Key Takeaways
- Judge Mark Gildea criticized both sides in Karen Read’s wrongful‑death suit for “pandering to social media” and urged attorneys to file only the facts needed to decide issues.
- The judge faulted Read’s counsel for filing a motion to compel deposition that contained excessive, argument‑laden background rather than concise, relevant material.
- A subpoena for witness Colin Albert was issued six days late—two months after the notice of deposition—prompting the judge to question whether the delay was truly an oversight.
- Albert’s attorney said Albert cannot be deposed until after fall basic‑training in the Army; the judge rejected that, noting discovery ends Aug. 17 and a subpoena must be honored promptly.
- Colin Albert was previously portrayed by Read’s defense as a possible third‑party culprit in the death of John O’Keefe, though the judge barred that theory in the retrial.
- Karen Read’s one‑year probation for an OUI conviction ended the day after the hearing, marking a notable milestone in her post‑criminal‑case life.
In Plymouth Superior Court on Wednesday, Judge Mark Gildea presided over a hearing in the still‑pending wrongful‑death lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Keefe against Karen Read. The hearing centered on a motion filed by Read’s attorneys to compel the deposition of Colin Albert, a witness who had been implicated by the defense during Read’s criminal trials as a possible alternate perpetrator. From the outset, the judge expressed frustration with the way both sides were presenting their arguments. He told Read’s counsel that one of their motions was “replete with arguments presented as facts” and warned the parties to stop “pandering to social media.” Gildea urged attorneys to limit their pleadings to the essential facts necessary for him to rule on the discovery dispute, suggesting that extraneous narrative was merely an attempt to sensationalize the case for public consumption.
Read’s attorney, Aaron Rosenberg, denied any intent to pander, insisting that the filings were grounded in legitimate legal strategy. The judge remained unconvinced, asserting that the inclusion of claimed facts that were not directly relevant to the discovery issue amounted to an effort to sway public opinion rather than assist the court. He emphasized that the court’s role is to decide based on the pertinent record, not on material designed for social‑media consumption.
The judge then turned his attention to the procedural handling of Albert’s deposition. Read’s lawyers had notified Albert on February 11 that they planned to depose him on April 29, yet a formal subpoena was not issued until April 15 and was not served until six days later. Rosenberg characterized the delay as an oversight caused by “a lot of moving pieces.” Gildea, however, found the timing difficult to accept as a mere mistake. He pointed out that a deposition subpoena for a non‑party should not be issued only shortly before the scheduled deposition, especially when the notice had been given two months earlier. The judge questioned whether the delay reflected a lack of diligence or a tactical attempt to hinder the deposition process.
Adding complexity to the matter, Albert’s attorney, James Tuxbury, informed the court that Albert would not be available for deposition until the fall because he had enlisted in the Army and was attending basic training. Tuxbury said he could only speak with Albert for one hour per week during training but would try to ascertain a possible Saturday slot for the deposition. Judge Gildea rejected the notion of postponing the deposition until autumn, stating unequivocally, “Not going to happen.” He reminded counsel that a duly issued subpoena carries legal weight and must be honored, noting that discovery in the case is set to close on August 17. Consequently, Albert’s legal team must secure a deposition date before that deadline, regardless of his military obligations.
The hearing also revisited Colin Albert’s role in the criminal proceedings against Karen Read. During Read’s two high‑profile murder trials, her defense attempted to portray Albert as one of several individuals who could have been responsible for the death of John O’Keefe, a former Boston police officer who was dating Read at the time. The defense claimed that Albert, along with two other men, might have been involved in a altercation inside the Canton home where O’Keefe’s body was later discovered outside in the snow. Albert testified in the first trial, where he was questioned about photographs showing him with bloody knuckles after O’Keefe’s death and about prior videos in which he threatened violence. In the retrial, Judge Beverly Cannone barred the defense from invoking Albert as part of a third‑party culprit theory, and Albert did not take the stand during that proceeding.
Outside the courtroom, the hearing coincided with a notable personal milestone for Karen Read. Thursday marked one year since she was acquitted of all charges in her criminal case except for an operating‑under‑the‑influence conviction, for which she was sentenced to one year of probation. That probation officially ended on the day of the hearing, and Read was present in the courtroom to witness the proceedings. While Albert himself did not appear, his father, Chris Albert, and Jen McCabe—a key witness in both criminal trials—were in attendance.
The judge’s admonitions underscored a broader concern about the intersection of high‑profile litigation and public discourse. By calling out the parties for “pandering to social media,” Gildea sought to refocus the litigation on its legal merits rather than on the narratives that often flourish in the court of public opinion. As the case moves forward, the parties will need to balance the demands of discovery, the availability of witnesses like Colin Albert, and the judge’s insistence on concise, fact‑based filings. The upcoming August 17 discovery cutoff will likely serve as a critical deadline for resolving the deposition dispute and shaping the trajectory of the wrongful‑death claim.