Karen Read Case: Hearing Over Colin Albert’s Deposition | Case Brief

[00:00:00]This is Colin Albert's declaration submitted in support. We are back in Massachusetts for kind of part two of yesterday's stream covering all of the discovery fighting that is happening. Specifically at the moment about whether or not Colin Albert will be deposed and when. We're going to go over the documents we didn't finish yesterday because I wanted to attend court. We're going to talk about court being a whole thing yesterday and then we are going to go to court.

[00:00:34]Nonparty Colin Albert's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant Karen Reed's motion to compel nonparty Colin Albert by his council respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition. Karen Reed's motion is of a piece with her cynical yearslong campaign to scapegoat Colin and many others in order to deflect from her own culpability for officer John O'Keefe's death. Reed's motion, they say, is littered with misrepresentations, thoroughly debunked claims, cheap character attacks, and outright knowing falsehoods that have no place in court filings. They say on the dispositive issue before this court whether Reed is responsible for the death of John O'Keefe, Colin has virtually zero relevance. So you agree there is relevance. You can't say no relevance because it's not true. The modifier virtually is interesting. Why don't we just leave it? They go on to say, "It is undisputed, bold and italicized, that Colin was not present at 34 Fair View Road when Reed and Officer O'Keeffe arrived in Reed's car in front of the home. The other side disagrees that that is undisputed."

[00:01:47]Meaning it is in fact disputed. How can you accuse the other side of being littered with material misrepresentations when you say that it is undisputed when in fact it's disputed? They say that in any event, whatever marginally relevant evidence Colin may possess does not justify the extraordinary burden imposed upon him, a nonparty, by this subpoena.

[00:02:12]The subpoena is breathtaking in scope.

[00:02:15]They say that it seeks documents and communications entirely unrelated to the death of Officer O'Keefe. I mean, I think the other side would say, well, we don't know they're unrelated. It demands, among other things, all communications with no fewer than 12 individuals. Yeah, too much. Too much.

[00:02:31]Including Colin's own mother and father.

[00:02:34]I mean, there's relevance there, though.

[00:02:37]This is the problem. Spanning over four years without any relevance to the death of Officer O'Keefe. Too big. They say Colin agreed to and did review his records for all communications with police officers pertaining to the investigation into the death of officer O'Keeffe and Reed's criminal trials and all communications around January 29th, 2022 regarding the investigation into the death of Officer O'Keefe. Now, I think that scope is too narrow. All communications with police officers pertaining to the investigation into the death of Officer O'Keefe and Reed's criminal trials. That's just to law enforcement. Do you think Colin Albert's directly texting members of law enforcement?

[00:03:17]Unlikely. He's probably talking to his mom and his his friends about it more than he's directly texting um law enforcement. And then let's look at the next narrowing. All communications around January 29th regarding the investigation. How do you define regarding the investigation?

[00:03:37]communications about who picked someone up, who was where, who saw what is that regarding the investigation. So, I think this has narrowed this down a bit too far. They go on to say that Colin had no responsive communications to the way that they narrowed it down, except a text exchange with Alli McCabe, confirming that Ally arranged to pick Colin up at 34 Fairview at 12:10 a.m. on January 29th, 2022. A text Reed has had since 2023. Reed's demand for deposition is equally flawed. On April 21st, Reed served Colin with a deposition subpoena for April 29th, commanding his appearance just 8 days later. Despite the short notice to a third party witness, I thought it was a 7-day notice period. Maybe it was an 8-day notice period. That might be right on the notice period.

[00:04:29]They say that he was ready and able to appear for the deposition. However, they say Reed cancelled the deposition less than 48 hours prior and never issued a new subpoena. Reed is moving to compel against a non-existent subpoena. We now see why Reed's team is saying we never cancelled the subpoena. They are saying you can't compel a subpoena that's moot because if the subpoena day passes and you've not extended it, it doesn't have any force in effect. Reed's team says they all agreed to extend the subpoena because they didn't have the documents.

[00:05:06]Colin Albert's lawyer is saying, "No, we didn't. You canled the deposition.

[00:05:09]Subpoena's done. Dead in the water.

[00:05:11]Nothing you can do." On May 19th, 2026, Collins's council learned that Colin had applied to enlist in the United States Army. And on May 20th, the application was approved. As a result of his enlistment, he was ordered to report to basic training outside of Massachusetts on June 2nd. On the same day, May 20th, council, Collins council, informed Reed's council if they intended to reschedule the deposition after cancelling it, he would have limited availability and offered the only dates on which he was available before the extended absence beyond the close of fact discovery. Remember, discovery ends in August. This all seems way fast. Reed's council declined those dates despite having 10 attorneys capable of taking his deposition and the fact that Reed was supposedly ready to take his deposition on April 29th.

[00:06:05]Different lawyers, everybody. instead read without indicating whether any of her other nine councils, nine councils.

[00:06:16]I think a lot of lawyers do not view themselves as interchangeable, but the lawyer who's prepped for this deposition can't just like tag somebody else in.

[00:06:24]They said that Reed's other nine council were unable to take Colin's deposition prior to June 2nd and demanded that Colin, a third party in this lawsuit, sit for deposition on dates when he would be unavailable.

[00:06:38]Then on May 22nd, Colin received a deposition subpoena from plaintiff's council after the plaintiff's council learned of Colin's limited availability.

[00:06:47]Notice how they sidestepped that. How did plaintiff's counsel magically learn of Collins limited availability?

[00:06:56]It just it came to him in a dream. All council to this action except Reed attended Collins deposition that day.

[00:07:04]And this is setting up the issue that when I was so confused in court about them talking about there was a deposition here, there was a deposition there. two depositions because plaintiffs noticed a deposition and everyone else showed up and was like, "We're at deposition."

[00:07:19]Reed had subpoenaed Colin Albert. They had rescheduled the deposition because of the dispute over documents. Said, "We are unavailable these days." plaintiff then subpoenenaed Colin Albert on a day that Reed's council was specifically unavailable and everyone else went to the deposition. They go on to say that compounding the issues on June 3rd, Reed's council falsely told this court, "Oh, [ __ ] hell. Here we go.

[00:07:53]Here the [ __ ] we go. Here the [ __ ] we go." We covered this yesterday with docket 111. Docket 111 was Rosenberg telling the court, "Colin Albert's lawyer wanted me to correct the record and let you know blah blah blah blah blah." Here's Colin Albert's lawyer again saying that Reed's council falsely told the court that Colin had refused to appear for deposition.

[00:08:17]This was an unequivocal false statement that appears to have been designed to prejudice third party Colin before the motion was even filed. This misrepresentation to the court in violation of Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.3A and Reed's refusal to genuinely remedy the misrepresentation further warrants denial of this motion as a sanction.

[00:08:42]Rather than accommodate a third party witness schedule, Reed filed this motion, a classic hallmark of discovery designed to burden and harass rather than obtain information. Indeed, the only quote unquote gamesmanship at play is that of Reed and her council, who have misrepresented to this court the circumstances of their attempts to seek discovery from Colin.

[00:09:06]And we haven't even gotten to the factual background yet. That was just the introduction. Factual background.

[00:09:11]They say that on the evening of January 28th, 2022, Colin was a 17-year-old senior at Canton High School. That evening, he was at his aunt and uncle's house at 34 Fairview celebrating his cousin Brian Albert Jr.'s birthday, who also was on leave from the military.

[00:09:29]There's new information in that sentence.

[00:09:32]I had no idea. Brian Albert Jr. never ever indicated that when he testified.

[00:09:38]At 11:55 p.m., Colin texted his close friend Ally McCabe to coordinate a ride home because he had a midnight curfew.

