Preview
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627 82
Page 1 of 32
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
Concetta Orlando,
Plaintiff
Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627
Cynthia Bjorlie
Nicole Coles
Robin Hubbard
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO SOVA’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO QUASH
PLAINTIFF’S 28 SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO SOVA’S “PRIVILEGE LOG”
Now comes the plaintiff, and respectfully opposes the Consolidated Motion to Quash
Plaintiff's 2"4 Subpoena and for Protective Order, filed by non party Clayton Sova(Doc. 78).
Plaintiff also opposes and objects to the content of Sova’ 39 ‘privilege log’(Doc. 73) which
includes non-privileged documents.
The plaintiff opposes Mr. Sova’s consolidated motion on the following bases:
He previously identified 139 documents responsive to the properly served 1‘ subpoena
upon him, which he now, suddenly, pleads that he and his counsel have decided are not
“responsive” or related to this litigation.
Sova’s claims in his motion and his affidavit are not credible, based upon his
contradictory prior statements, and, the “privilege logs” provided by other non-party
witnesses-including Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, claiming that there have been
communications between the non party witnesses in this matter, which Mr. Sova does not
disclose in his own privilege log.
The 2" subpoena served upon Sova was in line with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order,
only updated in time. As such, it is not overly broad or vague.
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 2 of 32
As grounds therefore, the plaintiff refers this Honorable Court to her Memorandum of Law,
filed contemporaneously herewith.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff by her Attorneys,
/s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr.
JOSEPH M. ORLANDO JR. ESQ.
BBO #680995
JOSEPH M. ORLANDO, ESQ.
BBO #380215
Orlando & Associates
1 Western Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ph: 978-283-8100
Fx: 978-283-8507
imorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. attorney for the plaintiff herein, certify that I served the foregoing
to counsel for the defendants:
Counsel for Defendants:
William E. Gens, Esq.
Gens & Stanton P.C.
12 Ericsson Street 2" Floor
Boston, MA 02122
billgens@genslawoffices.com
Counsel for Maybury and Sova:
Elena Pavlou, Esq.
1911 Crosstown Carriage Way #201
Tampa, FL 33619
Elenapav1@outlook.com
Bryan R. Colella, Esq.
12 Eriesson Street 2" Floor
Boston, MA 02122
beolella@brclawoffice.com
On this 3 day of June, 2024. ¢s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq.
2
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 3 of 32
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
Concetta Orlando,
Plaintiff
Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627
Cynthia Bjorlie
Nicole Coles
Robin Hubbard
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SOVA’S CONSOLIDATED
MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S 28° SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER, AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO SOVA’S “PRIVILEGE LOG”
Now comes the plaintiff, and submits the within Memorandum of Law.
Factual Background
On 11/30/2023, Clayton Sova served upon Plaintiff's counsel a partial production of
discovery in response to the 1 subpoena served upon him, subject to the Court’s
9/19/2023 order.
His cover letter with this production read as follows: “Jtems that contain either attorney
client privileged information, political trade secrets, may cause embarrassment, or are
irrelevant or unrelated to the matter have been retained-139 items.” (Exhibit A: Sova
Cover letter dated 11/30/2023).
On 4/1/2024 Clayton Sova, a non-party witness in this litigation, was served with a 2"
Subpoena for Documents by the Essex County Sheriff’s Department (Exhibit B: Return
of Service of Subpoena).
The Schedule A attached to the Keeper of Records Deposition stated: “the following
documents are sought in accordance with the court’s order of 9/19/2023.”(Exhibit B).
On 4/23/2024, Sova filed an ex parte motion to quash the 2" subpoena(Doc. 43).
On 4/25/2024, Sova filed an ex parte motion to impound the documents, presumably in
response to the subpoena served on him (Doc. 48).
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 4 of 32
Neither document 43 nor 48 were served upon plaintiff's counsel.
On 5/24/2024, non party witness Kelly Secrest served a “privilege log” upon plaintiff’s
counsel, in response to the court’s 5/17/2024 order.
Ms. Secrest’s log includes 8 emails which include Sova, which Mr. Sova subsequently
did not list in his Privilege log. (Exhibit C: Privilege Log of Kelly Secrest)
10. On 5/24/2024, Mr. Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, served a “Privilege Log” as to the 1*
subpoena, upon plaintiffs counsel.
11 Ms. Frontiero listed 9 emails which include Sova, which Mr. Sova subsequently did not
list in his Privilege log(Exhibit D: Privilege Log of [rene Frontiero).
12 On 5/27/2024, Sova filed a “Privilege log”(Doc. 73) regarding the 1** subpoena which
had been served upon him in July of 2023 and subject to the court’s order of 9/19/2023
and 5/17/2024(Doc. 68).
13 Sova lists an email between himself and his wife, Irene Frontiero, which he claims is
privileged under the “trial/litigation preparation” privilege.
14 Sova also includes the following: “There were additionally 139 pages of materials that
were inadvertently flagged as responsive by Mr. Sova while pro se that ultimately were
not. These materials were not produced and were not included in the above log.”(Doc.
73).
15 On 5/29/2024, plaintiffs counsel emailed Sova’s counsel, and wrote the following: “It is
truly stunning how 139 documents from Mr. Sova, somehow are now not responsive to
Judge Barrett's order.”(Exhibit E: Email Orlando to Paviou 5/29/2024).
Legal Standard
Work Product Privilege:
To the best that the plaintiff can surmise, the alleged “Trial/Litigation Preparation” asserted by
Sova is akin to the work product privilege, which applies to attorneys’ work, not emails between
non-party, unrepresented individuals in a litigation:
The work product doctrine is intended to enhance the vitality of an adversary system of
litigation by insulating counsel's work from intrusions, inferences, or borrowings by other
parties as counsel prepares for the contest. McCarthy v. Slade Assocs.. 463 Mass. 181.
