Preview
DOCKET NO. HHD-CV19-5060819-S : SUPERIOR COURT
JANE DOE PPA AMANDA DOE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VS. : OF HARTFORD
CREC, ET AL : APRIL 12, 2024
DOCKET NO. HHD-CV20-5062645-S : SUPERIOR COURT
JANE DOE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VS. : OF HARTFORD
CREC, ET AL : APRIL 12, 2024
MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL A FORENSIC
INSPECTION OF DEFENDANTS’ ESI AND SEEKING
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, hereby file this Motion to Compel Defendants to
(1) locate and produce all “lost” and “missing” evidence identified in Plaintiffs’ February 26,
2024 Letter, as ordered by the Court (Cobb, J.) on January 25, 2024; (2) fully and fairly comply
with all outstanding interrogatories and requests for production; (3) allow for a forensic
inspection of electronically stored information on Defendants servers, pursuant to Practice Book
§ 13-2, (4) allow for a forensic inspection of electronically stored information on the defendants’
cell phones from 2017, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-2, and (5) order sanctions for failing to
meet discovery obligations and Court Orders, which failures now require this forensic inspection.
I. INTRODUCTION
These consolidated cases involve the sexual exploitation and abuse of Amanda Doe, a
student at Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA) High School, by Brian Marshall, a
teacher at Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts Middle School, both CREC-managed magnet
schools. Plaintiffs initiated suits in these consolidated cases in 2019 and 2020, and have
1
painstakingly sought justice for the irreversible and life-long injuries they suffered as the result
of the Defendants’ failures and negligence.
Despite continuous efforts on behalf of the Plaintiffs to advance these cases through
discovery, CREC and GHAA continue to inflict harm and trauma on Plaintiffs by blatantly
ignoring discovery obligations and obstructing Plaintiffs from obtaining the necessary and
relevant evidence to fairly prepare for trial. Defendants have routinely engaged in dilatory
tactics, failed to meet their discovery obligations, ignored Orders of this Honorable Court, and
acted in bad faith.
At issue here is Defendants’ failure to perform proper and diligent searches of relevant
electronically stored information (ESI) contained on their servers, and to locate and produce
significant critical evidence that has been rendered “lost” and “missing” by the Defendants
themselves. This has occurred in the context of a case that has involved—from the point in time
that Defendants discovered Brian Marshall’s misconduct—efforts to mislead Plaintiffs related to
the facts in this case.
Plaintiffs allege that on December 13, 2017, Catherine Lee, a teacher at GHAA High
School, was informed by a student (Student A) that Amanda Doe had been involved in an
inappropriate sexual relationship with Marshall for over a year. Lee informed Assistant Principal
Kate Dougherty who then, along with Assistant Principal Maryam Wardak, Principal Nick
Chanese, and School Social Worker Raynette Holmes, subjected Amanda Doe to an harmful and
self-serving “interview,” without the knowledge or consent of her mother Jane Doe.
Defendants claim that the aggressive questioning of Amanda Doe about her victimization
by Marhsall was necessary because they had insufficient information to make a report to the
Department of Children and Families (DCF), and that they required confirmation of the abuse
2
from Amanda Doe. Plaintiffs allege that the interrogation by GHAA administrators never should
have occurred, and that Defendants should have instead contacted DCF immediately upon
receiving information from Student A.
The allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaints in these consolidated cases were based in large
part on information from eight (8) written statements provided by Defendants to the authorities
following the December 13, 2017 disclosure. According to Defendants’ statements, they first
learned about the misconduct of Brian Marshall at approximately 9:50 a.m. on December 13,
2017, when Student A informed Catherine Lee that Amanda Doe was “messing around and
hooking up with Mr. Marshall from the middle school . . . [and that] this has been going on for
over a year and that they are having sex in his classroom.” See Statement of Catherine Lee, at
Exhibit A.
The administrators and teachers involved in the disclosure and interviews of Amanda
Doe each submitted written statements to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the
Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE), the Meriden Police Department (MPD), 1 and
the Plaintiffs in this litigation. The statements purport to describe the events that resulted in
Defendants’ report to DCF by Nicholas Chanese at 12:09 p.m. on December 13, 2017, as well as
the report to the State Police at Troop K in Colchester, made by Jane Doe under the direction and
assistance of CREC’s Director of Security, and Former State Trooper, Chris Nolan.
As set forth more fully below, the statements provided by Defendants related to the
events on December 13, 2017 were misleading, at best.
1
The MPD, and not the Hartford Police Department, ultimately conducted the criminal
investigation of the statutory rape of Amanda Doe by Brian Marshall, resulting in a guilty plea
by Marshall, resulting in 5 years of jail, execution suspended after 4 months, and five years of
probation, related to an offense dated January 1, 2016. See Docket No. N07M-CR18-0297175S.
3
II. RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCE
A. Defendants withheld evidence that the abuse of Amanda Doe was reported to the
Colchester Police Department, and a forensic evaluation was already scheduled,
prior to their inappropriate and self-serving “interview” of Amanda Doe at
11:00 a.m. on December 13, 2017.
According to their statements, Defendants began “interviewing” Amanda Doe between
11:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on December 13, 2017. In their special defenses, Defendants claim
that this interview was necessary, and a proper use of their professional judgment:
Defendants are immune from liability under Connecticut General Statutes section
17a–101e because the Defendants in good faith reported the inappropriate
relationship to the Department of Dhildren and Families. Specifically, upon
learning of a rumor about a potentially inappropriate relationship between Amanda
Doe and Brian Marshall, Defendants conducted an inquiry to determine if there was
reasonable cause to suspect that Amanda Doe was being abused or neglected. The
inquiry included speaking with students who had knowledge of the rumor and/or
potential relationship between Amanda Doe and Brian Marshall and speaking with
Amanda Doe herself. During the inquiry the Defendants used their professional
judgment and determined that reasonable cause existed to suspect that Amanda Doe
was being abused by Brian Marshall, and upon making such determination the
Defendants made a good faith report to the Department of Children and Families
pursuant to Connecticut general statutes section 17a–101a, et seq.
See Defendants’ Special Defenses.
Defendants’ aggressive questioning was not only improper, but it was also entirely
unnecessary for the purposes of protecting Amanda Doe. Inexplicably, a Connecticut State
Police Supplemental Report indicates that a forensic interview for Amanda Doe had already been
scheduled by 10:45 a.m. on December 13, 2017. See Exhibit B, State of Connecticut Department
of Public Safety, Investigation Report, dated Dec. 13, 2017. Trooper First Class Erin Lowney, in
her investigation Summary, wrote:
On 12/13/17 at approximately 1045 hours Detective Sgt. Kasperowski #193
requested I attend a forensic interview scheduled for 12/14/17 at 1500 hours [at
Klingberg’s Child Advocacy Center]. He reported that a fifteen year old female had
4
disclosed to a school employee that she had been involved in a sexual relationship
with a teacher at her school since the summer of 2016.
See id. Amanda Doe had not yet been interviewed by Defendants by 10:45 a.m. Jane Doe was
not contacted by Defendants until 12:02 p.m., when she received the first call from Principal
Nick Chanese. Chanese ultimately reached her at 12:07 p.m. For TFC Lowney to have received
a request by at 10:45 a.m. to attend the forensic evaluation scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December
14, 2017, the Colchester Police Department and Troop K (which are co-located) would have to
have been notified earlier than 10:45 a.m.
Defendants have failed and refused to produce information and documents related to their
communications with the Colchester Police and Troop K, which resulted in the scheduling of this
forensic interview before they interviewed Amanda Doe. When asked at depositions, witnesses
generally “do not recall” any information that is not contained in their statements.
The result of the Defendants’ control of the disclosure process was that the Hartford
Police Department never received any formal report that triggered an investigation of the
criminal conduct of Brian Marshall on the GHAA campus—even though Student A clearly
informed Defendants that Marshall was engaged in the sexual exploitation and abuse of Amanda
Doe in his classroom, on the campus of GHAA Middle School.
B. Defendants Received an “Anonymous Tip” related to the December 13, 2017
Disclosure, but have refused to produce documents or information associated
with that Tip.
Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez by all accounts played a critical role in the
December 13, 2017 Disclosure. On December 14, 2017, Gonzalez sent an email to Karen
Bazzano, the Executive Assistant to Superintendent Tim Sullivan, with a cc to Superintendent
5
Sullivan, which stated, in relevant part: “I stole the anonymous tip from your desk.” 2 See Exhibit
C. The disclosure, as initially described by Defendants, followed a report by Student A. This
Anonymous Tip is therefore a separate report.
On February 27, 2024, the undersigned took the deposition of Karen Bazzano, the
Executive Assistant to Superintendent Tim Sullivan. While Ms. Bazzano confirmed that the
anonymous tip referenced in the email was indeed related to the sexual abuse of Amanda Doe by
Brian Marshall, she could remember no details about the anonymous tip or the document that
Laurie Gonzalez references that she “stole” from her desk. Defendants have refused to take any
action to locate and produce the document referenced in Gonzalez’s email.
C. Brian Marshall informed his then-wife, V.M., before December 13, 2017, that
there was an allegation that he was in an inappropriate relationship with a
student.
V.M., 3 Brian Marshall’s ex-wife, has been employed as an elementary school teacher at
CREC Discovery Academy, another CREC magnet school, since the 2017-2018 School Year.
V.M. testified that she learned that Marshall had been accused of a student when she returned
home early following parent-teacher conferences:
Q.· Tell us, please, Ms. M., when it was that you first became aware that Brian
Marshall was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a
student?
A.· December of 2017.
Q.· Do you remember a particular date?