[00:09:45]Ally texted back that she had to drive some other people home first.

[00:09:50]Okay. At 12:10 a.m., Ally texted Colin to say that she was quote unquote here.

[00:09:54]Colin responded, "Okay." And then Colin left 34 Fairview at that time. See exhibit 2. On his way outside, Colin saw his aunt Nicole Albert. However, Colin never saw Reed or Officer O'Keeffe.

[00:10:08]Instead, the undisputed evidence reflects that Reed had not left the Waterfall Bar and Grill until after Colin left 34 Fairview. Ally drove Colin home where Colin remained for the rest of the evening. the defamation campaign against Colin. Oh, oh boy. What does this have to do with the motion at hand?

[00:10:29]Council, the initial aftermath of officer O'Keefe's death largely did not impact Colin. Colin was not present and was not a witness. He also barely knew officer O'Keeffe, who lived in Colin's former neighborhood. Following the initial shock, Collins high school life returned to normal as he prepared for post high school plans at Bridgewwater State University and then started freshman year there. They say that all changed on April 12th, 2023 when Reed and her council publicly and falsely accused Colin of being responsible for Officer O'Keefe's death. Reed had no actual evidence to support that claim.

[00:11:07]Instead, months later, her council attorney, David Yianetti, Oh, they're just like they're just doing they're just doing the whole thing. Instead, months later, her council attorney, David Yianetti, would claim an individual called with a tip and identified Colin and his uncle as the responsible parties.

[00:11:25]I remember that going slightly differently, but I'm not going to quibble with it at the moment. This is their opposition. They're going to say what they're going to say. That individual was eventually identified as Oh, that individual was identified Interesting.

[00:11:39]That individual was eventually identified as Steve Scanelan, a Canton resident who previously admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the events of January 29th, 2022. That's going to be interesting if it comes out in the defamation case. And that prior to meeting with Yianetti, he had never heard of Colin Albert.

[00:11:56]Investigative memo from Sergeant Yuri Buchan and detective Brian Tully regarding interview with Scandlin. Does Yianetti agree that that's the same person? I have so many questions. They go on to say further, days after Reed's April 12th court filing in coordination with Reed, blogger Aiden Carney published his blog in which he accused without any supporting evidence Colin of killing officer O'Keeffe. The centerpiece of Reed and Carney's false accusations against Colin was a Facebook photo taken bold and italicized a month after officer O'Keefe's death showing Colin had scraped knuckles on his right hand.

[00:12:35]Reed's reliance on this photograph in the motion to imply that Colin killed Officer O'Keefe is a misrepresentation.

[00:12:41]Indeed, they say prior to her first criminal trial, Reed possessed photographs of Colin taken after Officer O'Keefe's death and prior to the Facebook photo that clearly show no scrapes on Colin's knuckles or injuries to his knuckles. If that exists, that will be key in the defamation case, too.

[00:12:57]For the court's convenience, samples of such photos with timestamps are displayed below. Timestamps aren't metadata. worst photocopy in the history of the world of photos that purport to also have timestamps.

[00:13:13]They're going to need metadata on those.

[00:13:16]The impact of Reeves's continue attack on Collins character and reputation has been catastrophic and that is why there's a defamation lawsuit.

[00:13:25]While such is the subject of a pending defamation act. Keep reading, Emily.

[00:13:32]While such is the subject of pending defamation action brought by Colin against Reed and others, it is noteworthy for purposes of this court's consideration of the motion. Since Reed conjured up the baseless allegations that Colin was somehow involved in the death of Officer O'Keefe, Colin has had to drop out of college and has been continually harassed and defamed online.

[00:13:54]I'm going to need more information about the had to drop out of college. They say dozens of individuals have confronted Colin both at home and at work, accusing him of being involved with a murder.

[00:14:03]That doesn't say school, which caused him to fear for his overall safety on a daily basis. Yet, don't go real world with people. Nevertheless, they say Reed continues, even in the present motion, to push a baseless fantasy that Colin was somehow involved in the death of Officer O'Keefe, even though Reed and her council know their claims against Colin are patently false. I have questions, though. Did law enforcement know he was there and not mention it in any of the reports and it all came out later in their notes?

[00:14:32]Because while they attack the investigation, that is somewhere that is valid to attack the investigation. And that's not Colin Albert's fault. That's the investigator's fault. But also, that's a fair thing to be questioned.

[00:14:45]If it's in the notes that he was there and then it's not mentioned in any of the reports, that's a fair question. It's also fair to ask why.

[00:14:56]Why was it not in any of the reports?

[00:14:58]And those attacks should land squarely at the feet of Proctor Buchanan and everyone else.

[00:15:07]Those are fair questions to ask. Okay, continuing on. Reads April 21st, 2026 subpoena. The motion asserts that on February 11th, 2026, Miss Reed's attorney properly served a notice of taking deposition of Colin Albert for April 29th.

[00:15:22]That assertion is misleading. Oh, Reed fails to disclose that such notice was never sent to Colin or his council.

[00:15:30]Don't you have to file the notice with the filings in court? They say instead on April 21st, more than two months after Reed's attorney issued a notice of deposition to council of record. What? Okay. Reed's council personally served Colin with the subpoena at his home, commanding him to produce a trove of documents within 6 days and attend a deposition within 8 days. They say the notice was never sent to Colin or his council. Well, who was council of record then? So, did they only send it to the plaintiffs? Cuz that doesn't seem right. On April 27th, 2026, undersigned council served responses and objections to the document requests obtained in the subpoena based on interalia the requests over breath, vaguess, and ambiguity. At no point did culinary council object to the April 29th deposition date. Instead, Mr. Albert was ready, willing, and able to attend that deposition on April 29th.

[00:16:21]Yeah, attend that deposition without them having any of the documents. In response to Colin's responses and objections on April 27th, council for Reed requested dates and times to meet and confer pursuant to the rule 9C. Right? Because they're like, "We're going to have a problem." In that same email, council for Reed wrote, quote, "Under the circumstances, it makes sense to take Colin Albert's deposition after all the documents are produced."

[00:16:50]Does that sound like they're cancelling the deposition to you? Undersigned council promptly responded seeking clarification regarding the deposition to clarify. Are you cancelling the deposition scheduled for April 29th, 2026 Reed's council then responded in relevant part confirmed that Wednesday's deposition will be rescheduled.

[00:17:09]Look at what they chose to bold and what they didn't to clarify. Are you cancelling the deposition? Reed's council responded confirmed that Wednesday's deposition will be rescheduled to a different date on April 28th, 2026. Undersigned counsel conferred with council for Reed regarding the scope of the document requests. At the conference, undersigned council first inquired as to why the subpoena was served on Colin with such little compliance time. Council Fared did not provide an explanation and simply cited the Massachusetts rule 45, which permits a subpoena to be served with a 7-day compliance time. But you said it went to council of record. Which council of record? Underside council next relayed the position that the subpoena sought irrelevant information was over broad unduly burdensome and harassing.

[00:17:56]When they are talking about harassing here, Lonard, it's just they are talking about within the confines of the rule here.

[00:18:07]And that is language that all of the discovery rules use saying if you ask for too much information, you are just trying to make the process part of the punishment.

[00:18:19]You're trying to make the process incredibly expensive, painful, burdensome, and harassing. So the words used here are part of the code sections when talking about what discovery can and can't be used for. They go on to say by way of example undersigned counsel highlighted that on its face the subpoena request over four years of communications between Colin and his parents without making any attempt to narrow those communications by topic. In attempting to reach a compromise on the subpoena's scope, undersigned council inquired as to the relevance that Colin has to the wrongful death action given that he was not at 34 Fairview at the time Reed and Officer O'Keefe arrived outside. Council for Reed stated that they were not required to provide any good faith basis for sending the subpoena. The again, what are we doing?