182. 972 N.E.2d 1037, 1040. 2012 Mass, LEXIS 693. *1. 2012 WL 3207225
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 5 of 32
The work product privilege applies to the mental impressions of an attorney:
The work product privilege announced in Hickman v. Taylor protects written statements
and mental impressions contained in the mind of the attomey while the attorney-client
privilege protects only communications between the attorney and his client. Most
importantly, the lawyer holds the work product privilege, whereas the client holds the
attorney-client privilege exclusively.
McMillan v. Westport Ins. Corp.. 2004 Mas uper, LEXIS 657, *1. 19 Mass. L. Rep.
55, 2004 WL, 3106733(Emphasis Added)
Despite the fact that Sova failed to produce a “Privilege Log” that was complete, in that other
non party witnesses listed emails by and between Sova which he did not list in his own privilege
log, he also asserts a privilege that is not available to him.
Scope of Discovery:
The scope of discovery under the M.R.C.P. 26 states that parties may obtain discovery on any
matter which is not privileged, as long as it is related to the subject matter of the litigation. A
deponent may not oppose the properly-served subpoena for discovery on the basis of whether it
will ultimately be admissible at trial or not.' When a subpoena is properly served upon a non-
party, the party is required by M.R.C.P. 45(a) to produce the requested documents by the time
and place designated.” Witnesses are required to produce documents as requested in a properly-
served subpoena, for all documents in their possession, custody, and control as of the date on
which they are served with said subpoena, and the witness MAY NOT destroy the documents
following the receipt of said subpoena. Judge’s order compelling discovery to be produced is
non-appealable, absent the assertion of a privilege.
Issuing a Protective Order:
Sova’s motion does not plead sufficient cause to protect him from production of discoverable
documents responsive to the 2"4 subpoena served upon him:
Court must exercise its discretion as it would if the issue were posed in the context of a
motion for a protective order. And there the Court in the exercise of its sound discretion
'MLR.CP, 26(b)(1)
? Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure 45(a)
3 Application of O'Brien, 403 Mass. 1005 (Mass..1988)
5
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 6 of 32
fashions a remedy to protect the producing party from the risks associated with disclosure
of the information or material. The object is to shield the party or person from
"annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Mass.R.Civ.P.
26(c). The party or person requesting relief must demonstrate "good
cause." Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As stated, the Rule 26(c) exercise is similar to that where
the issue is impoundment. See Ottaway, supra at 546 and Gere, supra at 329. Labbe v.
Home Depot USA, Inc.. 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 113. *10-11. 22 Mass. L. Rep. 310.
Sova’s motion bases his request for a protective order on another litigation which he is involved
in, which was filed on May 7, 2024(Essex Superior Court, Clayton Sova v. William Galvin,
Secretary of State, 2477cv00443). The 2" subpoena served upon Sova, from which he seeks
protection, was served upon him on 4/1/2024(Exhibit B: Return of Service), more than one
month before he filed suit. That litigation’s existence does not provide the requisite good cause
to protect him from production in the instant litigation, in which he was identified as an essential
witness at the time that suit was filed, on 6/26/2023.
Argument
L Sova Lacks Credibility on the Issue of 139 Pages of Documents
In response to Judge Barrett’s order, Sova produced a cover letter to plaintiff's counsel, on which
he handwrote that he was holding back 139 pages of documents responsive to the search terms
which Judge Barrett had spelled out in his 9/19/2023 order.
Clayson Sova
rene Frontier RECEIVED
Sava
Maareze
18
hfous
Ortssdo en, PC
One W
Ge
Ph
fe0 4
To whos it may concer,
This isto contin sour receipt af oo band wore very mia the Cen 1a Odente
ierat Ihe sop
nego 88 codvetion
ond axe thee ce Ie
eu that contaia either
piv 8th cnet. or ae inrctew
nse’
Sine
ey Saye.
BE.
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 7 of 32
This letter is clear that the 139 pages Sova uncovered after employing the search terms were in
his possession, and that he hand-counted them before writing a letter indicating why he felt he
did not have to produce them to plaintiff's counsel.
Now, conveniently, he and his counsel have pleaded that those pages are suddenly not responsive
to the search terms to this litigation and have refused to produce them, nor have they produced a
privilege log listing them. Sova and his counsel have simply decided that their representation
that they are suddenly not responsive to the search terms of Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order
should suffice for plaintiff and the Court.
What is problematic about Sova’s argument that suddenly these 139 pages are not responsive to
the search terms, is that in order to have derived them originally, Sova would have had to type in
the search terms into his email; read them all in order to produce the letter that claimed they
weren’t going to be given to plaintiff's counsel despite their responsiveness to the search terms.
The Court was clear in the 5/16/2024 hearing, when the Court told Sova’s counsel that she was
not willing to change anything about Judge Barrett’s order, and would not entertain further
discussions about quashing the 1‘ subpoena:
5/16/2024, 2:57:28 p.m.:
Court: Judge Barrett made an order in September 2023. Today I’m going to hear whether or not
each of these people are in contempt for failing to comply. If the motion to quash has to do with
the documents that were already requested, it is too late, it is untimely, and I will not hear it.
We're talking about documents that were already ordered to be produced in September 2023.
Are those the documents you’re looking to not produce?
5/16/2023, 3:01:53 p.m.
Court: Well, the first subpoena’s out, because it’s too late.
Where the Court was clear that Judge Barrett’s order would stand as applied to the 1% subpoena,
Sova must produce the documents he previously identified as responsive to the order’s search
terms. Neither Sova, nor his counsel, are qualified to determine the relevance of a discoverable
documents, yet they are both trying to do so in this pleading. Imagine what would happen in
7
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 8 of 32
litigations if witnesses, or their attorneys, were permitted to decide which documents are
“relevant” or “related” to the matter and therefore not producing discoverable documents to the
opposing party.
