Judge in Karen Read civil case warns lawyers on both sides about leaks

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All right, this is going to be conceded. [00:00:08] Paul O'Keefe: Your Honor, may you proceed? Yes. Your Honor, for the record, Civil Action 2483CV0692. This is Paul O'Keefe, individually and his personal representative of the estate of John Joseph O'Keefe III, et al. for C&C Hospitality, LLC, doing business as C.F. McCarthy's et al. Your Honor, with your permission, at this time, I will call the names of the attorneys in attendance and ask that they state that they are present for the purposes of the record. [00:00:34] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:00:37] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Brillahante. [00:00:39] Speaker 1: Present, Your Honor. [00:00:41] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Horwitz. [00:00:42] Speaker 1: Present. [00:00:43] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Fell. [00:00:44] Speaker 1: Present. [00:00:46] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Buck. Present. Attorney Diller. Present. Attorney Beaton has been excused, Your Honor. Attorney Holstag. Present. Attorney Rose. Present, Your Honor. Attorney St. George. Present, Your Honor. Attorney Donovan. Present, Your Honor. Attorney Dealey. Present, Your Honor. Attorney McCaffrey. [00:01:09] Speaker 1: Present, Your Honor. [00:01:10] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Hassett. Present, Your Honor. Attorney Marivellis. Present, Your Honor. Attorney Shipley's been excused. Attorney Tang. Present, Your Honor. Attorney Bell. Present. Your Honor. Attorneys Little and Mason are appearing via Zoom. [00:01:27] Speaker 1: Attorney Jackson's getting some free publicity as well. [00:01:30] Paul O'Keefe: Attorney Jackson. Present. Attorney Seligson. Present. Attorney Rosenberg. Present, Your Honor. [00:01:40] Speaker 1: You can sit down. Thank you. So thank you, counsel, for being here. I scheduled today to be in person because of the significance of what I was advised of last Friday. And because I find the quiet solemnity of the courtroom is a good reminder of the dignity by which courts are supposed to function. One commenter describes how every high-profile case now unfolds in two arenas. One governed by procedure and precedent and the other by pixels, edits, and algorithms. And how the courtroom has become content and the law has become a spectacle. I recently held a hearing on a non-party motion for a protective order. I required the moving party to provide certain information. Such material was filed together with a motion to impound. A hearing that included the motion to impound was held on a Monday morning. I allowed the motion to impound during the hearing. The affidavits of the moving party and the attorneys were impounded. Following that morning hearing, I found that there was insufficient information to support a delay in the deposition of the non-party from going forward. However, I further found that given the claims made in the filings, I would delay making a final decision on the motion until later that day to give the non-party's counsel the opportunity to supplement the record before me. I scheduled the matter for further hearing that afternoon at 4.15 with the expectation that there would be additional filings. At 2.22 PM that day, the non-party's attorney emailed the clerk of this court and all counsel of record, excepting one, additional materials in support of the motion for a protective order. The filing included a motion to impound additional materials. Exactly 30 minutes after the email to counsel of record of the additional material, which included sensitive and private medical information. Similar information to what was in the exhibits to the filing and marked provisionally impounded, was posted to an ex account at 2.52 PM. Upon learning this information, I ordered that the parties and counsel provide a certification to the court as to all facts known to them as to any dissemination to anyone other than parties and counsel in this matter. Of any of the contents of the material impounded on June 8, 2026, and I scheduled this appearance for today. I received certifications from all parties and counsel, 32 of them in total. No one apparently has disseminated, nor are they aware of any facts regarding the dissemination of the contents of impounded material to any person or entity other than the parties and counsel in this matter. However, somehow, an ex account holder, not part of this case, apparently received information that was at least provisionally impounded. Orders of the court have been violated either directly or at the very least in spirit. If these orders are to have any effect, all parties involved must operate with integrity. Rule 13C of the Uniform Rules of Impoundment Procedure imposes a duty on all persons to protect the confidentiality of impounded material. Additionally, Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from making extrajudicial statements that they know or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing in a judicative proceeding. In cases like this where all parties involved are aware of the public attention, I expect that everyone is taking every precaution to preserve confidential information, to follow the rules of the court, and to adhere to my orders. Because of the disclosure of sensitive private information, I temporarily stayed for the discovery of the non-party. If necessary, I