. I I was hoping they would take my calls. They didn't. Um but but we will continue to work to find out more about how that price process might play out. think I'm confident that the initial step would be reaching the staff judge advocate and informing them personto person of the status of the situation. I've left that information in my messages, but I haven't been able to reach anybody and and I will continue to do that if that's the course recommendation.
>> You might not want to use the words the other side canceled the deposition.
>> Oh, that's a call out. Maybe stop saying the other side canceled the deposition because they did reschedu it and it's in the emails that the judge has read. He's tired of the games. He's tired of the word smithing and he's calling Chris out on it. Now, that is deserved. That is absolutely deserved. And Chris probably felt a little jab in his heart when he heard that cuz he knows the judge is right. in terms that it's disputed.
>> It is disputed and that's our position.
Thank you, Judge.
>> Thank you.
>> Your honor, can I briefly just update you on that other motion I was talking about? It wasn't that. Uh you asked at the end of the last hearing what other motions were coming to you. There's one that relates to Mr. uh Matt. Well, I think Mr. Matt is representing them, but the the the other uh individuals >> he's not jumping up there. Yeah, I know.
I I don't want to I don't want to I He's representing some of them in the defamation case.
>> I don't want to take too many liberties with the courts involved.
>> Yeah, I was I was trying to be careful, but we've got deposition notices and a motion to compel for Brian Higgins uh uh excuse me, not Brian Higgins, uh Brian Albert, Nicole uh Nicole Albert, Jennifer McCabe, Matt McCabe. That's coming to you uh very shortly. We discussed that earlier. Separately, we had a deposition scheduled of uh Lieutenant Brian Tully of the Mass State Police. We served uh Lieutenant Tully with a subpoena May 5th and it sought documents June 1st and June 11th. So, we did a better job with the service. Uh his council asked to reschedule for July 8th, we rescheduled. And then the day after our hearing last week here, we got a motion to quash saying asking the court to say he doesn't have to show up at all, doesn't have to produce any documents. Came out of the blue. We they didn't confer with us. We don't know what why there would be a change when we accommodated the date. So that we served a motion. We served in opposition to that motion the same day we got it, which was last Thursday. And we urged them to please file it with this court as soon as we can. I I don't believe that's happened based on the docket, but I just wanted to give you a heads up that that is on its way.
>> Okay. So, new information other than Colin Tullley, his deposition was scheduled originally earlier. Then it was rescheduled for July 8th, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. And now it's canled in its entirety, or I shouldn't say cancelled, but they're moving to quash it, which they're basically saying we're cancelelling it, and we're asking the court to to cancel it for us. Why? Well, we'll go over it once the documents become public.
Unfortunately, they are not public yet.
Uh the minute they become public, of course, you know where you're coming at this point. Who's going to be covering them? Yeah, your boy right here. Uh but that's interesting. What's their justification for quashing the subpoena?
I can't help but wonder. I guess we'll find out.
>> Four parties should talk about this. A motion ready to be filed.
>> I believe the opposition is due today.
It's my understanding that we'll be serving our opposition or that those uh individuals to whom the motion is directed will be serving their opposition uh today, I believe, >> and we'll we'll aim to file it tomorrow.
>> Okay. So, it should be available.
>> I do represent a number of them in the defamation case, your honor. It's the same situation as we have with with Mr. Albert here. I'm not admitted to represent them as witnesses here.
>> You're probably going to be here on their behalf the next time.
>> Well, if Mr. Tuxberry is still on vacation, I probably will be.
with your permission of course.
>> Why would you like to do that?
>> Uh before we jump to that, the plaintiffs have two forthcoming motions that um contrary to uh you know public belief I have other cases that have depositions too. Um personally I don't just for the record be clear I don't want to convince the US Army of anything. Um, so but the plaintiffs have forthcoming motions to compel Aiden Kernney as well as further answers to interrogatories from Miss Reed. Um, I've been I believe the opposition was just served the end of last week. I have been out of the office Friday and today, so I believe that both will be filed either tomorrow or Wednesday.