Mr. Sova should be compelled to produce the 139 pages of documents he previously identified as
responsive to the search terms of Judge Barrett’s order, and the issue of relevance or relatability
to this litigation should be left for the Court at the time of trial.
As such, Sova’s motion should be denied.
Il. Sova Omits Several Emails which Other Non Party Witnesses Identified, and
Claims Privileges he is not Entitled To
Sova contradicts his previous written statements in regards to the 139 pages of documents he
withheld from his production in response to the 1% subpoena served upon him, and Judge
Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order outlining search terms. The “Privilege Log” he produced also lists
emails which he claims are protected by virtue of the “Trial/Litigation Preparation” privilege,
which is actually non-existent. The work product privilege is the closest thing to that descriptor,
and Sova is not entitled to protection by it, because he is not an attorney, nor is he in this
litigation as a party. The case law as quoted above is clear on that point.
Additionally, non party witnesses Kelly Secrest, and Mr. Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, list
several emails which included Sova on their privilege logs. Secrest and Frontiero falsely claim
privileges on these emails which are not available to them. Nevertheless, their disclosure of the
existence of these emails demonstrates that Sova’s “privilege log” is incomplete. He did not list
the same emails in his own log as were identified by other non-party witnesses. As such, even
his privilege log is incomplete and not in compliance with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order, nor
the Court’s 5/17/2024 order(Doc. 68).
Sova’s motion should be denied, and he should be compelled to produce ALL emails with non-
parties responsive to the search terms in the 9/19/2023 order.
Hil. 2" Subpoena Should Not be Quashed nor Limited from Judge Barrett’s Order
The 2"4 subpoena served upon Sova was in line with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order, only
updated in time from 9/20/2023-4/30/2024. Judge Barrett’s order and the search terms contained
therein were arrived at after motion practice and hearing. As such, the 2 subpoena is not overly
8
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 9 of 32
broad or vague. To the contrary, Judge Barrett limited the scope of plaintiff's Schedule A
significantly.
The fact that Mr. Sova pleads that employing the search terms contained within the 9/19/2023
order reveals documents related to another litigation which he filed on 5/7/2024, is not good
cause to quash the 2™ subpoena nor limit it via a protective order. Rule 26 allows for discovery
of non-privileged documents, and, employing the search terms provided by Judge Barrett limits
the produced documents to subject matter connected to the instant litigation. There is no risk to
Sova of producing same, because his lawsuit against the Massachusetts Secretary of State was
filed AFTER service of the 24 subpoena, and, further, that litigation centers on a political
dispute regarding the recount of election results-a public topic if ever there was one.
As such, Sova’s argument has no privilege protection nor merit, generally. To the extent that
employing the search term “Ashley Sullivan” uncovers emails not related to this litigation, then,
after review by counsel, the Court will likely deny admission of those documents at trial.
However, that is not a decision to be made by Sova at this juncture, when Sova has yet to
produce discoverable materials in his possession, custody, and control from the 1* subpoena and
court order by Judge Barrett dated 9/19/2023.
Moreover, the scope of discovery does not limit it prematurely. “A request for discovery should
be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to
the subject matter of the action.” Hope v. Double E Corp.. 2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 147. "1. 14
Mass. L. Rep. 528. Where Sova had such an active role with the Defendants over the course of
the past year, his email communications via the search terms have more than just a “possibility”
of being relevant. That will remain unknown, however, until they are produced and reviewed.
Sova’s motion should be denied, and he should be compelled to produce documents responsive
to the 2" subpoena from employing the search terms in Judge Barrett’s order.
Iv. Conclusion
Sova’s consolidated motion is another in a long line of stonewalling tactics employed by Sova in
this litigation. His representations can not be relied on, as they are contradictory and proven false
by other non-party witnesses in this matter. Further, Sova’s participation in the political world
does not insulate him from discovery of his emails; rather, as a public figure, his discussions
9
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 10 of 32
about these matters as responsive to the court’s search terms in this litigation, are highly
discoverable and not worthy of protection.
Wherefore, the plaintiff requests that this Honorable court deny Sova’s consolidated motion in its
entirety.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff by her Attorneys,
/s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr.
JOSEPH M. ORLANDO JR. ESQ.
BBO #680995
JOSEPH M. ORLANDO, ESQ.
BBO #380215
Orlando & Associates
1 Western Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ph: 978-283-8100
Fx: 978-283-8507
jmorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. attorney for the plaintiff herein, certify that I served the foregoing
to counsel for the defendants:
Counsel for Defendants:
William E. Gens, Esq.
Gens & Stanton P.C.
12 Ericsson Street 2" Floor
Boston, MA 02122
billgens@genslawoffices.com
Counsel for Maybury and Sova:
Elena Pavlou, Esq.
1911 Crosstown Carriage Way #201
Tampa, FL 33619
Elenapavl outlook.com
Bryan R. Coleila, Esq.
12 Ericsson Street 2"! Floor
Boston, MA 02122
10
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 11 of 32
beolella@brclawoffice.com
On this 3 day of June, 2024. /s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq.
W
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 12 of 32
EXHIBIT A
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 13 of 32
Clayton Sova
Irene Frontiero RECEIVED
28 Fort Square
Gloucester, MA 01930 DEC 6% 2023
T:508-284-3542
ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES
7130/2023 p2 fi feoes
Orlando & Associates, PC
One Western Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ph: (978) 283-8100
Fx: (978) 283-8507
To whom it may concern,
This is to confirm your receipt of our hand delivered discovery materials re the Concetta Orlando
v. Defendants matter at Essex Superior Court. The scope and quantity of the search items
requested was so large (over 2000 items) ils production required far more time, effort, expense,
and expertise than was anticipated, so much so that the assistance of an IT consultant was
required to assist us in accomplishing its production. [tems that contain either attorney client
privileged information, political trade secrets, may cause embarrassment. or are irrelevant or
unrelated to the matter have been retained. — /39 /téyas,
Sincerely,
Cla ion Sova
bey ZA
Iren ntiero
eX
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 14 of 32
EXHIBIT B
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 15 of 32
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Subpoena
Essex 18S.