A. I remember it was in December, and I came home from conferences and
he was home before me, which was pretty rare.
Q.· So, you came home and he was already home. Did you ask him why he
was home that day?
A.· Yes.
Q.· And what did he tell you?
A.· He said a student made a false allegation against him.
2
The Anonymous Tip was not disclosed by Defendants. Rather, this email was recently
discovered in the 50,000 pages of documents and ESI produced by the Defendants.
3
This witness’ name is not provided publicly considering the nature of the claims in this case.
6
V.M. Dep., at 44, attached as Exhibit D. CREC’s District Calendar for December 2017 shows
that Parent Teacher Conferences occurred at all CREC Elementary and Secondary Schools on
December 6-8, 2017, before the events of December 13, 2017. See Exhibit E, Calendar for
Discovery Elementary School, and all schools.
Despite repeated requests, Defendants have failed and refused to provide Brian
Marshall’s complete attendance records for the 2017-2018 School Year, though such records are
maintained in employees’ employment files. Defendants haven’t just withheld this information
from the Plaintiffs—they also withheld this information from the Meriden Police Department,
only provided partial attendance records for the 2016-2017 School year, despite a request for
attendance records for both the 16-17 and 17-18 School Years.
While refusing to provide Marshall’s attendance records, Defendants provided emails
related to Marshall’s absences on the afternoon of December 1, 2017, and on December 4, 2017.
In those emails, Marshall indicated he was leaving early on Friday December 1, 2017, because
he was “sick”, and that he was unable to return to work on December 4, 2017, for the same
reason. The emails further suggest that Marshall did not attend a debate scheduled for December
2, 2017. See Emails, attached as Exhibit F.
Recently disclosed text messages show that Marshall was not, in fact, sick. Instead, he
met fellow teachers for drinks at a bar after school hours on Friday December 1, 2017. See Texts
with teacher D.D., at Exhibit G.
D. The testimony of Bo Ryan indicates that Brian Marshall was placed on some sort
of leave on or before December 4, 2017.
On March 8, 2024, Bo Ryan, the Principal of GHAA Middle School, testified that Brian
Marshall was placed on paid administrative leave, and that Human Resources, or “whoever was
7
above [him],” scheduled a time for Marshall to retrieve his personal belongings from his
classroom. While he could not remember the date, he specifically identified that he met
Marshall after an event called “An Evening of Arts.”
Q: Have you ever met V.M.?
A: One time.
Q: When did you meet V.M.?
A: HR set up a time at night where me and [then-Assistant Principal] Brendan
Hines had to meet Ms. -- what's her last name?
Q: It's now M.
A: -- Ms. M. and the other person – I mean, Mr. Marshall, and we had to walk
him to get his stuff. And that was literally, we walked him down, I met her,
he got his stuff, and we walked him out.
Q: What day was that?
A: That would be -- I don't remember the exact date, but that would be, we had
a show, and then we had to meet him after the show. That's what I
remember. That's the only time I've seen him since this date and then it's the
only -- that's the last I've seen him.
Q: Do you remember what show it was?
A: A dance show, like an Evening of the Arts. I'm almost positive that's what
it was. But we were there, if I remember, late at night.
Q: How late at night would that have been if it was after --
A: 7:00 maybe, 8:00-ish.
…
Q: And you testified that HR reached out to set up this appointment; is that
correct?
A: Yes. If I can correct that, it would be HR, or whoever is above me, but
maybe not his teacher union. I don't know. Someone told us to meet him
there. We met him on Van Dyke. He came in, got his stuff, and we walked
him out.
Q: How long did that take?
A: Five minutes. Not even.
Q: Did you have to wait until all of the families had left before he was able to
come into the building?
A: Oh, that was -- so we were at the other high school that they had the theater.
We didn't have a theater at our school. So, we would always go to the other
high school -- I mean, the arts half thing, down on -- what is it, Vernon
Street? I'm not sure if that's the correct address.
Q: 15 Vernon Street?
A: I think so. I should know because [personal family information—redacted].
8
Q: And so, there was no concern that [having] him coming to pick up his
belongings that night would cause him to run into any parents or students;
correct?
A: No one was there.
See Depo. of Bo Ryan, at 42-45, attached as Exhibit H. Mr. Ryan could not remember the date
of the event, or who instructed him to meet with Marshall. A Twitter post by a teacher at the
Middle School, however, confirms that the event “Evening of Arts” took place on December 4,
2017, at the time and location, and in the manner described by Mr. Ryan.
Defendants appear to dispute that Marshall was placed on leave prior to December 13,
2017, but they continue to refuse to produce Marshall’s time and attendance records for the Fall
2017 Semester. Given the logistics of his position as a teacher, there certainly would be
additional documents related to the process of finding immediate short-term coverage for
Marshall’s classes, as well as interim coverage throughout December 2017. Defendants have
refused to produce such documents. Moreover, Defendants have repeatedly, unilaterally
canceled the deposition of Brendan Hines. As of the date of this motion, Defendants have not
agreed to make Hines available for his deposition. This has the impact of preventing Plaintiffs
from taking any depositions in follow-up to any testimony Hines may provide.
E. Phone records show significant atypical communications between the
administrators involved on December 13, 2017, prior to the disclosure.
Phone records produced by Defendants on March 26, 2024, include data for
approximately 5000 calls of key administrators from November 16, 2017 through January 15,
2017. Defendants produced 143 pages of call data, an excerpt of 1116 pages of billing records
9
for two billing cycles, which include (1) November 16, 2017 through December 15, 2017, and
(2) December 16, 2017 through January 15, 2018. 4 Though the records include
The records include call data from the CREC-issued cell phones of the following
administrators of CREC, GHAA Middle School, and GHAA High School. Defendants have not
produced any of the data from texts identified on the billing statements for the majority of these
witnesses, and it is unclear whether they are preserved or recoverable:
1. Superintendent Tim Sullivan (287 text messages, and 394 picture and video
messages from the first billing period; and 239 text messages and 503 picture
and video messages from the second billing period).
2. Executive Director Greg Florio (150 text messages, and 156 picture and video
messages from the first billing period; and 87 text messages and 56 picture and
video messages from the second billing period).
3. Deputy Executive Director Sandra Cruz-Serrano (245 text messages, and 156
picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 189 text messages
and 169 picture and video messages from the second billing period).
4. GHAA Middle School Principal Bo Ryan (12 text messages, and 164 picture
and video messages from the first billing period; and 17 text messages and 212
picture and video messages from the second billing period).
5. GHAA Middle School Assistant Principal Brendan Hines (135 text messages,
and 50 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 70 text
messages and 42 picture and video messages from the second billing period).
6. GHAA High School Principal Nick Chanese (294 text messages, and 186
picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 291 text messages
and 223 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 5
7. GHAA High School Assistant Principal Kate Doughtery (8 text messages from
first billing period; and 3 text messages and 12 picture and video messages from
the second billing period)
8. Director of Human Resources Regina Terrell (724 text messages, and 131
picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 692 text messages
and 233 picture and video messages from the second billing period)
4
Given the scope of private information in the billing records, they have not been made an
exhibit to this motion. They are available upon request.
5
On July 20, 2023, Defendants produced approximately 22 screen shots of partial
communications between Chanese and Maryam Wardak, Kate Dougherty, Regina Terrell and
Jane Doe from Chanese’s phone, and 4 screen shots of texts from Regina Terrell’s phone in
advance of her deposition.
10
9. CREC Director of Security Chris Nolan (661 text messages, and 258 picture
and video messages from the first billing period; and 906 text messages and 202
picture and video messages from the second billing period)
10. GHAA High School Assistant Principal Maryam Wardak (20 text messages and
2 picture and video messages from first billing period; and 4 text messages and
picture and video message from the second billing period)
11. CREC Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez (65 text messages, and 204
picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 25 text messages
and 163 picture and video messages from the second billing period)
12. CREC Assistant Superintendent Sarah Vocca (40 text messages, and 200
picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 41 text messages
and 219 picture and video messages from the second billing period)
13. CREC Risk Manager Jeff Ivory (16 text messages, and 45 picture and video
messages from the first billing period; and 19 text messages and 4 picture and
video messages from the second billing period)
14. CREC Managing Director, Angiolina Russo (109 text messages, and 72 picture
and video messages from the first billing period; and 149 text messages and 84
picture and video messages from the second billing period)
15. CREC Assistant Director for Student Services, Heather Cymbala (14 text
messages, and 2 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 4
text messages and 1 picture and video messages from the second billing period)
Defendants produced only the detailed records related to the phone calls of these individuals, and
they did so only after the depositions of key witnesses Sandra Cruz-Serrano, Maryam Wardak,
Chris Nolan, Laurie Gonzalez, and Bo Ryan, obstructing Plaintiffs’ counsel from questioning
these witnesses about the contents of their calls, or using the records to refresh their
recollections. The data was produced just prior to the depositions of Tim Sullivan and Regina
Terrell, but the late disclosure has involved a time-consuming review of significant data to
identify the owners of the numbers called by these administrators, limiting counsel’s ability to
fully and meaningfully inquire about the contents of the record.
The records provide data related to the number of texts for the time-period for each
administrator, identified above. To date, Plaintiffs have received limited screen shots of texts
from the cell phones of Nick Chanese, Regina Terrell, and a teacher. Defendants have refused to
provide information about how much data had been deleted, whether there is access to texts in
11
the iCloud, or the search terms used to locate any remaining texts that are related to this
litigation.