>> Okay. Okay. So, we have lots lots and lots of motions we're going to be reading together uh forthcoming by both plaintiffs and the defense. And Aiden's deposition, I believe, is scheduled for July 18th or something like that. It's going to be interesting. And Karen Reeds is like the 19th. They they are really bending over backwards to make sure that Aiden and Karen get deposed first so that they can work their stories around Aiden and Karen's depositions. I know that like two or three depositions have already happened, but they're like of insignificant players. We don't have like Matthew McCabe's deposition already in our rearview mirror or Brian Alberts or anything like that or Colin obviously. So all these tiny little players, we've got a few depositions here and there. And the deposition deadline is less than two months away. I think they said August 17th is the deadline. So that means, you know, about 7 weeks, give or take. 7 weeks to take like 20 depositions. Holy crap, that's intense. That is intense. And I think it's more than 20. And I know Buck was making a joke. He's got other cases other than this. And of course he does.
He's a plaintiff's lawyer. You don't just have one case. This is not the 1920s where you have like two clients and that carries like your entire firm, you know, cuz you know, you don't have like a lawyers were not allowed to advertise back then. So, you just found whoever you found. You didn't really have those big corporate giants.
Attorney advertising, by the way, I don't think became a thing until like the 70s or 80s, like really a thing. Um maybe even it it became even more popular in the '9s and after that, of course. But yeah, that's um that's interesting.
>> When would you like to do those?
>> I assume we'll do well, we're going to have four now. I think we're going to have those two. We're going to have ours as soon as Lieutenant Talia's council files his 9A package and then our motion. So, uh, I'd say as soon as we can cuz >> or I was going to suggest right right after the 4th of July holiday possibly, you know, there we have a um robust deposition calendar as your honor is aware.
>> I I don't know if the court schedule we could do July 2nd to get it because Detective uh Lieutenant Tully's uh deposition supposed to be the 8th. We've got that set aside. Everyone has that set aside. I think >> I believe we're scheduled for a 30v6 on the second. Uh I think that's the one that you just uh emailed and said they they asked >> we were double booked that day.
>> Ah okay.
>> So the 306 of CF McCarthy's >> How about the 6th?
>> It's the Monday after.
>> I don't think we have a depo.
I'm not aware of anything currently scheduled for the sixth.
This is my only case, so don't worry.
But >> just like all of us here on >> it looks like we just want to be >> We don't have a trial left today.
You can cut this.
>> So, why don't we say 2:00 on the 6th?
>> I'm going to put that before the first motion attorney Rosenberg described as well.
>> Whatever you got, whatever you got out there, let's get it all in here and >> Okay. All right. Yeah, we'll file it as soon as >> What I'd like to do, judge, if you don't mind, if we could tentatively set that as the date and then I could consult with co-consel just make sure that that that works for them and if for some reason there's an issue, um I could confirm with attorney Rosenberg and everybody else. Would that be all right?
>> Can we see that sidebar for a second?
>> Sure. Come on up.
>> Okay. So, this matter is continued to July 6, 2026 at 2 p.m. for the motion hearing.
>> Still have our status on >> Friday at 9:45. At your honor's direction, the World Cup fan incited me put that aside and work through the weekend to update the court on the pending motion to compel documents for misread. Would you like to hear that?
>> Go ahead.
>> Oh, okay. So, on the the motion to compel documents that uh Rosenberger had to produce on behalf of Ms. Reed, remember he said that we are almost there. There's no need to file the motion, but they filed the motion because they're not there there.
Yeah, we're back to that issue real quick.
>> For for our conversation uh last week, there were there was a link sent to me while we uh Attorney Fel and I were conducting a deposition prior to the hearing here on Wednesday the 17th. Um over the weekend, I was able to access that link. Um and confirm that there there were responsive documents included. Um the I and the plaintiffs have some concerns to date. Um we have submitted 53 requests for documents to Miss Reed. 34 of those were met with objections for attorney client privilege and work product. Um I do not have any privilege logs to date. nor do I have what I believe to be compliance with Superior Court Rule 3A that states the documents that are being withheld due to that specific objection. That being said, Miss Reed is scheduled to offer deposition testimony on Wednesday of this week, less than 48 hours from now, the first testimony she's given to date.
and my clients are at an extreme disadvantage because I anticipate forthcoming motion practice as to those objections, but without knowing what's withheld, I can't pursue the additional motion practice to put in front of this court to determine whether or not that privilege upholds.