1;clayton Sova, 28 Fort Square
Gloucester, MA 01930
Bou are herebp commanded, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to
appear before the Superior Court at Salem
the County of Essex on the 30th day op April
in the year 2024 at 10 a.m. am/pm, and from day to day thereafter, until
the action hereinafter named is heard by said Court, to give evidence of what you know
relating to an action then and there to be heard and tried between
Concetta Orlando Plaintiff, and
Cynthia Bjorlie, et al » Defendant,
docket umber 237 7 CVOOG27 , and you are further required to bring with you
See Schedule A, with Notice of Deposition, served with this Subpoena.
counsel on or before April 30, 2024.
Bereof fail not, as your failure to appear as required will subject you to such pains and
penalties as the law provides.
pater at Gloucester —_,, 25th cy Vt March in the year
2024 /
‘|
Ly
fy
i
A vA
La
EL
Notary Pul —Justicd of the Peace
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 16 of 32
RETURN OF SERVICE
Z , certify thatI this day summoned the within named
OE
Essex County Sheriff's Department, PO BOX 2019, Salem, MA O1970
April 3, 2024
Thereby erfify and return that on 4/1/2024 at 59 AM I served a (nic and alicsted copy of the subpoena, 2nd notice of
deposition. and schedule a in this action in (he following manner: 'o wit, by Icaving al the last and usual place of abode
of Clayton Sova. 28 Fort Square Gloucester. MA 01930. and by ma ing " class to the above address on 4/2/2024.
Attestation fee ($10.00) Basic Service Fee ($20,00) Postage and Handling ($3.00) Total: $33.00
RECEIVED
aE APR 06 2028
ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES
Nanuty Shariff Andras Ducen
pear.
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 17 of 32
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
Concetta Orlando,
Plaintiff
Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627
Cynthia Bjorlie
Nicole Coles
Robin Hubbard
Defendants
To: Clayton Sova
28 Fort Square
Gloucester, MA 01930
auverc@hotmail.com
2") NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
Please take notice that on April 30, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of
Orlando & Associates, One Western Avenue, Gloucester, Massachusetts, the plaintiff, Concetta
Orlando, by her attorneys, pursuant to the applicable Massachusetts Statute, will take the keeper
of records deposition of Clayton Sova before a Notary Public or before some other officer
authorized by law to administer oaths. Further, the deponent is requested to provide those
documents listed in Schedule A, attached hereto.
DEPONENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR, BUT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
ONLY.
Plaintiff,
By her attomey,
sf Joseph M. Orlando Jr.
Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., Esq
BBO# 680995
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 18 of 32
Joseph M. Orlando, Esq.
BBO #380215
Orlando & Associates
One Wester Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ph. (978) 283-8100
Fx. (978) 283-8507
imorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com
Certificate of Service
I, Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., Esq.
Hereby certify that I have caused
A copy of the foregoing to be
Served upon the Deponent.
Date: 3/25/2024 4s Joseph M. Orlando Jr.
SIGNATURE
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 19 of 32
Schedule A
The deponent is required to produce all documents in his/her possession, custody, or control
responsive to the following requests and categories discoverable and relevant to the instant
litigation. The requests apply to all material in the deponent’s possession, custody, or control
from September 20, 2023-April 30, 2024.
Documents may be submitted via email to SEER
carnold@orlandoassocia
Cera tes.com.
Re cassocrares-CoMm.
The following documents are sought in accordance with the court’s order dated 9/19/2023.
1 All written, tangible, or electronic, communications, including, but not limited to letters. >
emails, text messages, memoranda, notes, agendas, or any other written document by,
between, or inclusive of the deponent and the defendants:
Cynthia Bjorlie,
Nicole Coles,
and Robin Hubbard.
All meeting notices, notes, or agendas for any meeting which included the deponent and
any of the defendants.
All written communication, including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, letters,
social media private messages, social media posts, which include the following search
terms:
Concetta or Connie Orlando;
Criminal Illegalities;
Criminal Enterprise;
Voter Fraud;
Tax Fraud;
Crime Family;
Ashley Sullivan.
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 20 of 32
EXHIBIT C
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 21 of 32
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT
2377CV00627
CONCETTA ORLANDO,
Plaintiff
v.
RECEIVED
CYNTHIA BJORLIE; NICOLE COLES, and
ROBIN HUBBARD MAY 24 2024
Defendants
ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES
AFFIDAVIT OF KELLY SECREST
lam anonparty witness in the above-captioned case.
In response to the Plaintiff’s 1* Subpoena duces tecum { have withheld 27 pages pursuant
to the Attorney / Client and trial preparation (work product) privileges.
T have additionally withheld 3 pages of responsive text messages that are irrelevant to this
current matter in any way, and the contents within are embarrassing to the sender based
on their references to unrelated matters.
Notwithstanding the withheld communications described above, all of the responsive
materials to the Plaintiff's 1 Subpoena duces tecum request that are in my custody,
possession, or control have been produced to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Iam withholding no other materials responsive to the Plaintiff's 1° Subpoena duces
tecum request.
Attached is a true and accurate log of the materials withheld pursuant to the above
described privileges.
