Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Attorneys Successfully Quashed Subpoena for the Deposition of an Investigating Attorney in the US District Court of Massachusetts
Recently, MHTL attorneys, Kier Wachterhauser and Kevin Freytag, successfully quashed the deposition of an investigating attorney in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in ongoing employment-related litigation. Given the fact-gathering nature of investigative work, it is not uncommon for attorneys who conduct workplace investigations and internal reviews to be the subject of discovery inquiries in litigation. Nevertheless, the attorney client privilege is not automatically waived. Courts will generally look at the nature of the investigation, the nature of the underlying legal representation, the purpose and need for the underlying discovery inquiry, and the course of discovery to date in assessing whether depositions or similar discovery should be allowed. Careful thought should be given to how investigative reports are presented and to whom, as well as the nature of communications surrounding investigations and how the material is subsequently used. Working with experienced legal counsel is a must.
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane LLP is also known throughout New England for its labor and employment practice as well as its extensive business litigation and advising employers on internal reviews and strategic legal approaches when dealing with the government. The firm also has an extensive education law practice representing public, private, and nonprofit educational institutions from pre-K through the college and university level.
Attorney Felicia Vasudevan, a partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, received a favorable decision on behalf of her client, Marshfield Public Schools. The Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgement that upheld a decision of the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”). However, as the notice was filed more than 30 days after entry, the First Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff also appealed the district court’s order, denying her motion to vacate. Read More
Following our Alert from March 16, 2023, Civility is Dead – The Supreme Court Rules Municipal Control of Public Speak Limited to Reasonable Time/Place/Manner Restrictions, which discussed the holding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Barron v. Kolenda and the Town of Southborough (SJC-13284), we promised to bring you more detailed guidance on developing a Public Speak policy for your public body or municipality. The Barron case involved a constitutional challenge to the Town of Southborough’s public comment policy, which attempted to impose a code of civility on members of the public who participated in public comment before public bodies. In Barron, the court interpreted the state constitution to mean that public bodies may request, but not require, that public commentators be respectful and courteous. Instead, a public body may set restrictions on reasonable time, place, and manner comments to ensure that the meeting retains an orderly and peaceable manner.