[00:19:08]Are we really confused as to what their theory of the case is? So, they say that the subpoena is over broad. I I agree. I don't disagree. And then they say Reed won't tell us why they want to depose him. They don't have to. Also, I think it's obvious to everyone. I don't think there's any genuine questions about this. They go on to say that Council Fared stated they were not required to provide any good faith basis for sending the subpoena to Colin and simply that Colin is associated with plaintiff's IED claim and false narrative allegations.

[00:19:37]undersigned council relayed that the subpoena was so broad it was impossible to make a counterp proposal to Reed without any guidance regarding Collins relevance and then they've got the affidavit to support that that's what they told Reed's attorney the next day Council for Reed transmitted what they alleged to be a quote unquote counterproposal to the original subpoena following the April 28th conference however this quote counterp proposal was nothing more than a mirror image of the original subpoena except for the fact that Reed slightly narrowed the scope of the communication ations between Colin and his parents apparently in response to the illustrative example of overbreath that undersign council gave during the April 28th conference and it is over broad. On May 5th, council for Reed served six additional subpoenas on nonparties Alli McCabe, Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, and Brian Higgins.

[00:20:31]We know notwithstanding the concerns raised in Colin's responses and objections during the April 28th 9C conference, these additional nonparty subpoenas were identical to the objected to subpoena originally served on Colin.

[00:20:44]They say at this point it became apparent that Reed was not seeking meaningful discovery in an effort to locate relevant information related to the wrongful death case, but was using her subpoena power to obtain over four years of unrelated communications in an ongoing effort to harass and retaliate against individuals who had the audacity to give information to the police and testify at trial. They say Colin Albert joins the United States Army. On May 19th, 2026, Colin informed council that he would likely be joining the US Army and that if so, he would be forced to leave Massachusetts for initial and basic training beginning June 2nd. They say on May 20th, Colin confirmed that such would be the case and that his situation would limit his access to phone or email communication. The same day, Council for Colin notified Council for Miss Reed of Colin's sudden scheduling conflicts, proposing two dates for Colin's depositions, May 28th and 29th. Those were within the same compliance period of notice given to Colin by Reed's original April 21st subpoena. You're telling me that on May 20th, you are still working within the original compliance of the April subpoena. So, you agree that the subpoena still stands? They say that in the same May 20, 2026 email, Council for Colin relayed a proposed scope of potentially relevant communications to the wrongful death action. Notice we're now narrowing it down to this action, right? We're narrowing it down to this action because we know that there's going to be a lot more discovery in the defamation action. It goes on to say that their narrowed scope of communications for the wrongful death action included communications from January 28th, 2022 to present between Colin, Michael Proctor, Yuri Buchinik, and any other law enforcement official associated with the investigation of the criminal trials of Reed. You don't think people are back channeling though? Two, all communications between Colin and any other individual on or around January 28th, 2022 pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the death of Officer O'Keefe and the investigation. I think it would also need to expand to what they were doing, where they were, etc., etc., etc. They go on to say that council also relayed in good faith that Colin had undertaken reasonable efforts in the prior weeks to locate communications responsive to all those categories, but with the exception of a singular text exchange, no other responsive communications exists.

[00:23:04]Footnote two, the efforts undertaken to locate these communications are described in detail in the affidavit of Colin Albert. Oh, so he searched it and found nothing. They go on to say council stated that it believed Reed was in possession of that text message. Indeed, she references it in the motion itself. That's the message between Colin and Ally, but that Colin would be willing to produce it to the extent that understanding was mistaken.

[00:23:30]They don't want a screenshot of it, though. What they were asking for is that text message with metadata. So, if you're just going to give them another screenshot of it, I don't think that's helpful. Despite giving Colin the exact same amount of notice for his original deposition, Council Fared declined to accept Colin's offer to be deposed on May 28th or 29th. Instead, council for Reed stated that the one lawyer designated to take Colin's deposition, attorney Charles Waters, Chaz, was out of state on those dates. The thing for me that's difficult here is that the filing by Waters states that Colin Albert's attorney knew that prior to plaintiff's council subpoening Colin Albert. That timing is difficult for me.

[00:24:13]If that timing was not so, if this was scheduled and Colin Albert's attorney didn't know that those were dates Waters was unavailable, I would feel differently about it. But the fact that Colin's attorney knew that Waters was unavailable those dates prior to plaintiffs miraculously knowing that he was available for deposition, those things together raise questions for me. They go on to say Reed's council did not describe the circumstances of the designated lawyer's unavailability or explain why any of the other nine lawyers representing Miss Reed could not take Collins deposition.

[00:24:52]On May 21st, 2026, Collins council also informed plaintiff regarding Collins sudden availability issues. Oh, so there was a phone call.

[00:25:03]Why are we burying this in the motion if it's not a thing? With no deposition scheduled prior to Colin's departure on May 22nd, plaintiff served a subpoena on Colin through council. Oh, right. Cuz Colin's council was like, "Yeah, we'll accept his subpoena." Commanding his attendance at a deposition on May 28th.

[00:25:21]See exhibit 7. Bound by the subpoena on May 28th, Mr. Robert was deposed where he testified truthfully under oath regarding the events of January 29th, 2022. In addition to other issues, council for plaintiffs as well as council for defendant CF McCarthy's questioned Colin. The waterfall bar and grill was in attendance via Zoom and did not ask any question. None of the 10 lawyers for Miss Reed chose to attend Colin's deposition even though upon the undersigns information and belief another witness deposition was previously scheduled for that day but canled. Further, the deposition occurred within the same building as Shihen Finn's office.

[00:25:59]So, it was in the building that Rosenberg's office is in. Argument.

[00:26:03]Reed's motion fails to cite a single case, rule, or statute to support its arguments. Instead, the motion relies on a misleading and fabricated claims and is used as a mechanism to continue to harass Colin by impuging his character.

[00:26:17]They say that the deposition subpoena is no longer valid. The subpoena must command the witness to appear at a specified time and place. Thus, once the date passes without the deposition occurring, there is no longer an operative command to appear at a future deposition. If councils agree that a deposition subpoena will be continued, it is not the case that that deposition is then void. You can imagine the gamification in the system if lawyers were like, "Yeah, we agree to continue the date." and then they let the deposition date pass and go subpoena us again. We refuse to appear. Your subpoena is no longer valid. That is not how that rule would operate. They say that the subpoena is over broad. I don't disagree with the over broadness.

[00:27:05]They're citing the different sections.

[00:27:07]How are we at 14 pages on an opposition?

[00:27:10]The court should deny the motion for the independent reason that Reed's council violated Mass Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3A because they say for years Colin and others have been subject to outrageous abuse for no reason other than his willingness to cooperate with law enforcement and the investigation into the death of Officer John O'Keefe. That abuse has included defamation and misinformation and has been publicized by Reed and her attorneys in a judicial forum. Much like this motion is publicizing the dispute in a judicial forum. The misrepresentations by Reed's council to this court on June 3rd violated rules of professional conduct.

[00:27:49]First, the statement was false. Colin did not refuse to appear for his deposition. The email correspondence attached here too. Don't worry, we're going there next.

[00:27:59]Attached here too confirms that Reed's team canled the deposition and never rescheduled it. Second, the falsity was known to Reed's council at the time he made the statement. Colin did not refuse to appear for Reed's deposition. Your honor, sanctions.