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS 23rd DAY OF
MAY, 2024
—
Kelly Secrest
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM
Superior Court - Essex
Docket Number 2377CV00627
Page 22 of 32
Kelly Secrest Privilege Log
Nature of the Document The Creator(s) The Recipent(s) The Date The Nature of Privilege Claimed Pages
Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest Attorney 6/28/2023} Attorney Client
Text Message Kelly Secrest Attorney 6/28/2023} Attorney Client
Email (copied 4 times) Kelly Secrest Attorney 7/27/2023} Attorney Client
Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest [Attorney 7/31/2023} Attorney Client
Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest Attorney 8/11/2023} Attorney Client
Email ‘Clayton Sova Kelly Secrest 8/22/2023) TriaVLitigation Prep
Steven Sexton
Buddy Hobbs
Irene Frontiero
Email Robin Hubbard Mary Pat De Rosa 8/31/2023) TriaULitigation Prep
Cynthia Bjorlie
Buddy Hobbs
Kelly Secrest
{rene Frontiero
\Clayon Sova
Email Clayton Sova ‘Mary Pat De Rosa
Preview
Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 82 Page 1 of 32 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT Concetta Orlando, Plaintiff Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627 Cynthia Bjorlie Nicole Coles Robin Hubbard Defendants PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO SOVA’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S 28 SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO SOVA’S “PRIVILEGE LOG” Now comes the plaintiff, and respectfully opposes the Consolidated Motion to Quash Plaintiff's 2"4 Subpoena and for Protective Order, filed by non party Clayton Sova(Doc. 78). Plaintiff also opposes and objects to the content of Sova’ 39 ‘privilege log’(Doc. 73) which includes non-privileged documents. The plaintiff opposes Mr. Sova’s consolidated motion on the following bases: He previously identified 139 documents responsive to the properly served 1‘ subpoena upon him, which he now, suddenly, pleads that he and his counsel have decided are not “responsive” or related to this litigation. Sova’s claims in his motion and his affidavit are not credible, based upon his contradictory prior statements, and, the “privilege logs” provided by other non-party witnesses-including Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, claiming that there have been communications between the non party witnesses in this matter, which Mr. Sova does not disclose in his own privilege log. The 2" subpoena served upon Sova was in line with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order, only updated in time. As such, it is not overly broad or vague. Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 2 of 32 As grounds therefore, the plaintiff refers this Honorable Court to her Memorandum of Law, filed contemporaneously herewith. Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff by her Attorneys, /s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr. JOSEPH M. ORLANDO JR. ESQ. BBO #680995 JOSEPH M. ORLANDO, ESQ. BBO #380215 Orlando & Associates 1 Western Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Ph: 978-283-8100 Fx: 978-283-8507 imorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. attorney for the plaintiff herein, certify that I served the foregoing to counsel for the defendants: Counsel for Defendants: William E. Gens, Esq. Gens & Stanton P.C. 12 Ericsson Street 2" Floor Boston, MA 02122 billgens@genslawoffices.com Counsel for Maybury and Sova: Elena Pavlou, Esq. 1911 Crosstown Carriage Way #201 Tampa, FL 33619 Elenapav1@outlook.com Bryan R. Colella, Esq. 12 Eriesson Street 2" Floor Boston, MA 02122 beolella@brclawoffice.com On this 3 day of June, 2024. ¢s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. 2 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 3 of 32 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT Concetta Orlando, Plaintiff Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627 Cynthia Bjorlie Nicole Coles Robin Hubbard Defendants PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SOVA’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S 28° SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO SOVA’S “PRIVILEGE LOG” Now comes the plaintiff, and submits the within Memorandum of Law. Factual Background On 11/30/2023, Clayton Sova served upon Plaintiff's counsel a partial production of discovery in response to the 1 subpoena served upon him, subject to the Court’s 9/19/2023 order. His cover letter with this production read as follows: “Jtems that contain either attorney client privileged information, political trade secrets, may cause embarrassment, or are irrelevant or unrelated to the matter have been retained-139 items.” (Exhibit A: Sova Cover letter dated 11/30/2023). On 4/1/2024 Clayton Sova, a non-party witness in this litigation, was served with a 2" Subpoena for Documents by the Essex County Sheriff’s Department (Exhibit B: Return of Service of Subpoena). The Schedule A attached to the Keeper of Records Deposition stated: “the following documents are sought in accordance with the court’s order of 9/19/2023.”(Exhibit B). On 4/23/2024, Sova filed an ex parte motion to quash the 2" subpoena(Doc. 43). On 4/25/2024, Sova filed an ex parte motion to impound the documents, presumably in response to the subpoena served on him (Doc. 48). Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 4 of 32 Neither document 43 nor 48 were served upon plaintiff's counsel. On 5/24/2024, non party witness Kelly Secrest served a “privilege log” upon plaintiff’s counsel, in response to the court’s 5/17/2024 order. Ms. Secrest’s log includes 8 emails which include Sova, which Mr. Sova subsequently did not list in his Privilege log. (Exhibit C: Privilege Log of Kelly Secrest) 10. On 5/24/2024, Mr. Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, served a “Privilege Log” as to the 1* subpoena, upon plaintiffs counsel. 11 Ms. Frontiero listed 9 emails which include Sova, which Mr. Sova subsequently did not list in his Privilege log(Exhibit D: Privilege Log of [rene Frontiero). 12 On 5/27/2024, Sova filed a “Privilege log”(Doc. 73) regarding the 1** subpoena which had been served upon him in July of 2023 and subject to the court’s order of 9/19/2023 and 5/17/2024(Doc. 68). 13 Sova lists an email between himself and his wife, Irene Frontiero, which he claims is privileged under the “trial/litigation preparation” privilege. 14 Sova also includes the following: “There were additionally 139 pages of materials that were inadvertently flagged as responsive by Mr. Sova while pro se that ultimately were not. These materials were not produced and were not included in the above log.”(Doc. 73). 15 On 5/29/2024, plaintiffs counsel emailed Sova’s counsel, and wrote the following: “It is truly stunning how 139 documents from Mr. Sova, somehow are now not responsive to Judge Barrett's order.”