What’s Philbin hiding? Philbin’s lawyers file emergency motion to block public disclosure of Philbin’s financial information

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

  According to an emergency motion filed in Middlesex Superior Court on Oct. 14, 2022, Everett Leader Herald newspaper owner Matthew Philbin and Andrew Philbin, Sr. have asked for an emergency protective order to prevent disclosure of information relating to financial information and that of their businesses in connection with the defamation lawsuit filed against the Philbins, the newspaper, Joshua Resnek and Sergio Cornelio. The emergency motion filed by the Philbins’ attorney, Kevin Polansky, complains about the ongoing coverage in The Everett Advocate newspaper, claiming “that a party to this case is disseminating deposition testimony to The Everett Advocate newspaper, also known as the Advocate News Online or The Advocate Newspaper (“The Advocate”), almost immediately upon the conclusion of any deposition in the case.

  This appears to be a ploy to stop Mayor Carlo DeMaria’s attorneys from gaining access to evidence about Philbin’s personal funding of the Everett Leader Herald and his use of employees from his businesses to review and edit multiple stories and editorials written by Resnek over multiple years in order to unseat Mayor DeMaria leading up to the 2021 election.

  Resnek appears to have opened the door to scrutiny of the Philbin business empire after testifying repeatedly under oath that he had sent his stories to Philbin and Elena Vega, a former employee who managed Philbin’s business operations, as well as other employees, and that Philbin was angry at DeMaria because the mayor, in his eyes, was not sufficiently favorable to the Philbin family’s business interests.

  Tara Philbin, Matthew Philbin’s sister, who runs Philbin Insurance in Everett, and Mary Schovanec, the office manager at the Leader Herald, have all refused to appear despite being served with subpoenas. Philbin and his father, Andrew Philbin, Sr., also a defendant, have not yet appeared to answer questions.

  The emergency motion cites as exhibits stories published by The Everett Advocate referencing Resnek’s multiple depositions. Atty. Polansky complained about the deposition of Philbin’s former director of operations, Ms. Vega, which featured questions and answers related to Philbin’s financial interests, including his wife’s salary and that of his employees. He claimed that the information had no relevance to the case. Polansky then requested DeMaria’s attorney, Jeffrey Robbins, to agree that such information should be marked confidential. Polansky cited a Mass. privacy statute pertaining to interference, with a person’s privacy.

  Robbins, in response, rebutted Polansky’s claim, pointing out that Ms. Vega was not under any confidentiality agreement of any kind with respect to the information she learned while working for Philbin and also that she had declined to be represented by Philbin’s attorney despite his contacting her several times. Robbins also pointed out that Resnek had testified without objection about Philbin’s financial situation and had produced documents regarding that particular situation. Resnek had previously produced an email stating that he could not write anything negative about the Everett Co-operative Bank because his boss, Philbin, owed the bank approximately $6 million.

  Robbins stated: “Ms. Vega’s testimony directly reinforces the evidence already on record that your client Mr. Resnek engaged in a furtive scheme, among other things, to raise thousands of dollars in cash in the summer of 2021 so that they, and defendant Dorchester Publications LLC, could, as Mr. Resnek admitted, campaign for Mayor DeMaria’s opponents and defeat the Mayor in his public bid for reelection.”

  Atty. Robbins reminded Polansky that it is a very public case – which has drawn the attention of Boston area newspapers and media outlets – about the defamation of the Mayor by means of articles that the defendants, through Resnek, have already admitted were “fabrications” and “BS.” “This is the first time that your clients, who own and control a newspaper which publishes freely whatever it sees fit, have suggested that they are entitled to keep evidence in this case ‘confidential,’ in derogation of the general principles governing the public nature of judicial proceedings.” stated Robbins.

  Robbins closed by reminding Polansky that the deposition transcripts belong to the parties in the case and not the lawyers, and that the clients have the right to do what they wish with them. He also reminded him that the Leader Herald has also written about the case.