[00:28:14]They're asking for this motion to be denied as a sanction. So they're asking the court to not compel the deposition and document production as a sanction for the violation that they perceive on June 3rd. That's what they are asking for. Conclusion: Had Reed's council engaged in good faith to reach reasonable consensus regarding the subpoena, this motion practice would have been unnecessary. They refused to do so. Instead, they offered Colin hollow compromises, which were indeed not compromises at all. Refused to coordinate their schedules to accommodate his recent and commendable career change.

[00:28:54]You're missing the word sudden, and subsequently made entirely false misrepresentations in open court.

[00:29:00]Contrary to Reed's accusations, the only one engaged in gamesmanship here appears to be her. For the foregoing reasons, this motion should be denied in its entirety, and the court should grant any further relief deemed just and proper based on the long-standing principle of I know you are verse, but what am I? This is Colin Albert's declaration submitted in support. We are not zoomed. This is in fact the entirety of the document. The first page starts at two, not one on the evening at uncle's house, I Albert Junior's birthday, and then it goes from 6 to 16.

[00:29:48]What in the actual [ __ ] is this? Exhibit two is a photocopy from 1965 of a screenshot of a text message January 28th, 2022 at 11:54 p.m. You can get me now if easier. Okay, I'm driving people home now. Word, get me after. KK here. Okay, at 12:10 a.m. And then no text until February 20th, 2022. I thought they were besties. Exhibit three. This is the report from October 17th, 2023 from Tully and Buchananic that they tracked down an individual who they purport to be the person who gave the statement to Yianetti. We're not going through the entirety of that because there were emails on April 27th at 12:57 p.m. Kieran, I'm taking this deposition.

[00:30:46]Please advise a few times in the next day or two when you or your team are available for a 9C conference to narrow this dispute. Under the circumstances, it makes sense to take Colin Albert's deposition after all responsive documents are produced. Chaz Tuckur responds at 2:54 p.m. Further to clarify, are you cancing the deposition scheduled for Wednesday? Thanks, Jim.

[00:31:08]Response at 4:21 p.m. from Aaron Rosenberg. Jim, yes, we can discuss both topics tomorrow. Confirmed that Wednesday's deposition will be rescheduled to a different date. See you virtually tomorrow. Exhibit 8 emails.

[00:31:25]Hey Damon, I understand that you spoke with Jim today about the misrepresentations made by Aaron in open court during yesterday's wrongful death status conference regarding the facts surrounding Colin Albert's deposition and document subpoena. Please advise as soon as possible whether Aaron or any other member of your team intends to rectify or clarify those statements with Judge G. Otherwise, we intend to cross move for sanctions against Aaron for violating rule of professional conduct 3.3A when serving our opposition to the outstanding motion to compel tomorrow. I look forward to hearing from you. Well, they're still asking for sanctions. Why are we having not the attorneys involved in the thing?

[00:32:05]Why is attorney Murphy reaching out to Seligan to talk about a conversation that Jim had with Aaron Rosenberg, Thursday, June 4th at 4:45 p.m., 5 minutes later. So Kieran reaches out to Seligen to talk about a conversation Jim and Aaron had.

[00:32:30]And Aaron Rosenberg's response to it is, "You guys are really something else. You guys are really something else. What misrepresentations might help to lay out what you allege to be misrepresentations before accusing your your opposing council of lying?

[00:32:45]There's no salutation on that one. June 4th, 501. Oh, like 6 minutes later, 5:01 p.m. This one's from Jim to Aaron.

[00:32:55]Aaron, I spoke with your partner Damon at length today about this.

[00:33:02]You said yesterday in open court that Colin Albert refused to appear for deposition. This was demonstrabably not true. Our email exchange confirms that Miss Reed canled the April 29th deposition. That misrepresentation has had real world impact as Colin and my other clients have faced an onslaught of online harassment, defamation, and intimidation sparked by your statements yesterday. Damon indicated that he would speak with you and get back to me with an explanation if any, which I told him that I would listen to. I remain willing to do so. Jim, June 4th at 6:25 p.m.

[00:33:38]Jim. Damon did not leave your conversation with any understanding of what quote unquote misrepresentation you were referring to. I don't believe I quote unquote misrepresented anything.

[00:33:47]But now that you have identified to me what you claim to be inaccurate, I am willing to review the record of the status conference and evaluate whether I think that I misspoke. If so, I would of course correct the record. However, as you know, there were two ways for you and your firm to handle your concern. You could have sent an email to me, the lawyer you believe misspoke, identifying it and asking me to correct it. Instead, your firm elected the first contact with me regarding this issue to be a threat of sanctions and allegations of an ethical violation, still without any explanation. I take it from your unnecessary and discourteous aggression that you stand by every word you said you've said and written in this case.

[00:34:31]So, we'll follow up with you later regarding multiple statements in your recent reply in the federal case and your defamation complaint that are demonstrably not true. I'll let you know by Tuesday morning whether I believe any of my statements at the status conference warrant clarification.

[00:34:50]Thanks, Aaron. Jim, June 4th, 7:13 p.m. to Aaron. Aaron, I do not want to play a game of telephone. [ __ ] off.

[00:35:02]Aaron, I do not want to play a game of telephone. I raised these concerns in detail with Damon after the meeting and he indicated that he will be the person we will discuss on this issue.

[00:35:14]Dude, Grammarly, that is why Kieran's email was directed to Damon. We spoke for a while and I spoke in detail about our concerns regarding the specific statement, even telling him about the realworld consequences of your misstatement. He told me from his perspective there was no intent to misrepresent and that he represented to me that he would look into it and get back to me. If he is telling you something different, that is disappointing. But I will await to hear from him directly before I assume there is an issue. From our perspective, the statement you made had no defense or basis in fact, but as a professional courtesy to Damon.

[00:36:00]Damon's our favorite. [ __ ] you, Rosenberg. Good lord with the bitchiness. But as a professional courtesy to Damon, I told him that we would be willing to hear what he learned talking to you. Our deadline to oppose the motion to compel is tomorrow. So if you will not agree to a corrective filing or give a valid explanation for what you said, we will be forced to crossmove for sanctions. There is no other time given the deadline on your motion to compel. Indeed, that is the procedure defendant Reed followed in seeking sanctions in connection with Pliff's motion regarding Reed's phone.

[00:36:41]The statement is very short and the issue is very clear documented by email correspondents that reflects that Colin did not refuse to appear for deposition.

[00:36:49]Damon, as we discussed this morning, please get back to me tomorrow so we can discuss further and see if we are able to reach an agreement on this issue prior to our filing deadline. June 4th, 7:27 p.m. from Rosenberg to Jim. Are you saying that you are accusing me of lying to the court and are now refusing to speak with me about it instead insisting that you speak to my partner in some silly attempt to suggest that you are going over my head?

[00:37:22]Even considering your tactics thus far, that is an incredible level of unprofessionalism. As you know, Mr. Albert refused to produce documents.

[00:37:31]Then refused to provide additional availability. Then out of the blue claimed he would be in unavailable for the entirety of our remaining discovery period, save for 2 or 3 days without any explanation. Then within hours of you sending that email, the plaintiffs improperly noticed a deposition on a date you knew our office was unavailable. And for the first time, your office claimed that our subpoena was somehow invalid or expired. So I do think that your client through you and your firm certainly played games to avoid the deposition.

[00:37:59]Well, when you lay it out like that, he goes on to say, "However, I told you that I will evaluate the exact wording I used and let you know whether I think it needs clarification, but your colleague first identified the issue to me, the attorney you are attacking, at 5:00 p.m. today when you knew I was already out of the office.