While plaintiffs continue to process data provided in the cell phone records, a preliminary
review of the call data shows distinct “hot spots” of communication between the groups of
administrators:
1. November 19, 2017, (related to an increase in discussion among students about
the inappropriate relationship between Brian Marshall and Amanda Doe
following a party in November)
2. November 29, 2017, through December 4, 2017 (related to the period just prior
to Marshall’s “sick leave” and the time period that Bo Ryan identified that
Marshall was placed on leave)
3. December 7, 2017, through December 8, 2017, (identified by V.M. as the time
frame that Brian Marshall informed her of the report against him involving an
inappropriate relationship between him and a student)
4. December 11, 2017, through December 12, 2017 (prior to the December 13,
2017 disclosure) 6
These hot spots in the cell phone data are consistent with newly discovered evidence from
deposition testimony, that CREC, GHAA and Marshall knew of an allegation against him prior
to the date of disclosure (consistent with his ex-wife’s testimony that she learned of the
allegation after returning home from parent-teacher conferences) and that Bo Ryan was
instructed to place him on leave on or around December 4, 2017.
Analysis of this newly produced data underscores the prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting
from Defendants’ refusal to produce complete and accurate discovery responses, claiming that
significant evidence has been rendered “lost” or “missing.” As set forth infra, communications
indicate that the evidence is in the possession of one or both of Defendants’ insurers, or their
agents.
6
The Complaints in the consolidated cases outline other relevant events triggering notice within
the schools prior to November 16, 2017.
12
F. CREC’s Insurer’s Investigation Policies, and Relationship with the law firm of
Jackson Lewis
Defendants have disclosed that there are two insurers related to this litigation:
Catlin/Wright for the policy period of July 1, 2016, through July 1, 2017; and Philadelphia
Insurance for the policy period of July 1, 2017, through July 1, 2018. On February 24, 2024,
Defendants produced the policies for both. The Catlin/Wright Policy contains information about
the insurers’ policies and procedures related to any claims that may be made under Defendants
policies.” See Wright Specialty Insurance Policy. 7
The policy provides the following:
If you obtain insurance from us, we will maintain records related to any
claims that may be made under your policies. The investigation of a claim
necessarily involves collection of a broad range of information about many
issues, some of which does not directly involve you. We will share with you
any facts that we collect about your claim unless we are prohibited by law
from doing so. The process of claim investigation, evaluation, and
settlement also involves, however, the collection of advice, opinions, and
comments from many people, including attorneys and experts, to aid the
claim specialist in determining how best to handle your claim. In order to
protect the legal and transactional confidentiality and privileges associated
with such opinions, comments and advice, we will not disclose this
information to you.
See Wright Specialty Insurance Policy, Privacy Policy, Collection and Sources of Information, p.
8-9. The policy further provides direction on the timeliness of reporting claims to Wright
Insurance, and the reporting of any potential claims. See Wright Insurance Policy, Educators
Legal/Employment Practices Loss Reporting, p. 22 (“[y]ou do not need to report every internal
harassment complaint, however, if there is attorney representation or threat of litigation, please
notify us.”) (emphasis added).
7
Insurance Documents produced by Defendants are not attached as Exhibits but will be filed as
Exhibits upon request of the Defendants or the Court.
13
The policy further provides as follows:
Communication channels should be established at each insured assuring that their
personnel do not discuss any facet of any claim with anyone other than a
representative of Wright Specialty Insurance, and the defense counsel and
investigators who have been retained to protect their interests. We anticipate the
insured's cooperation in the handling and defense of these actions.
General Liability Loss Reporting, at 21-22. Notably, this message was conveyed to the staff at
GHAA Middle School on December 14, 2017 following the disclosure, through an email sent by
Kristin Videtto, under the subject “Union Representation,” as follows:
As you know, yesterday Mr. Sullivan was talking about DCF cases and referrals in
our high school and on our school grounds. Please remember that if you are asked
by anyone or any administration to talk to them about a specific person, you should
NOT talk to them without Union Representation (me). Do NOT speak with anyone
about any situation if you do not know anything or if you are not properly
represented.
(Emphasis in original).
In addition to directing CREC and other insureds to timely report potential claims, and
ensuring that all personnel are compliant, Wright Insurance also partnered with Jackson Lewis
LLP to provide an “Employment Liability Hotline.” See Wright/Catlin Policy Documents, at 35-
36. (“Paul J. Siegel, Esq., a partner with Jackson Lewis since 1985, will oversee management of
the hotline.”). While it is unclear whether Defendants utilized the hotline, the policy shows a
relationship between Wright and Jackson Lewis, which appears relevant to this case, as set forth
below.
While this Hotline is purportedly provided for “general legal overview,” the policy
provides “[the Hotline] can also be used as a way of inquiring about appropriate steps to take
when investigating complaints…”. Id. The policy describes that when an insured uses this
Hotline, “a representative of Jackson Lewis, who will be providing this Hotline, will ask the
caller succinctly to state the question and to provide a brief description of the facts which relate
14
to the question.” Id. From that point, Jackson Lewis ostensibly provides services to the insureds
and the insurer to minimize risks related to potential claims.
G. Human Resources Director Regina Terrell’s data on her CREC-issued cell
phone strongly suggests that CREC, and/or CREC’s insurer and their insurer’s
agents, were engaged in some sort of investigation related to the misconduct of
Brian Marshall, prior to December 13, 2017.
Regina Terrell, the Director of Human Resources, was deposed on April 2, 2017.
(Transcript pending). Ms. Terrell testified that she was responsible for the oversight of matters
involving reports to the Department of Children and Families, where an employee designated by
DCF as an “alleged perpetrator.” She testified that when DCF received a report involving an
employee, the employee was then placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation by
DCF. She was less clear about circumstances related to Marshall’s leave in this litigation.
Cell phone records provide context of communications by Ms. Terrell that indicate that
some sort of investigation occurred prior to the December 13, 2017 disclosure.
November 18, 2017, through November 25, 2017
Call records from Ms. Terrell’s CREC provided cell phone show that she received calls
from a cell phone associated with Keyla Jones, a receptionist from the law firm of Jackson
Lewis, LLP, on November 18, 2017 (6:32 PM for 22 minutes) and November 21, 2017 (6:47
p.m. 12 minutes). While Ms. Terrell described Jones as a “friend” in her deposition, her
position, and the nature and the timing of the calls, raises questions. Assistant Superintendent
Laurie Gonzalez, by all accounts, took a significant leadership role related to the December 23,
2017 disclosure, and likely earlier. After two calls with Assistant Superintendent Laurie
Gonzales on November 22, 2017 (1:18 pm and 1:32 pm), Ms. Terrell contacted the Department
15
of Children and Families at 2:02 p.m. (21 minutes). 8 Thereafter, Ms. Terrell received calls from
Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis on November 23, 2017 at 10:05 a.m. (19 minutes); and
November 25, 2017 at 4:35 p.m. (13 minutes).
Ms. Terrell could not recall the nature of her calls with Ms. Jones calls during November
and December 2017, nor did she provide clear testimony about whether Jackson Lewis
represented CREC in any capacity. Likewise, at his March 28, 2024 deposition, Tim Sullivan
testified that he did not know whether Jackson Lewis represented CREC in 2017, though he did
not rule it out.
Terrell testified that while she more regularly spoke with Tim Sullivan, she had calls with
the Principals, Assistant Superintendents, and other key administrators in this litigation on an
“as-needed” basis.
November 28, 2017, through November 4, 2017
Just prior to December 4, 2017—the date that Bo Ryan’s testimony indicates that
Marshall was placed on leave—Terrell received calls from a number associated with Jackson
Lewis on November 28, 2017 at 9:55 a.m. (6 minutes) and 10:35 a.m. (22 minutes). On
November 29, 2017, Terrell called GHAA Middle School Principal Bo Ryan at 9:05 a.m. (5
minutes). She received a call from Jackson Lewis at 4:28 p.m. on that same date (4 minutes). On
November 30, 2017, Ms. Terrell received calls from Jackson Lewis at 10:40 a.m. (8 minutes); an
8
This may be related to another teacher on the seventh-grade team, who is the subject of
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses related to Misconduct Files of other teachers. V.M.
testified, however, that Marshall was this other teacher’s “mentor.” Investigation of these two
teachers may have overlapped.
16
attorney from Shipman Goodwin at 1:15 p.m., 9 and an administrative assistant from Shipman &
Goodwin at 1:34 p.m. (7 minutes).
On December 1, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Superintendent Tim Sullivan at
8:21 a.m. (3 minutes) and made a call to him at 8:24 a.m. (3 minutes). She received two calls
from Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez at 1:09 p.m. (3 minutes) and 2:00 p.m. (12
minutes), followed by a call from Tim Sullivan at 2:15 p.m. (2 minutes). She received a call from
Jackson Lewis at 3:58 p.m. (13 minutes). She then received a call from Lisa Cordova, the
president of the Connecticut Education Association (CEA)—Brian Marshall’s union.
At 8:32 p.m. on Friday December 1, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Keyla Jones
(1 minute). She spoke with her on Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 9:05 a.m. (4 minutes), at 2:13
p.m. (13 minutes) and at 2:25 p.m. (1 minute); and on Sunday December 3, 2017 at 3:48 p.m. (19
minutes).
On Monday December 4, 2017, Tim Sullivan called Regina Terrell at 7:50 a.m. (3
minutes). Terrell then called an administrative assistant at Shipman & Goodwin at 7:59 a.m. (1
minute), 9:23 a.m. (5 minutes) and 11:29 a.m. (8 minutes). She received calls from Assistant
Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez at 1:26 p.m. (14 minutes) and 1:41 p.m. (1 minute).