>> Okay. So what did he just say in human speak like about three out of five requests for production of documents that the O'Keefe's made on Karen Reed has been met with an objection that what you're asking is subject to attorney client privilege. Now is there a specific rule that applies to objecting with attorney client privilege which he's saying Rosenberg did not comply with. Please help judge.
>> This issue Mr. Mr. Buck and I discussed right for the first time at the beginning of the last hearing last week on Thursday. As I told Mr. Buck, we we agree we're going to get them the uh information that's required by rule 38.
We're working on it right now. We we we're already working on it when Mr. Buck asked me first on Thursday and we will get it to them. This is the first I'm hearing of an issue tied to the upcoming deposition. Uh, I will talk to the the people that are doing it right now and and try to get that to them before that deposition, but they have obviously they'll decide how to handle that at their deposition.
>> Remind them that if you're going to make such an objection, you're supposed to provide the privilege look, not something you work on after you make the objection. Okay. So, the judge is calling out Rosenberg saying when you make the attorney client privilege communication objection, meaning I we cannot provide this with you. Excuse me.
We cannot provide this for you because this is subject to attorney client privilege. You're supposed to provide some sort of log that has to go along with it. And Buck is saying we were supposed to receive that log. And Judge Gild Day is saying that log should have been provided along with your objections, not worked on as you speak.
So, you know, this raises another question. Is Karen Reed's deposition going to have to be pushed back from July 19th or whatever it is? Because if they don't have all the documents, again, they can't move forward just like with the whole Colin crap. You can't conduct a full and effective deposition if you haven't reviewed all the documents related to that issue. Well, we we identified the objection and then once we've withheld the documents in the production that just completed, we are we are providing the the information.
But it's taken.
>> This is not the collective view because you get someone else you're going to consult with. But they obviously had the documents in front of them in order for them to make the objection, right? So the next logical step would have been let's give them a privilege slide. Well, not necessarily in front of them when they made the objection because the objection is made in the written responses. You're not looking at the documents at the same time. But I I understand your honor. We're we're I we're not fighting that. We >> Yeah, we did we did have a conversation about it, but to to your honor's point, the initial responses to my first request were served on me in October. I don't have a privilege lock for that request either. Yeah, Attorney Roseberg, it just it's similar to the last discussion on the motion.
You're you collectively suggested the issue was moved because you had filed a written response, but you hadn't produced the documents. I know you've taken care of it, but all that just engenders delay. I >> I agree. But I would say the reason that those keep coming before you is like right now we haven't had a conversation yet under rule 9C about the timing of when we're going to give give them the privilege log. It was raised for the first time at the beginning of last Thursday's hearing and my response was you're right. We're getting we're working on it. We're going to get it to you. This is supposed to happen frankly outside of the court. This is supposed to say we need it by Tuesday because her deposition is out on Wednesday. Thanks to all of these hearings, I like I feel like I know more about Massachusetts law than I ever would otherwise. Rule 9C, which I think there's a parallel that exists in Florida. It usually exists in those larger jurisdictions. I don't believe we have a rule 9C equivalent in Kentucky because we're much smaller jurisdiction. It's basically before you get the court involved, get amongst yourselves and see if you can resolve the issue amicably. If the answer is yes, well then you don't have to bother the court in the first place. If the answer is no, well then you can bother the court, but you can't bother the court without first having conferred amongst yourselves because then the court will be inundated with all of these motions. And there's going to be so many there are already an insane amount of motions that the court is inundated on. And there's probably rule 9 C violations scattered throughout. But come on, I mean, Judge Gild Day is not going to pay attention to every single one of those. And you can see he's just like, you know, fix this, get it, get get this done, blah blah blah, >> and let me respond.
>> But I think what Attorney Buck is saying is we should have got it a long time ago.
>> And and I I'm I'm by no means here claiming nefarious action or anything of the sort. from stating facts because Superior Court rule 38 states that where a privilege log is required.
The log shall be served with the supplemental response unless the requesting party waves entitlement to the log or agrees to a later date for service.
