en English
en Englishes Spanishpt Portuguesear Arabicht Haitian Creolezh-TW Chinese (Traditional)


Your Local Online News Source for Over 3 Decades

In response to Philbin’s ‘emergency motion,’ DeMaria’s attorneys file motion to compel defendants to turn over evidence, appear for depositions

2020 Headshot
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Carlo DeMaria, Jr. vs. Everett Leader Herald, Sergio Cornelio, Joshua Resnek, Matthew Philbin and Andrew Philbin, Sr.

  According to records obtained this week that were filed in Middlesex Superior Court, on October 19, 2022, attorneys for Mayor Carlo DeMaria filed a second motion for Dorchester Publications, LLC to produce documents and to dully comply with a June 30, 2022, court order. This was the second request by DeMaria’s attorneys for defendants Joshua Resnek, Matthew Philbin and Andrew Philbin, Sr. to produce additional documents, including communications between the defendants, which was refused by the Philbins through a motion by their attorneys filed last month. DeMaria is also seeking the cost for attorney’s fees incurred in moving to enforce the Court’s Order, according to the motion.

  As of this writing, the Philbins have also refused to appear for the depositions, including the Everett Leader Herald’s office manager Mary Schovanec, sister Tara Philbin, president of Philbin Insurance, and brother Andrew Philbin, Jr., business partner in Philbin Insurance and Philbin Realty. Philbin, Jr. is currently employed as an Everett firefighter and is reportedly out on a knee injury.

  According to the October 19 motion conclusion, “Philbin’s emergency motion disregards or runs afoul of black letter Massachusetts law at every turn. The financial evidence regarding Philbin and the entities that he personally owns and controls is directly relevant to the issues in this public case, filed in a public court, involving a public figure, a public election, and extensively covered by the public media. Massachusetts courts have spoken time and time again about the presumption that evidence in a public judicial proceeding is to be accessible to the public, and not sealed from public view.”

  The motion continues, “Massachusetts courts have not only frowned upon the very sealing off from public view of relevant evidence that Philbin seeks, but have required that any request for such a sealing off be accompanied by a factual showing that the evidence sought to be kept secret is necessary, that is, that the person seeking it will be substantially harmed if it is not kept secret. Philbin has ignored that body of law as well, providing absolutely no factual showing of any kind and, indeed, not even informing the Court what, precisely, it is that he seeks to keep secret.”

  In one example, the motion cites an article the defendants reporting former Everett employee Guerline Alcy’s “claim” that over 11 years, in 2011, that the Mayor had supposedly exposed himself to Alcy and attempted to kiss her.

  According to the motion, “The article was so egregiously false that it alleged that these things occurred at a time when she worked at City Hall—when, in reality, she was not even an employee at the time the Defendants asserted that these events purportedly occurred.”

  In her deposition testimony under oath, Alcy couldn’t identify the year in which she claimed the alleged inappropriate conduct occurred towards her.

  It was also shown that through the limited emails produced by the defendants, demonstrated the continued and coordinated campaign by Philbin and Resnek to use Alcy to fabricate false assertions targeting DeMaria, in the weeks before the September 2021 mayoral primary.

  In the motion to compel, attorneys for DeMaria state that the defendant’s opposition does not in any way justify or explain away their failure to comply with the Court’s June 30 Order, and are in violation for failing to produce all documents responsive to the Order.

  The motion states that Resnek and Philbin failed to search for documents specifically identified in the requests, including text messages, “which they admit they did not search.”

  “All documents referring, relating to, reflecting, or constituting communications of any kind, including without limitation emails, text messages, Facebook and other social media messages, that You have sent or received mentioning or referring to Plaintiff since January 1, 2019,” according to the motion.

  In DeMaria’s reply to the Philbin’s opposing motion seeking relief from producing documents and appearing for depositions, DiMaria’s attorney called Philbin’s claims that the Court Order is meant to harass and intimidate them is “absurd.”

  “Given that the Court has already determined Plaintiff DeMaria is entitled to the discovery he seeks, Andrew’s and Matthew’s argument that Plaintiff is somehow seeking overbroad discovery to harass and intimidate them is absurd. Their Opposition’s baseless attacks on DeMaria are designed to distract from the real issue before the Court: Matthew’s and Andrew’s clear failure to comply with the Court’s June 30 Order. Matthew and Andrew have failed to comply with the Court’s June 30 Order and their discover obligations,” according to the motion.

  Again, the Philbin’s failed to provide emails, texts, as well as conducting a search using keywords in order to fulfill their obligations to provide documents and communications, including “electronically stored information…stored in any medium” related to the Court Order.

  The matter awaits a judge’s decision.

Contact Advocate Newspapers