(Exhibit E: Email Orlando to Paviou 5/29/2024). Legal Standard Work Product Privilege: To the best that the plaintiff can surmise, the alleged “Trial/Litigation Preparation” asserted by Sova is akin to the work product privilege, which applies to attorneys’ work, not emails between non-party, unrepresented individuals in a litigation: The work product doctrine is intended to enhance the vitality of an adversary system of litigation by insulating counsel's work from intrusions, inferences, or borrowings by other parties as counsel prepares for the contest. McCarthy v. Slade Assocs.. 463 Mass. 181. 182. 972 N.E.2d 1037, 1040. 2012 Mass, LEXIS 693. *1. 2012 WL 3207225 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 5 of 32 The work product privilege applies to the mental impressions of an attorney: The work product privilege announced in Hickman v. Taylor protects written statements and mental impressions contained in the mind of the attomey while the attorney-client privilege protects only communications between the attorney and his client. Most importantly, the lawyer holds the work product privilege, whereas the client holds the attorney-client privilege exclusively. McMillan v. Westport Ins. Corp.. 2004 Mas uper, LEXIS 657, *1. 19 Mass. L. Rep. 55, 2004 WL, 3106733(Emphasis Added) Despite the fact that Sova failed to produce a “Privilege Log” that was complete, in that other non party witnesses listed emails by and between Sova which he did not list in his own privilege log, he also asserts a privilege that is not available to him. Scope of Discovery: The scope of discovery under the M.R.C.P. 26 states that parties may obtain discovery on any matter which is not privileged, as long as it is related to the subject matter of the litigation. A deponent may not oppose the properly-served subpoena for discovery on the basis of whether it will ultimately be admissible at trial or not.' When a subpoena is properly served upon a non- party, the party is required by M.R.C.P. 45(a) to produce the requested documents by the time and place designated.” Witnesses are required to produce documents as requested in a properly- served subpoena, for all documents in their possession, custody, and control as of the date on which they are served with said subpoena, and the witness MAY NOT destroy the documents following the receipt of said subpoena. Judge’s order compelling discovery to be produced is non-appealable, absent the assertion of a privilege. Issuing a Protective Order: Sova’s motion does not plead sufficient cause to protect him from production of discoverable documents responsive to the 2"4 subpoena served upon him: Court must exercise its discretion as it would if the issue were posed in the context of a motion for a protective order. And there the Court in the exercise of its sound discretion 'MLR.CP, 26(b)(1) ? Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure 45(a) 3 Application of O'Brien, 403 Mass. 1005 (Mass..1988) 5 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 6 of 32 fashions a remedy to protect the producing party from the risks associated with disclosure of the information or material. The object is to shield the party or person from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c). The party or person requesting relief must demonstrate "good cause." Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As stated, the Rule 26(c) exercise is similar to that where the issue is impoundment. See Ottaway, supra at 546 and Gere, supra at 329. Labbe v. Home Depot USA, Inc.. 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 113. *10-11. 22 Mass. L. Rep. 310. Sova’s motion bases his request for a protective order on another litigation which he is involved in, which was filed on May 7, 2024(Essex Superior Court, Clayton Sova v. William Galvin, Secretary of State, 2477cv00443). The 2" subpoena served upon Sova, from which he seeks protection, was served upon him on 4/1/2024(Exhibit B: Return of Service), more than one month before he filed suit. That litigation’s existence does not provide the requisite good cause to protect him from production in the instant litigation, in which he was identified as an essential witness at the time that suit was filed, on 6/26/2023. Argument L Sova Lacks Credibility on the Issue of 139 Pages of Documents In response to Judge Barrett’s order, Sova produced a cover letter to plaintiff's counsel, on which he handwrote that he was holding back 139 pages of documents responsive to the search terms which Judge Barrett had spelled out in his 9/19/2023 order. Clayson Sova rene Frontier RECEIVED Sava Maareze 18 hfous Ortssdo en, PC One W Ge Ph fe0 4 To whos it may concer, This isto contin sour receipt af oo band wore very mia the Cen 1a Odente ierat Ihe sop nego 88 codvetion ond axe thee ce Ie eu that contaia either piv 8th cnet. or ae inrctew nse’ Sine ey Saye. BE. Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 7 of 32 This letter is clear that the 139 pages Sova uncovered after employing the search terms were in his possession, and that he hand-counted them before writing a letter indicating why he felt he did not have to produce them to plaintiff's counsel. Now, conveniently, he and his counsel have pleaded that those pages are suddenly not responsive to the search terms to this litigation and have refused to produce them, nor have they produced a privilege log listing them. Sova and his counsel have simply decided that their representation that they are suddenly not responsive to the search terms of Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order should suffice for plaintiff and the Court. What is problematic about Sova’s argument that suddenly these 139 pages are not responsive to the search terms, is that in order to have derived them originally, Sova would have had to type in the search terms into his email; read them all in order to produce the letter that claimed they weren’t going to be given to plaintiff's counsel despite their responsiveness to the search terms. The Court was clear in the 5/16/2024 hearing, when the Court told Sova’s counsel that she was not willing to change anything about Judge Barrett’s order, and would not entertain further discussions about quashing the 1‘ subpoena: 5/16/2024, 2:57:28 p.m.: Court: Judge Barrett made an order in September 2023. Today I’m going to hear whether or not each of these people are in contempt for failing to comply. If the motion to quash has to do with the documents that were already requested, it is too late, it is untimely, and I will not hear it. We're talking about documents that were already ordered to be produced in September 2023. Are those the documents you’re looking to not produce? 