>> I'm I'm not suggesting nefarious actions by anyone. I'm just suggesting actions that result in delays, you know, more more need to come in front of me and talk about this stuff. I >> I understand that, your honor. I'm just saying I think we didn't need to come before you to talk about it, frankly.
But but and the supplemental response is the supplemental written response in rule 38, which comes after the documents are produced. So, I we don't I really don't think this is something we need to quibble with before, your honor. We will get it to them as quickly as we can and if we can do it before Wednesday's deposition, we will do that.
>> Probably not going to complete the deposition in a day anyways. Right.
>> I I don't anticipate that the likelihood of that is very high.
>> Certainly with other parties today.
>> I just wanted to confirm that you had requested that I review the link and I've done that and as we said here, my preliminary review shows that I received responsive documents to three of my 16 requests. So, I anticipate further motion practice and at a later date. Um, but you requested that I look at everything and I did.
>> All right. We'll see everyone on Zoom on Friday morning at 9:45.
>> Looking forward to it.
>> Not me, your honor. Right.
>> We'll admit you if you want.
>> Not yet.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> Well, that was interesting. So, the judge didn't take like a firm stance other than get with the army, procure Colin, end of story. We basically spent about 35 minutes or so, almost 40 minutes, talking about the exact same thing, going in circles with Chris trying to bend over backwards to get the judge to agree. Tuxberry failed and Maddie gave it a shot. He failed. So, they're like, "All right, fine. We'll try and procure Collins." So, Collins ass is grass. Hopefully, they're going to be able to procure him and they're going to be able to provide him before the court for deposition. As far as the second issue that we discussed is concerned, well, uh, Rosenberg is working very hard and it's difficult because they're requesting, the plaintiffs are requesting a lot of different things and they're doing their best. All these depositions are looming.
They're all around the corner and it's all about to start crashing down because look at uh Sergeant Tuli or Lieutenant Tuli for example. Look at Lieutenant Tuli. Already we have another issue. His uh deposition was scheduled then it was rescheduled. Now they're moving to quash. What does that mean? To quash means to ask the court to make sure that he doesn't have to appear. Why? Well, that should have been at the moment that you're watching this video, those documents are probably already public.
I'm recording this uh the same day that it was heard on June 22nd and this is of course premiering the next day as I always do. I'm always one day behind because I don't do lives as you know. I like curated cut content so that you don't have to sit there and watch a fivehour video or try and like find where it is that the hearing is being done. I like more catered information and plus I don't have the time personally to sit there. Not trying to diss anyone who sits there for five hours during their lives. I know a lot of attorneys are retired and they do their thing. I don't have I'm not retired. I don't have eight hours a day to just goof off. So, I have to sit and and do this in the late hours of the evening to make sure that you get your content served to you on a silver platter. So, with that in mind, folks, uh I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops. I'm also very much looking forward to covering the defamation uh motions, the anti-slap motions. Those I am itching to get itching to get my my greasy fingers on.
And uh hope folks, as always, I hope you learned something. I hope you liked it.
I hope you enjoyed it. I love every single one of you and I will see you all in the next video. Bye everybody.
Related Videos
My Wife Tried To Control Our Divorce Story, So I Took Control Of My Future...
AdamsStories-l1m
289 views•2026-06-18
Judge QUESTIONS Sovereign Citizen After STRANGE Legal Filing
NooneIsAboveTheLaw
311 views•2026-06-24
Gov signs bill aimed at protecting reproductive health records
ABC7Chicago
1K views•2026-06-25
Trump's DOJ Spreads Fear With ANTIFA Charges | Ken Klippenstein | TMR
TheMajorityReport
4K views•2026-06-19
Trump reflecting pool update: President claims 'thugs' arrested, suggests pool is 'in great shape'
USATODAY
1K views•2026-06-24
Wait, WHAT? New Bill Would Let People LITERALLY KILL Abortion Providers?!?
whatadaypodcast
227 views•2026-06-18
EXPLOSIVE REPORT: Trump’s Secret Boat Bombings Killed Innocent Civilians?!
FarronBalanced
351 views•2026-06-20
Innocent Victim | R.D. Wingfield | BBC Radio Drama | A Wrong Man Accused?
TeaTellydyn
5K views•2026-06-18