December 6, 2017 through December 8, 2017
V.M., Brian Marshall’s ex-wife, testified that Marshall disclosed the report against him
the week of parent-teacher conferences, which occurred from December 6, 2017, through
December 8, 2017. On December 6, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Jackson Lewis at
2:03 p.m. (17 minutes), and she called Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis at 5:48 p.m. (5 minutes).
9
Defendants have produced documents indicating attorneys from Shipman & Goodman were
engaged in some capacity related to the December 13, 2017 disclosure.
17
On December 8, 2017, Terrell called Laurie Gonzalez at 8:49 a.m. (14 minutes), 10:23 a.m. (5
minutes), and received a call from Gonzalez at 10:49 a.m. (6 minutes). At 12:27, she received a
call from Bo Ryan (5 minutes). At 4:07 p.m., she received a call from Jackson Lewis (21
minutes).
In addition, from December 7, 2017 through December 8, 2017, there was significant
communication involving calls to and from Bo Ryan with Tim Sullivan, Laurie Gonzalez, and
Regina Terrell’s work number. Regina Terrell and Bo Ryan spoke again, repeatedly, on
December 12, 2017.
December 9, 2017, through December 13, 2017
Terrell’s calls on her CREC-issued cell phone with key administrators and Jackson Lewis
increased in the days before the December 13, 2017 disclosure. Terrell received calls from Keyla
Jones on Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. (18 minutes); December 10, 2017 at 9:58 a.m.
(4 minutes) and from the main number at 10:52 a.m. (9 minutes). She received calls on Monday,
December 11, 2017 from Jackson Lewis at 5:18 p.m. (4 minutes) and Kayla Jones at 5:51 p.m. (2
minutes).
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017, Terrell received calls from CEA President Lisa
Cordova at 11:06 a.m. (9 minutes) and again at 12:44 a.m. (7 minutes); Bo Ryan at 4:05 p.m. (7
minutes) and 4:37 p.m. 2 minutes); and Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis at 8:33 p.m. (23
minutes).
On December 13, 2017, the day of the disclosure, Terrell received a call from DCF at
10:41 a.m. (8 minutes). This was prior to Nick Chanese’s report to DCF at 12:09, but after
Amanda Doe’s forensic interview had been scheduled by 10:45 a.m., according to Officer
Lowney’s supplemental report, as set forth supra. Terrell called Bo Ryan at 10:51 a.m. (11
18
minutes) and Laurie Gonzalez at 11:02 a.m. (9 minutes). She received a call from Jackson Lewis
at 11:15 a.m. (4 minutes), and two calls from Gonzalez, 11:18 a.m. (5 minutes) and 11:23 a.m. (1
minute), and a call from Bo Ryan at 11:29 a.m. (14 minutes). She received a call from Lori
Gonzalez at 12:01 p.m. (2 minutes), then called Bo Ryan at 12:04 p.m. (4 minutes). She
received a call from Laurie Gonzales at 12:13 p.m. (2 minutes) and again at12:15 p.m. (2
minutes) and she called Bo Ryan again at 12:51 p.m. (6 minutes). At 4:49 p.m., Terrell called
Jeff Ivory, CREC’s risk manager.
The last call of the day was made to a cell phone number with data indicating it was used
by “B.Marshall”—a number that made or received calls with Terrell’s cell phone 54 times from
November 16, 2017 through December 13, 2017. Regina Terrell testified that she did not
recognize that number. 10 Upon information and belief, Terrell testified that she could not
remember if she spoke with Brian Marshall. 11
Calls with key administrators noted above continued through January 15, 2018, often in
similar patterns of specific “hot spots.” After December 13, 2017, Terrell called or received calls
from Jackson Lewis and Keyla Jones 23 times, and the “B.Marshall” number 44 times.
Defendants have not provided phone records from administrators’ office phones, or the
texting data from administrators’ CREC-issued cell phones.
The height of communication between key administrators occurred on December 13,
2017, but the pattern leading up to that date requires an explanation by Defendants. For the
purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs’ analysis is primarily limited to Ms. Terrell’s call data.
However, overlapping call data from the other administrators involved on December 13, 2017,
10
According to multiple sources, Brian Marshall use multiple “burner phones” and would also
use google voice.
11
Ms. Terrell’s transcript is pending.
19
provides an even more compelling (and troubling) argument that Defendants have withheld
significant evidence related to their knowledge prior to December 13, 2017.
H. CREC had the capacity to conduct ESI Searches, and they did conduct searches
for review and production of evidence to their attorneys and insurers, but they
have refused to produce the evidence to Plaintiffs.
Chris Bate, the IT Manager at CREC, initially identified and secured evidence on
December 13, 2017 (or earlier), and at various points in time since that date. See Exhibit I,
Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 Letter (including, among other exhibits, emails related to initial
searches in 2017, which have not been produced). None of these searches have been produced to
Plaintiffs.
Later, at the inception of this litigation, Assistant Superintendent Sarah Vocca sent an
email to CREC Executive Director Sandra Cruz- Serrano and Regina Terrell, dated July 22, 2019
(Exhibit J), asking: “Please see the below request for information re: the Brian Marshall case.
Might this already exist in the binders put together before she left?” The email referenced an
insurance claim number, with a date of loss of 2/1/2017, but the initial email to Ms. Vocca is
redacted. Ms. Terrell responded, “I will bring you the envelope Laurie gave to me on the
Marshall case this afternoon.” As to the request for “Any file CREC generated in investigation
of this issue:” Ms. Terrell responded: “I will provide the information Laurie Gonzalez gave to
me.” All the materials in any envelope or binder maintained by Gonzalez are claimed to now be
“lost” or “missing.” It is clear that these documents had been in the possession of CREC’s
employees and agents. Defendants simply refuse to conduct any meaningful search to locate
these documents.
20
On March 11, 2021, Chris Bate received an email from CREC Deputy Executive Director
Sandy Cruz-Serrano, seeking all emails for ten (10) administrators and employees from
December 13, 2017:
Hi Chris - our insurance’s attorneys are asking for the emails of the people listed
below for the date of December 13, 2017. They are looking for emails specific to
the case of referenced above. However, if you give us the emails, we can sort
through them and find those related to the subject at hand. Sorry to put more on
you. Thanks in advance.
Exhibit K. Cruz-Serrano specifically requested emails from key individuals involved on
December 13, 2017, including Nick Chanese, Kate Dougherty, Maryam Wardak, Raynette
Holmes, Ashley Mazzoli, Laurie Gonzalez, Tim Sullivan, Bo Ryan, Regina Terrell, and Chris
Nolan. See id. Bate responded:
Without more specifics I would be inclined to give you everything sent or received
to/from these people on December 13th 2017. Is that OK or is there anything specific
such as particular words in the email that we can zero in on.
Cruz Serrano replied, “I’ll take everything.” A thumb drive of these emails was provided to
Angiolina Russo shortly after March 13, 2021. These searches have not been produced to
Plaintiffs.
On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Chris Bate, CREC’s Manager of IT
Support, who is responsible for eDiscovery searches for various purposes at CREC. Bate
confirmed CREC’s ability to conduct various searches of employees’ emails, including emails
that had been deleted and archived. See Bates Depo., attached hereto as Exhibit L, at pages 28-
29, 94.
In the summer of 2022, following discovery disputes and hours of discovery conferences,
Defendants requested a list of search terms, with the presumption that the terms would be used to
facilitate searches by Chris Bate to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. See Exhibits filed
21
on November 19, 2022 in support of Jane Doe’s Motion for Order, at HHD-cv20-5062645 [Dkt.
172]. Instead of using the terms provided by Plaintiffs to conduct a straightforward though
admittedly comprehensive set of searches, Defendants unilaterally engaged the services of
NextPoint, an eDiscovery provider.
Defendants’ then chose their own methodology that created a far more complex and time-
consuming search process, which Plaintiffs maintain was burdensome by design. See Jane Doe’s
Motion for Order of Compliance, dated May 6, 2023, at HHD-cv20-5062645 [Dkt. 187].
Among other concerns, 12 while Defendants’ methodology to upload data to the NextPoint
Discovery Suite may have been proper, their methodology to then locate evidence within the
Suite allowed counsel complete discretion:
Once an account is transferred to the NextPoint Discovery Suite, counsel employs
a combination of search terms and fields to identify discoverable documentation.
See Exhibit M. While Defendants produced a chart that indicates the terms that they may have
used in their searches, they refused to provide the actual methodology used to identify the
searches that yielded the 50,000 pages of documents that were ultimately produced.
The scope of missing documents and evidence indicates that ESI searches that were
conducted by counsel for the defendants were deficient and cannot be relied upon as thorough
diligent searches. Defendants broadly fail to describe key details of Defendants’ searches.
Evidence of the flaws in Defendants eDiscovery protocols is clear by their recent
production of an email—which had been requested for years—that was produced on March 8,
2024 by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff have long requested an email referenced in the
12
Notably, Defendants made a decision to “prioritize” accounts for uploading to the Suite, and excluded the
accounts of 18 of the 67 identified individuals potentially having discoverable ESI, excluding all of Marshall’s
fellow teachers, Brendan Hines, Sarah Vocca, and Greg Ivory, among others, who were known to be significant
witnesses.
22
statement of Catherine Lee (Exhibit A) related to an email she sent to Kate Dougherty at 9:55
a.m. on December 13, 2017, with the subject “I need to see you now.” Lee states Dougherty
responded to the email. Counsel for Plaintiffs searched the ESI produced by Defendants, using
their own Relativity Software. Counsel used multiple search methodologies available in
Relativity, including but not limited to searches associated with Lee’s and Dougherty’s
mailboxes, time and date searches, and key word searches. The email was not in the ESI
produced by Defendants, though it should have been in both Lee’s and Dougherty’s mailboxes
that were initially searched and uploaded into Defendants’ NextPoint software.