5/16/2023, 3:01:53 p.m. Court: Well, the first subpoena’s out, because it’s too late. Where the Court was clear that Judge Barrett’s order would stand as applied to the 1% subpoena, Sova must produce the documents he previously identified as responsive to the order’s search terms. Neither Sova, nor his counsel, are qualified to determine the relevance of a discoverable documents, yet they are both trying to do so in this pleading. Imagine what would happen in 7 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 8 of 32 litigations if witnesses, or their attorneys, were permitted to decide which documents are “relevant” or “related” to the matter and therefore not producing discoverable documents to the opposing party. Mr. Sova should be compelled to produce the 139 pages of documents he previously identified as responsive to the search terms of Judge Barrett’s order, and the issue of relevance or relatability to this litigation should be left for the Court at the time of trial. As such, Sova’s motion should be denied. Il. Sova Omits Several Emails which Other Non Party Witnesses Identified, and Claims Privileges he is not Entitled To Sova contradicts his previous written statements in regards to the 139 pages of documents he withheld from his production in response to the 1% subpoena served upon him, and Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order outlining search terms. The “Privilege Log” he produced also lists emails which he claims are protected by virtue of the “Trial/Litigation Preparation” privilege, which is actually non-existent. The work product privilege is the closest thing to that descriptor, and Sova is not entitled to protection by it, because he is not an attorney, nor is he in this litigation as a party. The case law as quoted above is clear on that point. Additionally, non party witnesses Kelly Secrest, and Mr. Sova’s wife, Irene Frontiero, list several emails which included Sova on their privilege logs. Secrest and Frontiero falsely claim privileges on these emails which are not available to them. Nevertheless, their disclosure of the existence of these emails demonstrates that Sova’s “privilege log” is incomplete. He did not list the same emails in his own log as were identified by other non-party witnesses. As such, even his privilege log is incomplete and not in compliance with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order, nor the Court’s 5/17/2024 order(Doc. 68). Sova’s motion should be denied, and he should be compelled to produce ALL emails with non- parties responsive to the search terms in the 9/19/2023 order. Hil. 2" Subpoena Should Not be Quashed nor Limited from Judge Barrett’s Order The 2"4 subpoena served upon Sova was in line with Judge Barrett’s 9/19/2023 order, only updated in time from 9/20/2023-4/30/2024. Judge Barrett’s order and the search terms contained therein were arrived at after motion practice and hearing. As such, the 2 subpoena is not overly 8 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 9 of 32 broad or vague. To the contrary, Judge Barrett limited the scope of plaintiff's Schedule A significantly. The fact that Mr. Sova pleads that employing the search terms contained within the 9/19/2023 order reveals documents related to another litigation which he filed on 5/7/2024, is not good cause to quash the 2™ subpoena nor limit it via a protective order. Rule 26 allows for discovery of non-privileged documents, and, employing the search terms provided by Judge Barrett limits the produced documents to subject matter connected to the instant litigation. There is no risk to Sova of producing same, because his lawsuit against the Massachusetts Secretary of State was filed AFTER service of the 24 subpoena, and, further, that litigation centers on a political dispute regarding the recount of election results-a public topic if ever there was one. As such, Sova’s argument has no privilege protection nor merit, generally. To the extent that employing the search term “Ashley Sullivan” uncovers emails not related to this litigation, then, after review by counsel, the Court will likely deny admission of those documents at trial. However, that is not a decision to be made by Sova at this juncture, when Sova has yet to produce discoverable materials in his possession, custody, and control from the 1* subpoena and court order by Judge Barrett dated 9/19/2023. Moreover, the scope of discovery does not limit it prematurely. “A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action.” Hope v. Double E Corp.. 2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 147. "1. 14 Mass. L. Rep. 528. Where Sova had such an active role with the Defendants over the course of the past year, his email communications via the search terms have more than just a “possibility” of being relevant. That will remain unknown, however, until they are produced and reviewed. Sova’s motion should be denied, and he should be compelled to produce documents responsive to the 2" subpoena from employing the search terms in Judge Barrett’s order. Iv. Conclusion Sova’s consolidated motion is another in a long line of stonewalling tactics employed by Sova in this litigation. His representations can not be relied on, as they are contradictory and proven false by other non-party witnesses in this matter. Further, Sova’s participation in the political world does not insulate him from discovery of his emails; rather, as a public figure, his discussions 9 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 10 of 32 about these matters as responsive to the court’s search terms in this litigation, are highly discoverable and not worthy of protection. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests that this Honorable court deny Sova’s consolidated motion in its entirety. Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff by her Attorneys, /s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr. JOSEPH M. ORLANDO JR. ESQ. BBO #680995 JOSEPH M. ORLANDO, ESQ. BBO #380215 Orlando & Associates 1 Western Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Ph: 978-283-8100 Fx: 978-283-8507 jmorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. attorney for the plaintiff herein, certify that I served the foregoing to counsel for the defendants: Counsel for Defendants: William E. Gens, Esq. Gens & Stanton P.C. 12 Ericsson Street 2" Floor Boston, MA 02122 billgens@genslawoffices.com Counsel for Maybury and Sova: Elena Pavlou, Esq. 1911 Crosstown Carriage Way #201 Tampa, FL 33619 Elenapavl outlook.com Bryan R. Coleila, Esq. 12 Ericsson Street 2"! Floor Boston, MA 02122 10 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 11 of 32 beolella@brclawoffice.com On this 3 day of June, 2024. /s/ Joseph M. Orlando Jr., Esq. W Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 12 of 32 EXHIBIT A Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 13 of 32 Clayton Sova Irene Frontiero RECEIVED 28 Fort Square Gloucester, MA 01930 DEC 6% 2023 T:508-284-3542 ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES 7130/2023 p2 fi feoes Orlando & Associates, PC One Western Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Ph: (978) 283-8100 Fx: (978) 283-8507 To whom it may concern, This is to confirm your receipt of our hand delivered discovery materials re the Concetta Orlando v. Defendants matter at Essex Superior Court. The scope and quantity of the search items requested was so large (over 2000 items) ils production required far more time, effort, expense, and expertise than was anticipated, so much so that the assistance of an IT consultant was required to assist us in accomplishing its production. [tems that contain either attorney client privileged information, political trade secrets, may cause