LIVE COURT | O'Keefe v. Karen Read - Proctors' Procrastination Emergency Hearing Morning - Part 1
YouTube · lmId_t9HkEU
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The O'Keefe v. Karen Reed case involves multiple parallel lawsuits: a wrongful death case, Karen Reed's federal lawsuit against 'everyone,' a defamation case, and a lawsuit against the police department.
- ❖Former Trooper Michael Proctor's attorney filed an emergency motion to delay his deposition, citing 'ongoing' medical issues and family commitments, just four days before the scheduled date.
- ❖Karen Reed's attorneys opposed the delay, highlighting incurred costs (including travel from California) and the lack of prior notice or accommodation requests since the deposition was scheduled in April.
- ❖Proctor's attorney claimed his client's family received harassing phone calls related to provisionally impounded affidavit information, implying a leak, which Karen Reed's attorney categorically denied.
- ❖The judge provisionally impounded the materials but stated there was 'insufficient information to support a delay' based on the initial record.
- ❖Despite finding insufficient support, the judge delayed a final decision until 4:15 PM, giving Proctor's counsel more time to 'supplement the record,' effectively burning the entire day.
- ❖The judge criticized Karen Reed's attorneys for their 'strategically prepared' statements and a Today Show appearance where they discussed their new civil lawsuit against Massachusetts law enforcement, citing rules against 'theatrics'.
- ❖The host, Emily D. Baker, found the judge's actions contradictory and frustrating, noting the irony of a lecture on collegiality after Proctor's last-minute motion and the judge's own reliance on media reports.
- ❖Karen Reed's attorneys had previously stated their intent to sue Canton and MSP in this court, making the judge's 'surprise' at the new lawsuit questionable.
Insights
1Judicial Frustration with Procedural Delays and Media Influence
The judge expressed clear exasperation with the attorneys' conduct, particularly the last-minute request to delay a deposition and the strategic use of media appearances. Despite acknowledging the lack of sufficient information to support a delay, the judge granted more time, effectively punishing all parties by burning an entire court day.
The judge stated, 'A subpoena needs to mean something. A lawyer's agreement needs to have some meaning. Lawyers need to communicate with their clients. Clients need to keep their attorneys informed.' () and later, 'Based on the record before me, there is insufficient information to support a delay in the deposition going forward. However, given the claims made in the filings over the weekend, I will delay making a final decision on the motion until p.m. today to give Mr. Proctor’s council the opportunity to supplement the record before me.' () The judge also cited Massachusetts rules of professional conduct regarding 'theatrics' in response to Karen Reed's Today Show appearance. ()
2Strategic Delay Tactics and Lack of Collegiality
Proctor's attorney sought to delay a deposition four days before it was scheduled, citing ongoing medical issues and family commitments. Karen Reed's attorneys highlighted the significant costs and strategic planning already invested, arguing against the last-minute nature of the request. The host points out the irony of the judge's lecture on collegiality given Proctor's team's own actions.
Karen Reed's attorney stated, 'This is a duly noticed deposition. The subpoena for the deposition went out in April. There was an agreed upon date of June 8th, which we have prepared for. We've strategically planned for, we've incurred costs now four days before the deposition. Suddenly there is a need to continue it.' () The host later comments on the judge's lecture: 'The irony is not lost on me that we were only in court on an emergency motion because former trooper Michael Proctor's attorneys at the very last minute said, 'Oh yeah, we can't do that depot on Monday. Where's the heads up then?'' ()
3Media Strategy as a Factor in Court Proceedings
The judge explicitly brought up Karen Reed's appearance on the Today Show, where she discussed her new civil lawsuit, as a reason for his scrutiny of her attorneys' 'strategic' preparations. This indicates that public commentary and media strategy, even if not directly violating court orders, can influence judicial perception and decisions.
The judge stated, 'I followed up with Attorney Celixson on his reference to strategically preparing for the deposition today because I read in the media of an appearance on the Today Show Friday morning where Miss Reed said that her new civil lawsuit was always part of a plan that she has.' () The host notes, 'Proctor's lawyers are looking through the lens of their audience. And I think in this case it was effective because the court brought up Karen Reed's appearance in the media.' ()
Lessons
- Attorneys should anticipate and proactively address potential scheduling conflicts for depositions well in advance, rather than waiting until days before, to avoid judicial ire and cost implications for opposing counsel.
- Legal teams in high-profile cases should be mindful that judges may monitor media coverage, and public statements can be factored into judicial perceptions of 'strategic' conduct, even if not directly violating rules.
- When a court requests additional information or support for a motion, ensure it is comprehensive and submitted promptly, as a judge may interpret insufficient initial filings as a lack of diligence or support for the request.
Quotes
"A subpoena needs to mean something. A lawyer's agreement needs to have some meaning. Lawyers need to communicate with their clients. Clients need to keep their attorneys informed."
"Although there is no duty on Miss Reed's council to have informed Mr. Proctor's council of the intent to file the most recently filed Bristol County action, I think it is unreasonable to have not to done so with a scheduled deposition pending."
"An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by theatrics."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
LIVE COURT | O'Keefe v. Karen Read - Proctors' Procrastination Emergency Hearing Afternoon - Part 2
"A chaotic civil court hearing sees a judge's unusual 'timeout' for attorneys, a denied deposition delay that still grants more time, and petty discovery disputes, all while the host dissects judicial temperament and legal gamesmanship."
Mackenzie Shirilla’s Mom Defends Daughter After “Remorseless” Netflix Interview
"Ashleigh Banfield and Chris Cuomo dissect the Mackenzie Shirilla murder case, her family's controversial defense, and the broader implications of true crime narratives on public perception and the justice system."
Michael McKee updates. Tik Tok Defamation Trial, Delayed? Ron Ron Ruling...
"This episode dissects the bizarre legal battles of a TikTok psychic facing a defamation trial for falsely accusing a professor of murder and an attorney sanctioned for courtroom misconduct and evading service by using an office occupied by a magician."
Alex Krainer: US STRIKES Iran – Iran RETALIATES Against Kuwait, Bahrain & Jordan!
"Amidst escalating US-Iran conflict and Iranian retaliation against regional US allies, this episode argues that US foreign policy is deeply controlled by an 'Anglo-Zionist conspiracy' led by the Rothschild banking dynasty, prioritizing Israeli interests over American ones."