Previously, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Ms. Lee, September 22, 2021. She testified
as follows related to her efforts to comply with ESI requested in the Schedule A to her
deposition:
Q: This statement in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 that you’ve indicated was fair and
accurate indicates that you sent an email to Dr. Dougherty with the subject
quote “I need to see you now.” Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And you did not bring that email as responding to your Notice of
Deposition. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Why didn’t you?
A: I could not find the email in my email as it had deleted over a period of
time.
Q: Okay. Did you look for it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Did you look for other communications involving this case?
A: Yes.
Q: And were you able to find anything?
A: No.
Depo. of C. Lee, at 21, Exhibit N.
Plaintiffs were never provided fair access to this critical email, along with a host
of other emails and texts. But on March 8, 2024, Defendants produced this email, in
native format, which shows that they had access to this email (and others) throughout
Preview
DOCKET NO. HHD-CV19-5060819-S : SUPERIOR COURT JANE DOE PPA AMANDA DOE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. : OF HARTFORD CREC, ET AL : APRIL 12, 2024 DOCKET NO. HHD-CV20-5062645-S : SUPERIOR COURT JANE DOE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. : OF HARTFORD CREC, ET AL : APRIL 12, 2024 MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL A FORENSIC INSPECTION OF DEFENDANTS’ ESI AND SEEKING OTHER RELIEF Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, hereby file this Motion to Compel Defendants to (1) locate and produce all “lost” and “missing” evidence identified in Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 Letter, as ordered by the Court (Cobb, J.) on January 25, 2024; (2) fully and fairly comply with all outstanding interrogatories and requests for production; (3) allow for a forensic inspection of electronically stored information on Defendants servers, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-2, (4) allow for a forensic inspection of electronically stored information on the defendants’ cell phones from 2017, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-2, and (5) order sanctions for failing to meet discovery obligations and Court Orders, which failures now require this forensic inspection. I. INTRODUCTION These consolidated cases involve the sexual exploitation and abuse of Amanda Doe, a student at Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts (GHAA) High School, by Brian Marshall, a teacher at Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts Middle School, both CREC-managed magnet schools. Plaintiffs initiated suits in these consolidated cases in 2019 and 2020, and have 1 painstakingly sought justice for the irreversible and life-long injuries they suffered as the result of the Defendants’ failures and negligence. Despite continuous efforts on behalf of the Plaintiffs to advance these cases through discovery, CREC and GHAA continue to inflict harm and trauma on Plaintiffs by blatantly ignoring discovery obligations and obstructing Plaintiffs from obtaining the necessary and relevant evidence to fairly prepare for trial. Defendants have routinely engaged in dilatory tactics, failed to meet their discovery obligations, ignored Orders of this Honorable Court, and acted in bad faith. At issue here is Defendants’ failure to perform proper and diligent searches of relevant electronically stored information (ESI) contained on their servers, and to locate and produce significant critical evidence that has been rendered “lost” and “missing” by the Defendants themselves. This has occurred in the context of a case that has involved—from the point in time that Defendants discovered Brian Marshall’s misconduct—efforts to mislead Plaintiffs related to the facts in this case. Plaintiffs allege that on December 13, 2017, Catherine Lee, a teacher at GHAA High School, was informed by a student (Student A) that Amanda Doe had been involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Marshall for over a year. Lee informed Assistant Principal Kate Dougherty who then, along with Assistant Principal Maryam Wardak, Principal Nick Chanese, and School Social Worker Raynette Holmes, subjected Amanda Doe to an harmful and self-serving “interview,” without the knowledge or consent of her mother Jane Doe. Defendants claim that the aggressive questioning of Amanda Doe about her victimization by Marhsall was necessary because they had insufficient information to make a report to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and that they required confirmation of the abuse 2 from Amanda Doe. Plaintiffs allege that the interrogation by GHAA administrators never should have occurred, and that Defendants should have instead contacted DCF immediately upon receiving information from Student A. The allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaints in these consolidated cases were based in large part on information from eight (8) written statements provided by Defendants to the authorities following the December 13, 2017 disclosure. According to Defendants’ statements, they first learned about the misconduct of Brian Marshall at approximately 9:50 a.m. on December 13, 2017, when Student A informed Catherine Lee that Amanda Doe was “messing around and hooking up with Mr. Marshall from the middle school . . . [and that] this has been going on for over a year and that they are having sex in his classroom.” See Statement of Catherine Lee, at Exhibit A. The administrators and teachers involved in the disclosure and interviews of Amanda Doe each submitted written statements to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE), the Meriden Police Department (MPD), 1 and the Plaintiffs in this litigation. The statements purport to describe the events that resulted in Defendants’ report to DCF by Nicholas Chanese at 12:09 p.m. on December 13, 2017, as well as the report to the State Police at Troop K in Colchester, made by Jane Doe under the direction and assistance of CREC’s Director of Security, and Former State Trooper, Chris Nolan. As set forth more fully below, the statements provided by Defendants related to the events on December 13, 2017 were misleading, at best. 1 The MPD, and not the Hartford Police Department, ultimately conducted the criminal investigation of the statutory rape of Amanda Doe by Brian Marshall, resulting in a guilty plea by Marshall, resulting in 5 years of jail, execution suspended after 4 months, and five years of probation, related to an offense dated January 1, 2016. See Docket No. N07M-CR18-0297175S. 3 II. RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCE A. Defendants withheld evidence that the abuse of Amanda Doe was reported to the Colchester Police Department, and a forensic evaluation was already scheduled, prior to their inappropriate and self-serving “interview” of Amanda Doe at 11:00 a.m. on December 13, 2017. According to their statements, Defendants began “interviewing” Amanda Doe between 11:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on December 13, 2017. In their special defenses, Defendants claim that this interview was necessary, and a proper use of their professional judgment: Defendants are immune from liability under Connecticut General Statutes section 17a–101e because the Defendants in good faith reported the inappropriate relationship to the Department of Dhildren and Families. Specifically, upon learning of a rumor about a potentially inappropriate relationship between Amanda Doe and Brian Marshall, Defendants conducted an inquiry to determine if there was reasonable cause to suspect that Amanda Doe was being abused or neglected. The inquiry included speaking with students who had knowledge of the rumor and/or potential relationship between Amanda Doe and Brian Marshall and speaking with Amanda Doe herself. During the inquiry the Defendants used their professional judgment and determined that reasonable cause existed to suspect that Amanda Doe was being abused by Brian Marshall, and upon making such determination the Defendants made a good faith report to the Department of Children and Families pursuant to Connecticut general statutes section 17a–101a, et seq. See Defendants’ Special Defenses. Defendants’ aggressive questioning was not only improper, but it was also entirely unnecessary for the purposes of protecting Amanda Doe. Inexplicably, a Connecticut State Police Supplemental Report indicates that a forensic interview for Amanda Doe had already been scheduled by 10:45 a.m. on December 13, 2017. See Exhibit B, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Investigation Report, dated Dec. 13, 2017. Trooper First Class Erin Lowney, in her investigation Summary, wrote: On 12/13/17 at approximately 1045 hours Detective Sgt. Kasperowski #193 requested I attend a forensic interview scheduled for 12/14/17 at 1500 hours [at Klingberg’s Child Advocacy Center]. He reported that a fifteen year old female had 4 disclosed to a school employee that she had been involved in a sexual relationship with a teacher at her school since the summer of 2016. See id. Amanda Doe had not yet been interviewed by Defendants by 10:45 a.m. Jane Doe was not contacted by Defendants until 12:02 p.m., when she received the first call from Principal Nick Chanese. Chanese ultimately reached her at 12:07 p.m. For TFC Lowney to have received a request by at 10:45 a.m. to attend the forensic evaluation scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2017, the Colchester Police Department and Troop K (which are co-located) would have to have been notified earlier than 10:45 a.m. Defendants have failed and refused to produce information and documents related to their communications with the Colchester Police and Troop K, which resulted in the scheduling of this forensic interview before they interviewed Amanda Doe. When asked at depositions, witnesses generally “do not recall” any information that is not contained in their statements. The result of the Defendants’ control of the disclosure process was that the Hartford Police Department never received any formal report that triggered an investigation of the criminal conduct of Brian Marshall on the GHAA campus—even though Student A clearly informed Defendants that Marshall was engaged in the sexual exploitation and abuse of Amanda Doe in his classroom, on the campus of GHAA Middle School. B. Defendants Received an “Anonymous Tip” related to the December 13, 2017 Disclosure, but have refused to produce documents or information associated with that Tip. Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez by all accounts played a critical role in the December 13, 2017 Disclosure. On December 14, 2017, Gonzalez sent an email to Karen Bazzano, the Executive Assistant to Superintendent Tim Sullivan, with a cc to Superintendent 5 Sullivan, which stated, in relevant part: “I stole the anonymous tip from your desk.” 2 See Exhibit C. The disclosure, as initially described by Defendants, followed a report by Student A. This Anonymous Tip is therefore a separate report. On February 27, 2024, the undersigned took the deposition of Karen Bazzano, the Executive Assistant to Superintendent Tim Sullivan. While Ms. Bazzano confirmed that the anonymous tip referenced in the email was indeed related to the sexual abuse of Amanda Doe by Brian Marshall, she could remember no details about the anonymous tip or the document that Laurie Gonzalez references that she “stole” from her desk. Defendants have refused to take any action to locate and produce the document referenced in Gonzalez’s email. C. Brian Marshall informed his then-wife, V.M., before December 13, 2017, that there was an allegation that he was in an inappropriate relationship with a student. V.M., 3 Brian Marshall’s ex-wife, has been employed as an elementary school teacher at CREC Discovery Academy, another CREC magnet school, since the 2017-2018 School Year. V.M. testified that she learned that Marshall had been accused of a student when she returned home early following parent-teacher conferences: Q.