[00:38:23]So, I will do so early next week." As I said, good boundaries, Rosenberg. If you are intent on attacking your opposing council as a perceived means to further your case, we'll respond as necessary.

[00:38:36]Oh, that's about as close as we're getting to govern yourself accordingly so far in these emails. James to Rosenberg, June 4th, 7:44 p.m. Aaron, no one is going over your head.

[00:38:49]I had a meet and confer with Damon on this, and that seems the appropriate route. I raised it with specificity the exact phrases we had concerns with at 10:30 a.m. today, less than 24 hours after the statements were made. Again, our position is clear. It was an unequivocal misrepresentation to say that Colin Albert has refused to appear for deposition.

[00:39:11]That statement has sparked substantial and vicious social media backlash.

[00:39:16]Indeed, the court today seemed to understand what I was talking about when I tried to raise it this morning. The court directed me to raise any issue through a motion. The opposition is due tomorrow, so I have conferred with your colleague this morning discussing with him our concerns and desired redress. I am awaiting the response he represented to me he would make. It is defendant Reed that has created this schedule with tomorrow's deadline. There is no need for back and forth on this. I will wait for Damon's promised response regarding the statements made at yesterday's hearing, but we have a deadline tomorrow, as you know. gym. The very next day, Friday, June 5th, at 6:12 a.m., Jim, I listened to the audio of the status conference and think that my single statement that Colin quote refused to appear was somewhat inartful in context, and I am willing to clarify that for the court by letter on Monday. again had you simply pointed this specific concern out to me.

[00:40:25]Oh [ __ ] Rosenberg, this isn't going to make it better, but I don't think you're trying to make it better. Now you're just shaking the hornets's nest again.

[00:40:34]Had you simply pointed this specific concern out to me, the lawyer you were histrionically accusing of lying to the court in the first place, we could have avoided a lot of wasted time and energy.

[00:40:48]As you are well aware, when a judge asks specific questions about many matters at once, sometimes lawyers misspeak. The professional course to take when you believe a correction is warranted is to point it out to the lawyer in question and ask for the correction, but I know that's not how you or your team operate.

[00:41:09][ __ ] And we'll certainly keep it in mind in the future. You'll receive a copy of my letter on Monday. Best Aaron. That was it. June 5th, 6:12 a.m. Friday, June 5th, 9:09 a.m. James to Aaron. Aaron, I am going to avoid responding to your professional criticisms of me and our team. Given the grievous impact these types of misstatements have had on our clients in the past, especially when unressed, we have no choice but to take them very seriously and to avail ourselves of the protection that the rules provide. We appreciate your willingness to correct the record on this issue. We will review your proposed filing with the court on Monday and hopefully we can reach an agreement. Oh, they want they wanted editorial on it.

[00:41:57]In light of that, here is what I would propose. Our opposition to the motion to compel is due today and would have to include our cross motion for sanctions.

[00:42:07]Given your proposal, it would make sense for us to hold off on serving our opposition and any cross motion until Tuesday so we can see if we can reach agreement as to the appropriate remedy.

[00:42:20]Oh, you're asking for an extension of time.

[00:42:27]You're asking to continue it.

[00:42:30]See, a continuence because the things that you need to predicate your response on aren't in yet. Kind of like continuing a deposition until you have the documents.

[00:42:42]In terms of the procedure, given the severity of this issue, I raised this issue with Miss Reed's council at the hearing yesterday morning. Who was Damon? He indicated that he would address the issue with me on behalf of Miss Reed. That is all.

[00:42:59]Best, Jim. That's not how you said it, Jim. June 5th, 10:58 a.m. Jim, this is from Aaron A. Rose to J. Tucks. It's easy to pretend to take the high road after shooting from the hip with attacks on your opposing council's character and integrity.

[00:43:18]I agree to extend your 9A deadline to Tuesday. You can review what I send to the court and decide whether you plan to continue basislessly calling me a liar to further your own ends. Aaron, and now you understand when they pop off at each other in court, it's because this [ __ ] is going on nonstop in the background. Defendant Reed's reply in support of the motion to compel. Colin Albert's 20 pages of hyperbolic and various ad homonym attacks can be boiled down to the following admissions, which is all the court needs to know to allow the motion.

[00:43:49]Colin Albert was served with Karen Reed's deposition and document subpoena on April 26, 2026, op page 6. Colin served a timely objection on April 7th, refusing to produce any documents. That same day reads, "Council requested a 9C conference and indicated that he would wait to depose Colin until after Colin produced the documents in order to do so efficiently and cooperatively, i.e. not requiring Colin to appear twice." In response, Collins I love that it's bullet pointed. In response, Collins council asked if Reed was cancelling the deposition scheduled for the 29th.

[00:44:21]Reed's council explained instead that the deposition will be rescheduled to a different date. The next day, April 28th, the parties conferred regarding document production. And on April 29th, Reed proposed a revised scope of production.

[00:44:34]Collins Council never responded. Collins Council did not respond until May 20th.

[00:44:40]just and this is the problem. This is really the heart of the problem is that they said this is the revised scope of production. Give us dates to continue the depo and then they just ghosted. Collins council did not respond until May 20th just before 10 p.m. that evening for the first time and without any explanation. Collins council indicated that Colin would only be available for deposition for the next 13 days. Council offered two possible dates for deposition within the 13 days that followed.

[00:45:11]That's the problem. On May 21st, Reed's council, who had prepared to take Collins deposition, informed Collins council that he would be out of state traveling on those two dates cuz it was like the 28th and 29th, right?

[00:45:26]Collins council did not respond. Rather, shortly later on May 22nd, Pliff's council served a deposition notice for the first time for Collins deposition for 6 days later in direct contravention to rule 30B1 during one of the two days that Reed's prepared council, who would subpoena Collins deposition a month earlier, had already indicated he would be out of the state. The timing of that to me is giving [ __ ] They then go on to say that on May 22nd, Collins council finally responded to Reed's council on May 22nd and said that Reed's subpoena had quote unquote expired despite Reed pointing out that Plus violation of rule 30 and the obvious coordinated or coordination at play.

[00:46:17]Plaintiffs proceeded with an invalid deposition on the date Reed's council who had prepared for the deposition stated he was unavailable. Despite these admissions, Colin now argues that it is unreasonable for Reed to insist that he appear for deposition at a date pursuant to her subpoena. That is exactly the point of rule 45. Reed has always been willing to accommodate reasonable scheduling issues that Colin has, but that does not include accepting the exact and only two days his council proposes less than two weeks ahead of time when he knows Reed's attorney who prepared for the depo is unavailable.

[00:46:53]The other part of this is though that having another attorney prepare for deposition is also a bunch of billable time that those attorneys need to be billing elsewhere. It is a unnecessary use of resources and when you are dealing with this much litigation not having another attorney spend hours prepping for a depo when one's already prepped makes sense. This remains simple. Reed seeks an available date in the coming weeks for deposition pursuant to her April subpoena said that Collins unavailability after he was served with a valid subpoena does not hamper the discovery process or deadline in this case and does not prevent her from having her chosen counsel who prepared for and intends to take Collins deposition be able to do so. Two documents responsive to the narrowed version of the April subpoena rather than the limited representations and self- selected documents Colin has offered. the court should allow the motion. Period. So, it's with this context that we go to court yesterday afternoon.

[00:47:59]We have the lawyers fighting. We have the lawyers trying to sidestep having direct conversations in this email chain. Sass all over the place and online attacks saying that Colin Albert is avoiding his deposition with Olympic level agility. The lawyers have been fighting back and forth on this. What are Reed's attorneys asking for at the end of the day? Reed's attorneys are saying to the court, you need to make Colin Albert sit for a deposition before discovery closes in this case in August.