embarrassment. or are irrelevant or unrelated to the matter have been retained. — /39 /téyas, Sincerely, Cla ion Sova bey ZA Iren ntiero eX Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 14 of 32 EXHIBIT B Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 15 of 32 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Subpoena Essex 18S. 1;clayton Sova, 28 Fort Square Gloucester, MA 01930 Bou are herebp commanded, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to appear before the Superior Court at Salem the County of Essex on the 30th day op April in the year 2024 at 10 a.m. am/pm, and from day to day thereafter, until the action hereinafter named is heard by said Court, to give evidence of what you know relating to an action then and there to be heard and tried between Concetta Orlando Plaintiff, and Cynthia Bjorlie, et al » Defendant, docket umber 237 7 CVOOG27 , and you are further required to bring with you See Schedule A, with Notice of Deposition, served with this Subpoena. counsel on or before April 30, 2024. Bereof fail not, as your failure to appear as required will subject you to such pains and penalties as the law provides. pater at Gloucester —_,, 25th cy Vt March in the year 2024 / ‘| Ly fy i A vA La EL Notary Pul —Justicd of the Peace Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 16 of 32 RETURN OF SERVICE Z , certify thatI this day summoned the within named OE Essex County Sheriff's Department, PO BOX 2019, Salem, MA O1970 April 3, 2024 Thereby erfify and return that on 4/1/2024 at 59 AM I served a (nic and alicsted copy of the subpoena, 2nd notice of deposition. and schedule a in this action in (he following manner: 'o wit, by Icaving al the last and usual place of abode of Clayton Sova. 28 Fort Square Gloucester. MA 01930. and by ma ing " class to the above address on 4/2/2024. Attestation fee ($10.00) Basic Service Fee ($20,00) Postage and Handling ($3.00) Total: $33.00 RECEIVED aE APR 06 2028 ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES Nanuty Shariff Andras Ducen pear. Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 17 of 32 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT Concetta Orlando, Plaintiff Vv. Civil Action No. 2377¢v00627 Cynthia Bjorlie Nicole Coles Robin Hubbard Defendants To: Clayton Sova 28 Fort Square Gloucester, MA 01930 auverc@hotmail.com 2") NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Please take notice that on April 30, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of Orlando & Associates, One Western Avenue, Gloucester, Massachusetts, the plaintiff, Concetta Orlando, by her attorneys, pursuant to the applicable Massachusetts Statute, will take the keeper of records deposition of Clayton Sova before a Notary Public or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Further, the deponent is requested to provide those documents listed in Schedule A, attached hereto. DEPONENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR, BUT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ONLY. Plaintiff, By her attomey, sf Joseph M. Orlando Jr. Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., Esq BBO# 680995 Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 18 of 32 Joseph M. Orlando, Esq. BBO #380215 Orlando & Associates One Wester Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Ph. (978) 283-8100 Fx. (978) 283-8507 imorlandojr@orlandoassociates.com Certificate of Service I, Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., Esq. Hereby certify that I have caused A copy of the foregoing to be Served upon the Deponent. Date: 3/25/2024 4s Joseph M. Orlando Jr. SIGNATURE Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 19 of 32 Schedule A The deponent is required to produce all documents in his/her possession, custody, or control responsive to the following requests and categories discoverable and relevant to the instant litigation. The requests apply to all material in the deponent’s possession, custody, or control from September 20, 2023-April 30, 2024. Documents may be submitted via email to SEER carnold@orlandoassocia Cera tes.com. Re cassocrares-CoMm. The following documents are sought in accordance with the court’s order dated 9/19/2023. 1 All written, tangible, or electronic, communications, including, but not limited to letters. > emails, text messages, memoranda, notes, agendas, or any other written document by, between, or inclusive of the deponent and the defendants: Cynthia Bjorlie, Nicole Coles, and Robin Hubbard. All meeting notices, notes, or agendas for any meeting which included the deponent and any of the defendants. All written communication, including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, letters, social media private messages, social media posts, which include the following search terms: Concetta or Connie Orlando; Criminal Illegalities; Criminal Enterprise; Voter Fraud; Tax Fraud; Crime Family; Ashley Sullivan. Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 20 of 32 EXHIBIT C Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 21 of 32 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT 2377CV00627 CONCETTA ORLANDO, Plaintiff v. RECEIVED CYNTHIA BJORLIE; NICOLE COLES, and ROBIN HUBBARD MAY 24 2024 Defendants ORLANDO & ASSOCIATES AFFIDAVIT OF KELLY SECREST lam anonparty witness in the above-captioned case. In response to the Plaintiff’s 1* Subpoena duces tecum { have withheld 27 pages pursuant to the Attorney / Client and trial preparation (work product) privileges. T have additionally withheld 3 pages of responsive text messages that are irrelevant to this current matter in any way, and the contents within are embarrassing to the sender based on their references to unrelated matters. Notwithstanding the withheld communications described above, all of the responsive materials to the Plaintiff's 1 Subpoena duces tecum request that are in my custody, possession, or control have been produced to Plaintiff’s counsel. Iam withholding no other materials responsive to the Plaintiff's 1° Subpoena duces tecum request. Attached is a true and accurate log of the materials withheld pursuant to the above described privileges. SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2024 — Kelly Secrest Date Filed 6/4/2024 9:29 AM Superior Court - Essex Docket Number 2377CV00627 Page 22 of 32 Kelly Secrest Privilege Log Nature of the Document The Creator(s) The Recipent(s) The Date The Nature of Privilege Claimed Pages Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest Attorney 6/28/2023} Attorney Client Text Message Kelly Secrest Attorney 6/28/2023} Attorney Client Email (copied 4 times) Kelly Secrest Attorney 7/27/2023} Attorney Client Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest [Attorney 7/31/2023} Attorney Client Email (copied twice) Kelly Secrest Attorney 8/11/2023} Attorney Client Email ‘Clayton Sova Kelly Secrest 8/22/2023) TriaVLitigation Prep Steven Sexton Buddy Hobbs Irene Frontiero Email Robin Hubbard Mary Pat De Rosa 8/31/2023) TriaULitigation Prep Cynthia Bjorlie Buddy Hobbs Kelly Secrest {rene Frontiero \Clayon Sova Email Clayton Sova ‘Mary Pat De Rosa