· Tell us, please, Ms. M., when it was that you first became aware that Brian Marshall was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student? A.· December of 2017. Q.· Do you remember a particular date? A. I remember it was in December, and I came home from conferences and he was home before me, which was pretty rare. Q.· So, you came home and he was already home. Did you ask him why he was home that day? A.· Yes. Q.· And what did he tell you? A.· He said a student made a false allegation against him. 2 The Anonymous Tip was not disclosed by Defendants. Rather, this email was recently discovered in the 50,000 pages of documents and ESI produced by the Defendants. 3 This witness’ name is not provided publicly considering the nature of the claims in this case. 6 V.M. Dep., at 44, attached as Exhibit D. CREC’s District Calendar for December 2017 shows that Parent Teacher Conferences occurred at all CREC Elementary and Secondary Schools on December 6-8, 2017, before the events of December 13, 2017. See Exhibit E, Calendar for Discovery Elementary School, and all schools. Despite repeated requests, Defendants have failed and refused to provide Brian Marshall’s complete attendance records for the 2017-2018 School Year, though such records are maintained in employees’ employment files. Defendants haven’t just withheld this information from the Plaintiffs—they also withheld this information from the Meriden Police Department, only provided partial attendance records for the 2016-2017 School year, despite a request for attendance records for both the 16-17 and 17-18 School Years. While refusing to provide Marshall’s attendance records, Defendants provided emails related to Marshall’s absences on the afternoon of December 1, 2017, and on December 4, 2017. In those emails, Marshall indicated he was leaving early on Friday December 1, 2017, because he was “sick”, and that he was unable to return to work on December 4, 2017, for the same reason. The emails further suggest that Marshall did not attend a debate scheduled for December 2, 2017. See Emails, attached as Exhibit F. Recently disclosed text messages show that Marshall was not, in fact, sick. Instead, he met fellow teachers for drinks at a bar after school hours on Friday December 1, 2017. See Texts with teacher D.D., at Exhibit G. D. The testimony of Bo Ryan indicates that Brian Marshall was placed on some sort of leave on or before December 4, 2017. On March 8, 2024, Bo Ryan, the Principal of GHAA Middle School, testified that Brian Marshall was placed on paid administrative leave, and that Human Resources, or “whoever was 7 above [him],” scheduled a time for Marshall to retrieve his personal belongings from his classroom. While he could not remember the date, he specifically identified that he met Marshall after an event called “An Evening of Arts.” Q: Have you ever met V.M.? A: One time. Q: When did you meet V.M.? A: HR set up a time at night where me and [then-Assistant Principal] Brendan Hines had to meet Ms. -- what's her last name? Q: It's now M. A: -- Ms. M. and the other person – I mean, Mr. Marshall, and we had to walk him to get his stuff. And that was literally, we walked him down, I met her, he got his stuff, and we walked him out. Q: What day was that? A: That would be -- I don't remember the exact date, but that would be, we had a show, and then we had to meet him after the show. That's what I remember. That's the only time I've seen him since this date and then it's the only -- that's the last I've seen him. Q: Do you remember what show it was? A: A dance show, like an Evening of the Arts. I'm almost positive that's what it was. But we were there, if I remember, late at night. Q: How late at night would that have been if it was after -- A: 7:00 maybe, 8:00-ish. … Q: And you testified that HR reached out to set up this appointment; is that correct? A: Yes. If I can correct that, it would be HR, or whoever is above me, but maybe not his teacher union. I don't know. Someone told us to meet him there. We met him on Van Dyke. He came in, got his stuff, and we walked him out. Q: How long did that take? A: Five minutes. Not even. Q: Did you have to wait until all of the families had left before he was able to come into the building? A: Oh, that was -- so we were at the other high school that they had the theater. We didn't have a theater at our school. So, we would always go to the other high school -- I mean, the arts half thing, down on -- what is it, Vernon Street? I'm not sure if that's the correct address. Q: 15 Vernon Street? A: I think so. I should know because [personal family information—redacted]. 8 Q: And so, there was no concern that [having] him coming to pick up his belongings that night would cause him to run into any parents or students; correct? A: No one was there. See Depo. of Bo Ryan, at 42-45, attached as Exhibit H. Mr. Ryan could not remember the date of the event, or who instructed him to meet with Marshall. A Twitter post by a teacher at the Middle School, however, confirms that the event “Evening of Arts” took place on December 4, 2017, at the time and location, and in the manner described by Mr. Ryan. Defendants appear to dispute that Marshall was placed on leave prior to December 13, 2017, but they continue to refuse to produce Marshall’s time and attendance records for the Fall 2017 Semester. Given the logistics of his position as a teacher, there certainly would be additional documents related to the process of finding immediate short-term coverage for Marshall’s classes, as well as interim coverage throughout December 2017. Defendants have refused to produce such documents. Moreover, Defendants have repeatedly, unilaterally canceled the deposition of Brendan Hines. As of the date of this motion, Defendants have not agreed to make Hines available for his deposition. This has the impact of preventing Plaintiffs from taking any depositions in follow-up to any testimony Hines may provide. E. Phone records show significant atypical communications between the administrators involved on December 13, 2017, prior to the disclosure. Phone records produced by Defendants on March 26, 2024, include data for approximately 5000 calls of key administrators from November 16, 2017 through January 15, 2017. Defendants produced 143 pages of call data, an excerpt of 1116 pages of billing records 9 for two billing cycles, which include (1) November 16, 2017 through December 15, 2017, and (2) December 16, 2017 through January 15, 2018. 4 Though the records include The records include call data from the CREC-issued cell phones of the following administrators of CREC, GHAA Middle School, and GHAA High School. Defendants have not produced any of the data from texts identified on the billing statements for the majority of these witnesses, and it is unclear whether they are preserved or recoverable: 1. Superintendent Tim Sullivan (287 text messages, and 394 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 239 text messages and 503 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 2. Executive Director Greg Florio (150 text messages, and 156 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 87 text messages and 56 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 3. Deputy Executive Director Sandra Cruz-Serrano (245 text messages, and 156 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 189 text messages and 169 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 4. GHAA Middle School Principal Bo Ryan (12 text messages, and 164 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 17 text messages and 212 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 5. GHAA Middle School Assistant Principal Brendan Hines (135 text messages, and 50 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 70 text messages and 42 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 6. GHAA High School Principal Nick Chanese (294 text messages, and 186 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 291 text messages and 223 picture and video messages from the second billing period). 5 7. GHAA High School Assistant Principal Kate Doughtery (8 text messages from first billing period; and 3 text messages and 12 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 8. Director of Human Resources Regina Terrell (724 text messages, and 131 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 692 text messages and 233 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 4 Given the scope of private information in the billing records, they have not been made an exhibit to this motion. They are available upon request. 5 On July 20, 2023, Defendants produced approximately 22 screen shots of partial communications between Chanese and Maryam Wardak, Kate Dougherty, Regina Terrell and Jane Doe from Chanese’s phone, and 4 screen shots of texts from Regina Terrell’s phone in advance of her deposition. 10 9. CREC Director of Security Chris Nolan (661 text messages, and 258 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 906 text messages and 202 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 10. GHAA High School Assistant Principal Maryam Wardak (20 text messages and 2 picture and video messages from first billing period; and 4 text messages and picture and video message from the second billing period) 11. CREC Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez (65 text messages, and 204 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 25 text messages and 163 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 12. CREC Assistant Superintendent Sarah Vocca (40 text messages, and 200 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 41 text messages and 219 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 13. CREC Risk Manager Jeff Ivory (16 text messages, and 45 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 19 text messages and 4 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 14. CREC Managing Director, Angiolina Russo (109 text messages, and 72 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 149 text messages and 84 picture and video messages from the second billing period) 15. CREC Assistant Director for Student Services, Heather Cymbala (14 text messages, and 2 picture and video messages from the first billing period; and 4 text messages and 1 picture and video messages from the second billing period) Defendants produced only the detailed records related to the phone calls of these individuals, and they did so only after the depositions of key witnesses Sandra Cruz-Serrano, Maryam Wardak, Chris Nolan, Laurie Gonzalez, and Bo Ryan, obstructing Plaintiffs’ counsel from questioning these witnesses about the contents of their calls, or using the records to refresh their recollections. The data was produced just prior to the depositions of Tim Sullivan and Regina Terrell, but the late disclosure has involved a time-consuming review of significant data to identify the owners of the numbers called by these administrators, limiting counsel’s ability to fully and meaningfully inquire about the contents of the record. The records provide data related to the number of texts for the time-period for