[00:48:34]And you need to make him respond via court order to the narrowed scope of discovery because I do agree with Colin Albert's attorney that the initial scope of the subpoena was over broad which is why the attorneys are like we can narrow down the scope but we're not narrowing it as much as you say. That's what Reed's attorneys are asking for. Make him sit for the deposition before the close of discovery. Make him respond to the document requests that has been narrowed down. Colin Albert's attorney said, "We already sat for a deposition on May 28th with plaintiff's counsel.

[00:49:07]Reed's attorneys chose not to show up.

[00:49:09]Not our problem. He already sat for a deposition. Reed's parties they allege are engaging in gamesmanship and they say that the court cannot compel the deposition and the document discovery as a sanction to Reed's attorney's alleged professional rules violation." when Reed's attorney Rosenberg said at their status hearing on June 3rd that Colin had refused to appear for deposition or something of that nature. What they did not ask for is that Reed's motion be denied because the subpoena was no longer valid. They threw sentences in there, but when they got to the conclusion of their motion, they said it should be denied as a sanction against Reed's attorneys for their conduct on the June 3rd hearing, not because the subpoena was expired. So even though they tried to weave it in, that's not what they're really asking for. They're asking for a discovery sanction based on Rosenberg's statement, which is then how we ended up with Rosenberg submitting a letter to the court saying, "This is my requested clarification in document 111 that we've already gone over." And then the court yeated that document off the docket and said, "What are we doing? We do not docket letters to the court." But apparently was very important to Colin Albert's attorney that that be done. And then the court has a hearing at 300 p.m.

[00:50:40]on June 17th on the motion to compel. It had seemed when this was docketed that it was going to be a Zoom hearing. It was not. It was an in-person hearing.

[00:50:50]And thankfully, there were cameras in the courtroom so we can view this hearing together. The pleadings I'm getting in this case, and I'm sure that I will get in the McCabe case, are replete with arguments presented as facts.

[00:51:09]Children, >> replete with arguments presented as facts, which isn't really helpful to me. And there's a lot more background in these submissions than I really need to decide the issues. So, I'm going to ask all of you in the pleadings that you file, at least with me, just write what I need to know in order to decide the issue.

[00:51:40]>> Oh, he's not wrong.

[00:51:41]>> Okay. The words in quotes.

[00:51:44]Whose words are those? because there's no reference, no citation to it, which makes it totally not helpful to me.

[00:51:51]>> Understood, your honor. And that point is taken. However, >> who was it? Do you know >> who said it?

[00:51:59]>> I believe it's her defense council.

[00:52:01]>> Her defense council. You're citing a statement in quotes from your client's defense council. How is that relevant or appropriate, especially without citation?

[00:52:13]>> Right.

[00:52:14]If I could take the first question first and then I'll answer your second question. The first question, there's a significant relevance objection to Colin Albert being deposed or producing any documents in this case. You see it throughout the lengthy opposition.

[00:52:28]>> I don't think the opposition is to producing any documents. I I would disagree with that, your honor, and I'm happy to explain why, but but there's a significant relevance objection overall to Colin Albert being a >> there's a relevance objection, but I don't think facts or claimed facts like that are really relevant. They're nothing but attempts to sensationalize certain things. So, let's go on to the real >> the court wants everyone to tone it down. Your office, your you, not you individually, collective, your collective you, >> yes, >> issued a notice of deposition on February 11th, 2026 for a deposition over two months later on April 29th. Correct.

[00:53:10]>> Correct.

[00:53:10]>> Okay. And you a subpoena was issued on April 15th, >> correct? Uh thereabouts.

[00:53:19]>> No. Well, that's the date on it. You can look at it. compelling production of documents 12 days later on.

[00:53:27]>> All right. Why wait so long?

[00:53:28]>> 27th and the subpoena was not served for 6 days.

[00:53:34]>> Yeah. Why wait so long?

[00:53:36]>> If that's what it says, I don't dispute the >> Okay.

[00:53:39]>> The general point you're making.

[00:53:41]>> So why wait?

[00:53:41]>> First question is, is there a reason that you would wait two months after issuing a notice of deposition to issue the subpoena? Well, there were a lot of moving pieces schedulewise, as you're aware, your honor.

[00:53:54]>> No, the notice of deposition said the date of the deposition.

[00:53:58]>> Understood. But obviously those changed.

[00:54:00]>> Why do you wait 2 months, less than two weeks, closer to 12 days >> to issue the subpoena and not serve it for?

[00:54:09]>> He said because there were a lot of moving pieces, >> six days.

[00:54:14]>> Well, it the service is dependent on the process server. I don't have an answer for you why it took six days.

[00:54:20]>> No, it's not. The service is dependent upon the constable or whomever you hire to do it.

[00:54:26]>> Correct, your honor. But they're the ones that go out and try to find >> You don't wait until 2 weeks before the deposition.

[00:54:31]>> Understood, your honor. And I don't I I don't disagree with you, but but but when that issue was raised, in no form did anyone on our team say to Colin Albert's council, you have to get us those documents in the 8 days because that's what the subpoena says the moment >> that's what the document says. And let I'm going to remind you of the provisions of rule 45 which says a party or attorney, okay, responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. This is a nonparty, >> right? Why wait so long? you served a subpoena asking for four years worth of information to be served in a very short period of time and that I don't think that's complying with either the words or the spirit of rule 45 and that's why your honor I I don't have a problem with that and that's why when that issue raised because it it to there was a lot going on in the case and it took longer to serve than than probably we would have wanted it to and so your honor when council raised that and said exactly what you just said. You've only given us 9 days to appear and uh 8 days to produce whatever whatever the specific numbers are. We said we understand that we will we are going to work with you on negotiating and conferring on the scope of the subpoena and secondly because of the time limit we we are going to reschedu the deposition so that we can resolve this this >> which is why it's now coming back to bite them in the ass >> document production issue including when a production would be made before the deposition so that Mr. Albert doesn't have to come back twice. So I I'm not I'm not fighting you on that your honor.

[00:56:22]I I agree. And when it was raised by Mr. Albert's council, they didn't get push back on that on the timing. And so I'm not defending that. It it was an oversight, I think. And I would prefer that it had been served 30 days before it.

[00:56:36]>> With all due respect, >> fair >> to someone that's represented by three law firms in at least 10 attorneys, it's hard to envision that it was an over.

[00:56:46]>> And this is what the court's been mad about.

[00:56:47]>> The court has consistently said there are this many attorneys on the team. Why can't it get done? I don't think that's necessarily fair of the court in context of the four ongoing litigations in three different courts.

[00:57:02]>> A nonparty deposition subpoena doesn't go out >> until shortly before the deposition in two months after the notice of deposition.

[00:57:10]>> Your honor, frankly, there's no basis for that. It's there is nothing intentional that has been done here. I agree with you. It should have been done sooner and and I apologize that it was not done sooner and when it was raised by council there was no push back on that and I think if you ask council they will confirm that there was not push back on the timing.

[00:57:29]>> Am I correct that your office knew of Mr. Albbert's availability and unavailability in the month of June?

[00:57:39]>> Were you made aware of it >> when were you made aware of it by attorney?

[00:57:45]when at what point eventually on I believe May 20th the email is is an exhibit >> May 20th so >> and May 20th just just to be clear the the explanation that we received was between now May 20th and June 2nd Mr. Albert is available we propose I believe it was May 27th and May 28th after that point Mr. Albert will be unavailable indefinitely without an explanation. Frankly, the first explanation that we received was in the was in the motion in the opposition to the motion >> and that's the first time there was an explanation.

