County Superior Court
Plaintiff: Kathleen M. Hagerty, Esq.
Defendant: Stephen E. Breggia, Esq.; Raymond A. Marcaccio,
Esq.; Charles N. Redihan, Esq.; Thomas C. Plunkett, Esq.
Interested Parties: David V. Igliozzi, Esq.; Michael J.
Lepizzera, Jr., Esq., Christopher M. Rawson, Esq.
Plaintiff, Russell Henry (Plaintiff or Henry), brings this
Motion to Compel the Defendant, Karen E. Guilbeault
(Defendant or Guilbeault) to produce previously redacted
documents that were subpoenaed by the Plaintiff on April 18,
2016. The Defendant objected to production and, on June 14,
2016, provided a privilege log stating that some requested
documents had been redacted due to privilege. After
conducting an in camera review of the redacted
documents, this Court finds that the documents are, in fact,
protected by privilege and the Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel is therefore denied.
April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces
tecum to Defendant requesting her appearance at a
deposition on May 3, 2016 and requiring that she bring with
her all documents and records regarding the present case.
Specifically, the subpoena requested:
"True and exact copies of all records, including all
bills, of telephone calls, text messages, emails and any and
all communication, for each and every one of your personal
cell phones, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), Blackberry
device, Droid device, Apple device, or any other
communication device owned or operated by you at any time
from November 1, 2013 up to and including August 31,
2014." Pl.'s Ex. A, at 4.
Defendant thereafter filed a Motion to Quash the
Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum and moved for
the issuance of a protective order. On May 2, 2016, the
parties met in chambers with the Honorable Justice Licht to
address the Defendant's Motion to Quash. As a result of
that meeting, the Court entered an Order (the June
10th Order) granting, in part, Defendant's
Motion to Quash. The Court ordered that the scheduled
deposition of the Defendant for May 3, 2016 be cancelled. The
Court also ordered that the deposition be rescheduled and
that the Defendant produce the documents requested in the
subpoena, but that she be allowed to submit a privilege log
outlining what information is withheld and what privilege she
is invoking. Further, the Court ordered that during said
deposition, no party shall question the Defendant about any
fact, claim, issue, and/or matter in any way relating to the
case of Guilbeault v. Palombo, Jr., et al, Civil
Action No. PC-2013-2109 (the Palombo Suit).
Defendant thereafter produced the subpoenaed documents, with
redactions, attended a deposition, and also provided a
privilege log containing twenty objections. In response, the
Plaintiff brings this Motion to Compel production of those
redacted documents. The matter came before this Court during
a hearing on December 5, 2016. In preparation for that
hearing, the Defendant submitted unredacted copies of the
requested documents to the Court for an in camera
review. The Court has conducted said in camera
review of the unredacted documents in order to determine if a
valid privilege exists.