each administrator, identified above. To date, Plaintiffs have received limited screen shots of texts from the cell phones of Nick Chanese, Regina Terrell, and a teacher. Defendants have refused to provide information about how much data had been deleted, whether there is access to texts in 11 the iCloud, or the search terms used to locate any remaining texts that are related to this litigation. While plaintiffs continue to process data provided in the cell phone records, a preliminary review of the call data shows distinct “hot spots” of communication between the groups of administrators: 1. November 19, 2017, (related to an increase in discussion among students about the inappropriate relationship between Brian Marshall and Amanda Doe following a party in November) 2. November 29, 2017, through December 4, 2017 (related to the period just prior to Marshall’s “sick leave” and the time period that Bo Ryan identified that Marshall was placed on leave) 3. December 7, 2017, through December 8, 2017, (identified by V.M. as the time frame that Brian Marshall informed her of the report against him involving an inappropriate relationship between him and a student) 4. December 11, 2017, through December 12, 2017 (prior to the December 13, 2017 disclosure) 6 These hot spots in the cell phone data are consistent with newly discovered evidence from deposition testimony, that CREC, GHAA and Marshall knew of an allegation against him prior to the date of disclosure (consistent with his ex-wife’s testimony that she learned of the allegation after returning home from parent-teacher conferences) and that Bo Ryan was instructed to place him on leave on or around December 4, 2017. Analysis of this newly produced data underscores the prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from Defendants’ refusal to produce complete and accurate discovery responses, claiming that significant evidence has been rendered “lost” or “missing.” As set forth infra, communications indicate that the evidence is in the possession of one or both of Defendants’ insurers, or their agents. 6 The Complaints in the consolidated cases outline other relevant events triggering notice within the schools prior to November 16, 2017. 12 F. CREC’s Insurer’s Investigation Policies, and Relationship with the law firm of Jackson Lewis Defendants have disclosed that there are two insurers related to this litigation: Catlin/Wright for the policy period of July 1, 2016, through July 1, 2017; and Philadelphia Insurance for the policy period of July 1, 2017, through July 1, 2018. On February 24, 2024, Defendants produced the policies for both. The Catlin/Wright Policy contains information about the insurers’ policies and procedures related to any claims that may be made under Defendants policies.” See Wright Specialty Insurance Policy. 7 The policy provides the following: If you obtain insurance from us, we will maintain records related to any claims that may be made under your policies. The investigation of a claim necessarily involves collection of a broad range of information about many issues, some of which does not directly involve you. We will share with you any facts that we collect about your claim unless we are prohibited by law from doing so. The process of claim investigation, evaluation, and settlement also involves, however, the collection of advice, opinions, and comments from many people, including attorneys and experts, to aid the claim specialist in determining how best to handle your claim. In order to protect the legal and transactional confidentiality and privileges associated with such opinions, comments and advice, we will not disclose this information to you. See Wright Specialty Insurance Policy, Privacy Policy, Collection and Sources of Information, p. 8-9. The policy further provides direction on the timeliness of reporting claims to Wright Insurance, and the reporting of any potential claims. See Wright Insurance Policy, Educators Legal/Employment Practices Loss Reporting, p. 22 (“[y]ou do not need to report every internal harassment complaint, however, if there is attorney representation or threat of litigation, please notify us.”) (emphasis added). 7 Insurance Documents produced by Defendants are not attached as Exhibits but will be filed as Exhibits upon request of the Defendants or the Court. 13 The policy further provides as follows: Communication channels should be established at each insured assuring that their personnel do not discuss any facet of any claim with anyone other than a representative of Wright Specialty Insurance, and the defense counsel and investigators who have been retained to protect their interests. We anticipate the insured's cooperation in the handling and defense of these actions. General Liability Loss Reporting, at 21-22. Notably, this message was conveyed to the staff at GHAA Middle School on December 14, 2017 following the disclosure, through an email sent by Kristin Videtto, under the subject “Union Representation,” as follows: As you know, yesterday Mr. Sullivan was talking about DCF cases and referrals in our high school and on our school grounds. Please remember that if you are asked by anyone or any administration to talk to them about a specific person, you should NOT talk to them without Union Representation (me). Do NOT speak with anyone about any situation if you do not know anything or if you are not properly represented. (Emphasis in original). In addition to directing CREC and other insureds to timely report potential claims, and ensuring that all personnel are compliant, Wright Insurance also partnered with Jackson Lewis LLP to provide an “Employment Liability Hotline.” See Wright/Catlin Policy Documents, at 35- 36. (“Paul J. Siegel, Esq., a partner with Jackson Lewis since 1985, will oversee management of the hotline.”). While it is unclear whether Defendants utilized the hotline, the policy shows a relationship between Wright and Jackson Lewis, which appears relevant to this case, as set forth below. While this Hotline is purportedly provided for “general legal overview,” the policy provides “[the Hotline] can also be used as a way of inquiring about appropriate steps to take when investigating complaints…”. Id. The policy describes that when an insured uses this Hotline, “a representative of Jackson Lewis, who will be providing this Hotline, will ask the caller succinctly to state the question and to provide a brief description of the facts which relate 14 to the question.” Id. From that point, Jackson Lewis ostensibly provides services to the insureds and the insurer to minimize risks related to potential claims. G. Human Resources Director Regina Terrell’s data on her CREC-issued cell phone strongly suggests that CREC, and/or CREC’s insurer and their insurer’s agents, were engaged in some sort of investigation related to the misconduct of Brian Marshall, prior to December 13, 2017. Regina Terrell, the Director of Human Resources, was deposed on April 2, 2017. (Transcript pending). Ms. Terrell testified that she was responsible for the oversight of matters involving reports to the Department of Children and Families, where an employee designated by DCF as an “alleged perpetrator.” She testified that when DCF received a report involving an employee, the employee was then placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation by DCF. She was less clear about circumstances related to Marshall’s leave in this litigation. Cell phone records provide context of communications by Ms. Terrell that indicate that some sort of investigation occurred prior to the December 13, 2017 disclosure. November 18, 2017, through November 25, 2017 Call records from Ms. Terrell’s CREC provided cell phone show that she received calls from a cell phone associated with Keyla Jones, a receptionist from the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, on November 18, 2017 (6:32 PM for 22 minutes) and November 21, 2017 (6:47 p.m. 12 minutes). While Ms. Terrell described Jones as a “friend” in her deposition, her position, and the nature and the timing of the calls, raises questions. Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez, by all accounts, took a significant leadership role related to the December 23, 2017 disclosure, and likely earlier. After two calls with Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzales on November 22, 2017 (1:18 pm and 1:32 pm), Ms. Terrell contacted the Department 15 of Children and Families at 2:02 p.m. (21 minutes). 8 Thereafter, Ms. Terrell received calls from Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis on November 23, 2017 at 10:05 a.m. (19 minutes); and November 25, 2017 at 4:35 p.m. (13 minutes). Ms. Terrell could not recall the nature of her calls with Ms. Jones calls during November and December 2017, nor did she provide clear testimony about whether Jackson Lewis represented CREC in any capacity. Likewise, at his March 28, 2024 deposition, Tim Sullivan testified that he did not know whether Jackson Lewis represented CREC in 2017, though he did not rule it out. Terrell testified that while she more regularly spoke with Tim Sullivan, she had calls with the Principals, Assistant Superintendents, and other key administrators in this litigation on an “as-needed” basis. November 28, 2017, through November 4, 2017 Just prior to December 4, 2017—the date that Bo Ryan’s testimony indicates that Marshall was placed on leave—Terrell received calls from a number associated with Jackson Lewis on November 28, 2017 at 9:55 a.m. (6 minutes) and 10:35 a.m. (22 minutes). On November 29, 2017, Terrell called GHAA Middle School Principal Bo Ryan at 9:05 a.m. (5 minutes). She received a call from Jackson Lewis at 4:28 p.m. on that same date (4 minutes). On November 30, 2017, Ms. Terrell received calls from Jackson Lewis at 10:40 a.m. (8 minutes); an 8 This may be related to another teacher on the seventh-grade team, who is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses related to Misconduct Files of other teachers. V.M. testified, however, that Marshall was this other teacher’s “mentor.” Investigation of these two teachers may have overlapped. 16 attorney from Shipman Goodwin at 1:15 p.m., 9 and an administrative assistant from Shipman & Goodwin at 1:34 p.m. (7 minutes). On December 1, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Superintendent Tim Sullivan at 8:21 a.m. (3 minutes) and made a call to him at 8:24 a.m. (3 minutes). She received two calls from Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez at 1:09 p.m. (3 minutes) and 2:00 p.m. (12 minutes), followed by a call from Tim Sullivan at 2:15 p.m. (2 minutes). She received a call from Jackson Lewis at 3:58 p.m. (13 minutes). She then received a call from Lisa Cordova, the president of the Connecticut Education Association (CEA)—Brian Marshall’s union. At 8:32 p.m. on Friday December 1, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Keyla Jones (1 minute). She spoke with her on Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 9:05 a.m. (4 minutes), at 2:13 p.m. (13 minutes) and at 2:25 p.m. (1 minute); and on Sunday December 3, 2017 at 3:48 p.m. (19 minutes). On Monday December 4, 2017, Tim Sullivan called Regina Terrell at 7:50 a.m. (3 minutes). Terrell then called an administrative assistant at Shipman & Goodwin at 7:59 a.m. (1 minute), 9:23 a.m. (5 minutes) and 11:29 a.m. (8 minutes). She received calls from Assistant Superintendent Laurie Gonzalez at 1:26 p.m. (14 minutes) and 1:41 p.m. (1 minute). December 6, 2017 through December 8, 2017 V.M., Brian Marshall’s ex-wife, testified that Marshall disclosed the report against him the week of parent-teacher conferences, which occurred from December 6, 2017, through December 8, 2017. On December 6, 2017, Ms. Terrell received a call from Jackson Lewis at 2:03 p.m. (17 minutes), and she called Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis at 5:48 p.m. (5 minutes). 