am fully prepared to make such order permanent as permitted by Rules 26 and 30. to any issue counsel may raise as to the management of discovery issues being within my discretion, I invite you to look at the following cases. In the 2003 case of Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc. 438, Mass. 635, the SJC stated at page 653, In general, discovery matters are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. In a 2002 appeals court case, Mattoon v. the City of Pittsfield, 56 Mass Ave Court 124, the court stated at page 131, trial judges have broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial. In the 1987 case of Solomon A. v. B. Gruehl, 399, Mass. 790, the SJC stated at page 799, the conduct and scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the judge. In Cronin v. Strayer, 392, Mass. 525, a 1984 case, the SJC stated at pages 535 to 536, we remind judges that the scope and timing of discovery is within their discretion and the prevention of discovery abuse is sufficient justification for the authorization of protective orders. With this authority at hand, judges should not hesitate to exercise appropriate control over the discovery process. And finally, in the 1987 case of Campania versus the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, 399, Mass. 492, the SJC stated at page 503 that Rule 37 affords a judge broad discretion to impose whatever sanctions are just in order to ensure that the discovery process operates efficiently. The malicious publication of private information concerns me. Whatever opinion that one may have of a non-party, even if warranted, such an opinion does not allow for the disparate treatment of such individual. All people deserve fair and equal treatment in our system of justice, regardless of any personal characteristic, as abhorrent as some of them may be. What I am looking for is for the parties as adequate assurances that their discovery serve justice and not any desire to weaponize the rule for pettiness and profit. If the parties and lawyers would enter into an agreement to hold private, personal information in confidence, and if the terms were acceptable to me, I would consider entering it as an order of the court so that any violation would be grounds for a contempt finding and appropriate sanction, including dismissal or default. Such an order would need to be more than a stipulation that deposition testimony can only be used for the purposes of this case. I encourage the attorneys to confer and to seek to reach an agreement. In the absence of an agreement, I will consider whether to enter an order based on my plenary authority to control, manage, and oversee the conduct of discovery. While you are conferring and seeking to reach an agreement, I will again remind you as I have quite often that the discovery clock is ticking. My final request to counsel with an appearance in this matter is to familiarize yourself with rule 3.6 of the rules of professional conduct relative to publicity. The rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood on materially prejudicing in a judicative proceeding. The rule applies to lawyers who are or have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case and their associates. As the comment to the rule notes, it is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. However, preserving the right to a fair trial for everyone necessarily entails some tailment of information that may be disseminated prior to trial, especially where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. The rule takes into consideration that the public has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. However, I'm not so sure that churning the waters to generate social media coverage necessarily can result in a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings. Read the rule, especially if you have never done so. Adhere to it. We'll be ready to face the consequences for failing to do so. I remind Council of what one commentator called the quiet expectation of fairness that we have as citizens. Such expectation is based on the framework the founders of our country built 250 years ago and trusted future generations to maintain. Council, do your part to maintain the quiet expectation of fairness. Do not succumb to the attraction of seeking to influence this case through social media. Be what a trial lawyer should be, one that tries their case in the courtroom. And remember the provisions of General Laws Chapter 221, Section 28, relative to the oath of office for an attorney in Massachusetts, which provides, in part, I solemnly swear that I will do no fault to it. I will delay no man for lucre or malice, but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God. I wish all of you a happy 4th of July on the anniversary of our America's 250 year old democracy. May it continue to succeed with all of us working to maintain the rule of law. [00:14:13] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:14:14] Paul O'Keefe: Court. Court Ryan. For the record, this matter has continued in July 10, 2026 at 2 p.m. for hearing our motions to compel the criminal 4th session. [00:14:28] Speaker 1: Court stands in recess. There's no opportunity to be heard? There's no opportunity to be heard? [00:14:35] Paul O'Keefe: I was unaware. I'm just covering for a clerk matter for the day. Is there an opportunity [00:14:42] Speaker 1: before anybody departs to let the judge know that we would like to be heard? I absolutely... *BEEP*