[00:58:19]>> So, yes, >> I know you call into question the manner in which Mr. Albbert's deposition was noticed by the plaintiff's attorney. And I'm not arguing with that. But am I correct that you had notice of that deposition?

[00:58:36]Were we aware that the plaintiff's plan to proceed with their deposition? Yes.

[00:58:41]>> Yes. And even with even if the notice may have been deficient, as you referenced in your pleadings, you or your team, like you like to refer to it, made an intentional decision not to appear without coming to the court at all.

[00:59:02]>> So, first of all, that's a yes or no question. Well, I don't think it is a yes or no question, your honor. We were aware. We were aware and we didn't >> Oh, boy.

[00:59:11]>> We were aware and we didn't file a motion. But again, I'd like to address why that is. If you're going to raise the issue, may I may I address that?

[00:59:19]>> Yes.

[00:59:19]>> I know why you didn't because you claim you wrote about it why you didn't. It's in there. I read it.

[00:59:23]>> Well, if you're asking about it at the hearing, I'd like to address the point.

[00:59:27]>> So, what happened was we served the subpoena. As you say, we have a team of lawyers. Different lawyers are taking def different depositions. The lawyer that's taking the deposition drafts, serves, and prepare the subpoena and prepares for the deposition. We did all of that. We complied with the rules with your exception about date and and timing is taken well taken and it won't happen in the future. However, otherwise the subpoena was fully compliant with the rules and the rules require us to be able to take the deposition. We didn't say it has to happen on this exact date.

[01:00:00]What we said was we will reschedu it to another date. The the recipient of a deposition subpoena doesn't get to choose when the deposition happens by playing games like were played here and are laid out in our papers. The Mr. Albert's council was notified in this back and forth in the emails that are attached to the motion papers that the the attorney who was prepared to take Colin Albert's deposition was going to be away on two particular days that they had proposed that one of those days 6 days later is the one that the plaintiffs chose. So the the attorney who had prepared was not available as was told to Mr. Colin uh Mr. Albert's council. The notice as you referred to was issued in direct violation of rule 30B1. So we provided notice to all parties that we believed that that deposition could not go forward pursuant to that notice and we continue to believe that. But if the question is did we come and file a motion for a protective order? No, because we don't believe we needed to >> because they violated the notice.

[01:01:03]>> Yes.

[01:01:04]>> When is m >> So now the court is like a lot of you are like why aren't they asking the other side? because the court was going to finish with the questions to Rosenberg first and then turn to the other side and ask the questions.

[01:01:17]>> Attorney Tuxburg.

[01:01:18]>> Yes, your honor.

[01:01:19]>> When is Mr. Albert going to be produced for deposition?

[01:01:23]>> Um, well, he he appeared for that deposition on the 28th pres >> and then he is >> Hang on. Let's lay the groundwork.

[01:01:29]>> Yeah. You agree you accepted a deposition subpoena?

[01:01:33]>> This is Jim. So, this is the attorney representing Colin Albert whose emails we were just reading when he was fighting with Rosenberg.

[01:01:40]>> Um, well, he he appeared for that deposition on the 28th pursuit that >> and then he is >> Hang on. Let's lay the groundwork. Yes.

[01:01:47]>> You agree you accepted a deposition subpoena?

[01:01:50]>> He was served the deposition subpoena for April 29th.

[01:01:53]>> And you talked about taking it off. It didn't go forward. When's he going to be available?

[01:01:57]>> He at this point in time, your honor, I'm not sure. It'll be sometime in the fall. It'll be sometime in the fall.

[01:02:02]He's got 10 weeks training. Not going to happen.

[01:02:05]>> He's in >> court. When's he going to be available?

[01:02:08]In the fall. Not going to happen.

[01:02:10]>> Basic training. Right now, we have 1 hour a week communication with him.

[01:02:13]>> I And I don't dispute what you're telling me, but I'm not going to simply rely upon a statement in court that a witness can't be produced, >> okay, >> until the fall. So, go find out when he can be produced before that.

[01:02:27]>> Okay.

[01:02:27]>> The court is very hard to hear. And the court's like, "No, no, you are not waiting till the fall."

[01:02:37]>> A subpoena needs to mean something just as an attorney agreeing to continue means needs to mean something and it shouldn't >> stop trying to cut off the court in front of me in this in these circumstances.

[01:02:51]>> I appreciate that, your honor. We're in a situation where we learned on the 20th, we let them know the same day. I know they say there's games here. We >> in your filings you said it was the 19th.

[01:03:00]>> We informed them the same day that we found out this information that he had been accepted into the military and had a shipment date of June 2nd. We we said please take his deposition during this period of time. I know you want to take it at that point.

[01:03:10]>> Let's not let's not put aside the fact that you represent him in another case.

[01:03:17]>> I'm sure call that was filed not that long ago.

[01:03:22]>> Yes.

[01:03:23]>> Oh.

[01:03:26]Oh boy. The court's like, "But you represent him on another case.

[01:03:31]What do you mean you had no heads up that your plaintiff on a defamation suit was joining the military? Is he not going to pursue the defamation case?" Cuz he's going to have to show up. He's suing. So certainly maybe a party that's going to prosecute an action such as they have alleged should stay in touch with their attorneys and let them know what's going on.

[01:03:58]>> Certainly. And we know what he's he's going through his first 3 weeks school and then when this ends he'll go to 10 weeks basic training. We're not sure where that will be. The military will the army will assign him that location.

[01:04:09]>> But you just said he was in basic training. So he's not in basic training.

[01:04:14]We're not sure where that will be. The military will the army will assign him that location of where his his 10 weeks of basic training will be. He'll he'll be on Yeah, like I was saying, your honor, he'll be on leave in the fall.

[01:04:24]So, in terms of the app, >> let me just make it clear. We're not waiting till the fall.

[01:04:30]>> Okay.

[01:04:30]>> All right. Discovery ends in this case on August 17th.

[01:04:34]>> Okay.

[01:04:35]>> So, you're going to go find out when he can get back up here and be deposed.

[01:04:41]>> Okay. Now, let's talk about the status of any discussion.

[01:04:45]>> The court's inclined to grant this motion >> between the attorneys as to the scope of the production. I agree with attorney Tuxberry that the scope of the subpoena is excessively broad.

[01:04:56]>> It is broad >> and I know there have been discussions, but I don't know where you're at now.

[01:05:02]>> Have you had any recent discussions? No, the discussions are what are laid out and if your honor is inclined to ask us to we can continue to work on the document side, report back to you in a few days.

[01:05:15]>> Great.

[01:05:16]>> Yes. I mean, we we made our proposal, your honor, with respect to, you know, issues about the you know what this case is about, which is the death of of officer Keefe on the night of January 29th, 2022. He searched for all communications with law enforcement for the entire >> Why are you filibustering?

[01:05:30]>> A period of time, look for other ones.

[01:05:32]We never heard back. We got this motion in response to that. I mean, we're happy to look at other stuff here, but I think to your point, the asking for private conversations, communications really from our perspective is is a non-starter without being tied to this case >> to to you, Attorney Roseberg, collective view, but let's keep in mind, okay, that I know there's the other case, but you're talking about a nonparty.

[01:05:57]Understood, your honor. and and I don't know if you would want to, but I I I'm happy to have get some thoughts from you about what what's because what what Mr. Tuxberry is referring to is the extremely narrow uh two categories that they said we'll search for these and we don't have any documents. We'd search and we don't have any documents other than the text chain that's already public record. So, I think that is certainly too narrow. But I also take your your your point to me that as it stands that the subpoena is too broad. There is there is obviously as you are aware your honor there's more than wrongful death alleged here. The false narrative is part of the claims the plaintiffs have brought in this case and that obviously relates to much longer than January 28th and 29th 2022. So >> what Rosenberg is talking about is the uh IED claims, the intentional infliction of emotional distress. He said false narrative because that's how it's posed in the filing. But he's saying, look, it's not just the wrongful death. There are all these other causes of action >> to the extent a there's burden.