9 Defendants have produced documents indicating attorneys from Shipman & Goodman were engaged in some capacity related to the December 13, 2017 disclosure. 17 On December 8, 2017, Terrell called Laurie Gonzalez at 8:49 a.m. (14 minutes), 10:23 a.m. (5 minutes), and received a call from Gonzalez at 10:49 a.m. (6 minutes). At 12:27, she received a call from Bo Ryan (5 minutes). At 4:07 p.m., she received a call from Jackson Lewis (21 minutes). In addition, from December 7, 2017 through December 8, 2017, there was significant communication involving calls to and from Bo Ryan with Tim Sullivan, Laurie Gonzalez, and Regina Terrell’s work number. Regina Terrell and Bo Ryan spoke again, repeatedly, on December 12, 2017. December 9, 2017, through December 13, 2017 Terrell’s calls on her CREC-issued cell phone with key administrators and Jackson Lewis increased in the days before the December 13, 2017 disclosure. Terrell received calls from Keyla Jones on Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. (18 minutes); December 10, 2017 at 9:58 a.m. (4 minutes) and from the main number at 10:52 a.m. (9 minutes). She received calls on Monday, December 11, 2017 from Jackson Lewis at 5:18 p.m. (4 minutes) and Kayla Jones at 5:51 p.m. (2 minutes). On Tuesday, December 12, 2017, Terrell received calls from CEA President Lisa Cordova at 11:06 a.m. (9 minutes) and again at 12:44 a.m. (7 minutes); Bo Ryan at 4:05 p.m. (7 minutes) and 4:37 p.m. 2 minutes); and Keyla Jones from Jackson Lewis at 8:33 p.m. (23 minutes). On December 13, 2017, the day of the disclosure, Terrell received a call from DCF at 10:41 a.m. (8 minutes). This was prior to Nick Chanese’s report to DCF at 12:09, but after Amanda Doe’s forensic interview had been scheduled by 10:45 a.m., according to Officer Lowney’s supplemental report, as set forth supra. Terrell called Bo Ryan at 10:51 a.m. (11 18 minutes) and Laurie Gonzalez at 11:02 a.m. (9 minutes). She received a call from Jackson Lewis at 11:15 a.m. (4 minutes), and two calls from Gonzalez, 11:18 a.m. (5 minutes) and 11:23 a.m. (1 minute), and a call from Bo Ryan at 11:29 a.m. (14 minutes). She received a call from Lori Gonzalez at 12:01 p.m. (2 minutes), then called Bo Ryan at 12:04 p.m. (4 minutes). She received a call from Laurie Gonzales at 12:13 p.m. (2 minutes) and again at12:15 p.m. (2 minutes) and she called Bo Ryan again at 12:51 p.m. (6 minutes). At 4:49 p.m., Terrell called Jeff Ivory, CREC’s risk manager. The last call of the day was made to a cell phone number with data indicating it was used by “B.Marshall”—a number that made or received calls with Terrell’s cell phone 54 times from November 16, 2017 through December 13, 2017. Regina Terrell testified that she did not recognize that number. 10 Upon information and belief, Terrell testified that she could not remember if she spoke with Brian Marshall. 11 Calls with key administrators noted above continued through January 15, 2018, often in similar patterns of specific “hot spots.” After December 13, 2017, Terrell called or received calls from Jackson Lewis and Keyla Jones 23 times, and the “B.Marshall” number 44 times. Defendants have not provided phone records from administrators’ office phones, or the texting data from administrators’ CREC-issued cell phones. The height of communication between key administrators occurred on December 13, 2017, but the pattern leading up to that date requires an explanation by Defendants. For the purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs’ analysis is primarily limited to Ms. Terrell’s call data. However, overlapping call data from the other administrators involved on December 13, 2017, 10 According to multiple sources, Brian Marshall use multiple “burner phones” and would also use google voice. 11 Ms. Terrell’s transcript is pending. 19 provides an even more compelling (and troubling) argument that Defendants have withheld significant evidence related to their knowledge prior to December 13, 2017. H. CREC had the capacity to conduct ESI Searches, and they did conduct searches for review and production of evidence to their attorneys and insurers, but they have refused to produce the evidence to Plaintiffs. Chris Bate, the IT Manager at CREC, initially identified and secured evidence on December 13, 2017 (or earlier), and at various points in time since that date. See Exhibit I, Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 Letter (including, among other exhibits, emails related to initial searches in 2017, which have not been produced). None of these searches have been produced to Plaintiffs. Later, at the inception of this litigation, Assistant Superintendent Sarah Vocca sent an email to CREC Executive Director Sandra Cruz- Serrano and Regina Terrell, dated July 22, 2019 (Exhibit J), asking: “Please see the below request for information re: the Brian Marshall case. Might this already exist in the binders put together before she left?” The email referenced an insurance claim number, with a date of loss of 2/1/2017, but the initial email to Ms. Vocca is redacted. Ms. Terrell responded, “I will bring you the envelope Laurie gave to me on the Marshall case this afternoon.” As to the request for “Any file CREC generated in investigation of this issue:” Ms. Terrell responded: “I will provide the information Laurie Gonzalez gave to me.” All the materials in any envelope or binder maintained by Gonzalez are claimed to now be “lost” or “missing.” It is clear that these documents had been in the possession of CREC’s employees and agents. Defendants simply refuse to conduct any meaningful search to locate these documents. 20 On March 11, 2021, Chris Bate received an email from CREC Deputy Executive Director Sandy Cruz-Serrano, seeking all emails for ten (10) administrators and employees from December 13, 2017: Hi Chris - our insurance’s attorneys are asking for the emails of the people listed below for the date of December 13, 2017. They are looking for emails specific to the case of referenced above. However, if you give us the emails, we can sort through them and find those related to the subject at hand. Sorry to put more on you. Thanks in advance. Exhibit K. Cruz-Serrano specifically requested emails from key individuals involved on December 13, 2017, including Nick Chanese, Kate Dougherty, Maryam Wardak, Raynette Holmes, Ashley Mazzoli, Laurie Gonzalez, Tim Sullivan, Bo Ryan, Regina Terrell, and Chris Nolan. See id. Bate responded: Without more specifics I would be inclined to give you everything sent or received to/from these people on December 13th 2017. Is that OK or is there anything specific such as particular words in the email that we can zero in on. Cruz Serrano replied, “I’ll take everything.” A thumb drive of these emails was provided to Angiolina Russo shortly after March 13, 2021. These searches have not been produced to Plaintiffs. On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Chris Bate, CREC’s Manager of IT Support, who is responsible for eDiscovery searches for various purposes at CREC. Bate confirmed CREC’s ability to conduct various searches of employees’ emails, including emails that had been deleted and archived. See Bates Depo., attached hereto as Exhibit L, at pages 28- 29, 94. In the summer of 2022, following discovery disputes and hours of discovery conferences, Defendants requested a list of search terms, with the presumption that the terms would be used to facilitate searches by Chris Bate to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. See Exhibits filed 21 on November 19, 2022 in support of Jane Doe’s Motion for Order, at HHD-cv20-5062645 [Dkt. 172]. Instead of using the terms provided by Plaintiffs to conduct a straightforward though admittedly comprehensive set of searches, Defendants unilaterally engaged the services of NextPoint, an eDiscovery provider. Defendants’ then chose their own methodology that created a far more complex and time- consuming search process, which Plaintiffs maintain was burdensome by design. See Jane Doe’s Motion for Order of Compliance, dated May 6, 2023, at HHD-cv20-5062645 [Dkt. 187]. Among other concerns, 12 while Defendants’ methodology to upload data to the NextPoint Discovery Suite may have been proper, their methodology to then locate evidence within the Suite allowed counsel complete discretion: Once an account is transferred to the NextPoint Discovery Suite, counsel employs a combination of search terms and fields to identify discoverable documentation. See Exhibit M. While Defendants produced a chart that indicates the terms that they may have used in their searches, they refused to provide the actual methodology used to identify the searches that yielded the 50,000 pages of documents that were ultimately produced. The scope of missing documents and evidence indicates that ESI searches that were conducted by counsel for the defendants were deficient and cannot be relied upon as thorough diligent searches. Defendants broadly fail to describe key details of Defendants’ searches. Evidence of the flaws in Defendants eDiscovery protocols is clear by their recent production of an email—which had been requested for years—that was produced on March 8, 2024 by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff have long requested an email referenced in the 12 Notably, Defendants made a decision to “prioritize” accounts for uploading to the Suite, and excluded the accounts of 18 of the 67 identified individuals potentially having discoverable ESI, excluding all of Marshall’s fellow teachers, Brendan Hines, Sarah Vocca, and Greg Ivory, among others, who were known to be significant witnesses. 22 statement of Catherine Lee (Exhibit A) related to an email she sent to Kate Dougherty at 9:55 a.m. on December 13, 2017, with the subject “I need to see you now.” Lee states Dougherty responded to the email. Counsel for Plaintiffs searched the ESI produced by Defendants, using their own Relativity Software. Counsel used multiple search methodologies available in Relativity, including but not limited to searches associated with Lee’s and Dougherty’s mailboxes, time and date searches, and key word searches. The email was not in the ESI produced by Defendants, though it should have been in both Lee’s and Dougherty’s mailboxes that were initially searched and uploaded into Defendants’ NextPoint software. Previously, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Ms. Lee, September 22, 2021. She testified as follows related to her efforts to comply with ESI requested in the Schedule A to her deposition: Q: This statement in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 that you’ve indicated was fair and accurate indicates that you sent an email to Dr. Dougherty with the subject quote “I need to see you now.” Is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Okay. And you did not bring that email as responding to your Notice of Deposition. Right? A: Yes. Q: Why didn’t you? A: I could not find the email in my email as it had deleted over a period of time. Q: Okay. Did you look for it? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did you look for other communications involving this case? A: Yes. Q: And were you able to find anything? A: No. Depo. of C. Lee, at 21, Exhibit N. Plaintiffs were never provided fair access to this critical email, along with a host of other emails and texts. But on March 8, 2024, Defendants produced this email, in native format, which shows that they had access to this email (and others) throughout