[01:07:09]>> I know that it extends four years.

[01:07:13]I and I'm not I'm not trying to argue it because I don't I don't understand that you want to decide that as a fact right now. All I'm saying is it's it's broader and this is kind of my point. I think it's broader than what Mr. Tuxberry and his team interpret it. You're telling us you think it's narrower than what we interpret it and that's taken. Um which is why I suggested we have a conversation about maybe meeting somewhere in the middle and I'm fine doing that.

[01:07:37]>> When can you have the conversation?

[01:07:41]>> Tomorrow. Sure. Yeah. I have >> Make them all go in a conference room now, your honor. Send them to a conference room.

[01:07:49]>> Yeah, I have I'm open to a call anytime.

[01:07:51]Just call me. I'm available tomorrow afternoon. We have a meeting on something else tomorrow afternoon.

[01:07:55]>> It's not me that has to call.

[01:07:56]>> I understand. It's anyone. Damon can call me. I I never know who has >> poor Selixson has to be like, "Why are you so obsessed with me? What is your thing with Damon?" He's like, "Damon can call me." Rosenberg's like, "The [ __ ] dude. Come on, Jim."

[01:08:14]>> But obviously, as you note, this is a a wrongful death case with a again, there's an intentional infliction claim based on a false narrative. In many respects, that false narrative claim is the other side of the coin of the wrongful death, right? If she has said things that someone else did it and they show it, aori false narrative. It's not the defamation case. This is not the harassment case that the criminal harassment case is proceeding with respect to Mr. Carney in Norfolk County.

[01:08:39]And so, I I We're well aware what the [ __ ] it's not.

[01:08:44]>> We're happy to consult with them, look for more stuff. I think there's a disconnect because there's a different view of re of what happened here. And so I think >> you did not was he going to say there's a different view of reality or was that just my brain filling in the gaps? I >> I we're happy to consult with them, look for more stuff. I think there's a disconnect because there's a different view of re of what happened here and so I think they're frustrated when we say we don't have any documents because he simply doesn't have any. He searched we're willing to consider searching for more and expand the time scope of that search but you know in likelihood the answer >> I I understand you stand before me at representing a nonparty.

[01:09:26]>> Yes.

[01:09:27]>> But we're all aware of the other case in which certain allegations have been made. So, you're going to have to do >> I appreciate the court. The court is like, "Hey, we can all pretend that he's a nonparty in this case, cuz he is."

[01:09:43]That's not pretending really. We all know he's a nonparty in this case, but let's not ignore the fact that he is a party in the other case.

[01:09:52]>> Certain allegations have been made. So, you're going to have to do some of those searches sooner or later. Of course, your honor. I I think what what I'm just trying to do, I think, you know, following the guidance of this court, this is case, the wrongful death case.

[01:10:04]We're going to do discovery and we're doing discovery in the defamation case, and we're going to get document requests, I'm sure, that will be broader than that. That's a different case here.

[01:10:12]And so, the issue I have, John, is as a third party here in this matter, um, is is resource issues, right? It's quite expensive here. We're going to have to do this in the defamation case. That's going to be different. Aren't resource issues maybe the reason that they didn't want to take the deposition before they got the documents >> separate apart from this one? So all I'm trying to do, your honor, is kind of ensure that not needlessly harassing a third party here in this action. I appreciate what you're saying. We're going to produce those documents in response to the RFPs when we get them right. Obviously, we are we've already gotten one set of RFPs from this read in that case, too. So I do appreciate I'm standing here as a third party subject to the >> RFP or the request for production.

[01:10:54]He's saying yes in the other case we're going to do the discovery that we have to do. We're going to respond to the discovery we have to respond to. We're a third party in this case. We don't have to. We want to keep it more narrow in this case >> of rule 45 in this matter and my client in this in this instance is also a party to a a defamation case originally filed in vars county now appearing before your honor. But I think in terms of like the scope of discovery and forcing them to kind of like do duplicative discovery that's a little excessively burdensome.

[01:11:25]Um and so I think it's appropriate to keep our focus on what they want for this case.

[01:11:29]>> How like I mentioned before and it's not before your honor.

[01:11:32]>> How is duplicative discovery unduly burdensome if you're just turning over all the same stuff in both cases? you and your team can review what you got today and the two of you can talk and we can all come back Monday afternoon at 3:00 talk about this again. So the court punted. That's where we're at at the end of the hearing from the afternoon of Wednesday, June 17th. The court punted.

[01:12:00]The court said, "Look, at the beginning of the hearing, I want all of you to stop it with the hyperbolic filings, my summary of what the court said. I want just the information that is helpful. I want you to stop posing arguments as facts. Essentially, I want the temperature to be taken down a notch.

[01:12:17]Attorney Rosenberg was then like, "Um, but your honor, we had a really constrained filing and then they filed that opposition, so it's really not us."

[01:12:24]And the court's like, "Oh, you want to go line by line? Let's go line by line."

[01:12:27]There are direct quotes at the beginning of this motion. That direct quote being pinned on the girl. And the court's like, "That's not attributed anywhere.

[01:12:36]Who's that quote attributed to? There's a direct quote and no attribution. This is what I'm talking about. And then attorney Rosenberg was like, um, that's attributed to her defense attorney. And the court's like, great.

[01:12:48]Why is this in here? And then when he looked at the other side of the table, he's like, hey, council, subpoenas have to mean something. Your client has been subpoenaed. When is he appearing for deposition? And Colin Albert's attorney is like, the fall. And the court's like, that's not what we're doing. What we're not doing is the fall. We are not waiting till the fall for this deposition. So, I need you to tell me when your client is being made to appear for deposition, which is essentially the court saying that they are granting Karen Reed's motion to compel, that Colin Albert is going to be required to sit for deposition, that Colin Albert is going to be required to turn over more documents, and that the attorneys, the court is like, take the weekend and sort out your document discovery because you've got to find the Goldilock zone.

[01:13:33]This is too broad. This is too narrow.

[01:13:35]Find the just right. But you're going to have to turn over discovery and the court did note to Colin Albert's attorney.

[01:13:43]We know that Colin Albert is a party in another case. So though he is a third party witness here, the rules are a little different than that. He is going to have to do these searches for discovery at some point.

[01:13:56]So the court was pushing back on I understand he's a third party witness here but let us not pretend that he is not a plaintiff in the defamation case that is also before this court. You are his attorney in that matter and you are going to have to do these searches for discovery at some point. Colin Albert's attorney responded well we don't want discovery to be duplicative. I don't understand how doing a thorough search once is duplicative to doing a narrow search and then a more wholesome search.

[01:14:21]But maybe it's just me. So, the court pushing back on how over wrought the filings have gotten, asking everyone to tone it down. We'll see. Asking everyone to take down the fighting a bit and then saying get I want all of you back here Monday to explain to me when Colin Albert's doing his deposition. So, they'll be back in court on Monday. And I imagine that that's what we'll be covering on Tuesday. Thanks for joining me. If you enjoyed this episode and don't want to miss updates on your favorite cases, you're going to need the Lonard app at lonardapp.com. That way you can stay in the loop on the cases that matter most to you. And you never know when you're going to catch feelings for a new case. So make sure you get it for free on iOS and Android. Thank you for being here and thank you for being a lawn nerd.