You are on page 1of 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

VOLUME: 1 of 1 PAGES: 1 - 80 EXHIBITS: 0 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS. JOANNA MARINOVA ) ) V. ) ) BOSTON HERALD, INC., ) Et al ) SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO: SUCV2010-01316 MOTION HEARING September 22, 2011

Before the Honorable Justice Brassard APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: David H. Rich, Esquire Todd & Weld 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 For the Defendant, Boston Herald, Inc.: Elizabeth Ritvo, Esquire Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP 1 Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 For the Defendant, WHDH TV, Inc.: Michael T. Gass, Esquire Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 Proceedings Recorded by Electronic Sound Recording, Transcript produced by Approved Court Transcriber Pamela Borges DosSantos, Notary Public Massachusetts and New York Approved Court Transcriber PBH Paralegal & Transcription Services 460 County Street New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 996-3898 Fax (508)996-2403

1-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DISCLAIMER

--

Interrupted speech, unfinished sentences, or

lengthy pauses are designated by two [2] dashes where the interruption occurs. Resumption of interrupted speech is also indicated by two dashes.

Brackets are also used to designate transcriber

comments. For example the words [END OF SIDE ONE, TAPE ONE], [SIDEBAR], etc., are shown in brackets as they are transcriber comments and not part of the actual litigation audio record.

When the transcriber is unable to ascertain a spoken word or words, the word is typed as it sounds phonetically followed by the word phonetic in brackets.

If a speaker uses a term or word that is known to be incorrect, the term shall be typed as spoken followed by sic in brackets after the term or word.

1-3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

[Case called at 2:26:09 p.m.] MR. RICH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is David

Rich, Todd & Weld, and I represent the Plaintiff. THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Rich. Yes, ma'am?

MS. DELUHERY: THE COURT:

And Megan Deluhery also for the Plaintiff.

And your last name is Deluhery, maam? Yes. Ms. Deluhery, okay. Yes, ma'am?

MS. DELUHERY: THE COURT: MS. RITVO:

Okay.

Elizabeth Ritvo representing the Boston Herald

and Jessica Van Sack, Defendant. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Okay. With me is Nathan Forster. Mr. Forster, okay. Good afternoon.

MR. FORSTER: THE COURT: MR. GASS:

And yes, sir? Your Honor, Michael Gass, from Choate Hall and

Stewart, representing Channel 7 and Anita Christy with me. THE COURT: MR. GASS: THE COURT: much. MR. GASS: a moving -THE COURT: MR. GASS: I was about --- We are not involved in the Motion here -And just to make clear, Your Honor, we are not That's Mr. Gass and Ms. Christy. G-A -- two s's as in Sam. Okay. Alright, folks. Well, thanks very

1-4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MR. GASS: THE COURT:

-- to ask you that, Mr. Gass. -- today. My understanding is youre a Co-Defendant but

not a moving party today. MR. GASS: THE COURT: us. Today, correct. Alright. Well, we're glad to have you with The filings in the And I would

Counsel, have a seat there for a sec.

case have been extensive and I have reviewed them.

like to set out on the record here -- of course, we are on the record -- the basic facts that bring us to this Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Boston Herald and Ms. Van Sack. I know the case begins with the Plaintiff, Ms. Marinova working at a non-profit organization in 2008 and in connection with that work she met, at the Old Colony Correctional Center, an inmate whose name is Daryl Jones. Mr. Jones had been

involved in the production of a video entitled, "Voices from Behind the Wall", while he was incarcerated at Old Colony and it was his wish to do a follow on video to the one he had already done. He apparently contacted Ms. Marinovas

organization to learn whether it might assist him and it agreed to do that. Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones worked together on this followup video and certain other projects. Apparently they developed

a close relationship and eventually became involved with one another.

1-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In May of 2009, Mr. Jones informed Ms. Marinova of several alleged abuses at Old Colony targeting inmates who had been involved in the first video. Ms. Marinova passed along this

information to Mr. Mel King, who was a fellow member of a Prison Reform Advocacy Group called In the Odds. Mr. King then

called State Representative Gloria Fox to ask her to visit Mr. Jones and gather information about these alleged abuses. Representative Fox agreed to meet with Mr. Jones. Two days before the representatives visit, Ms. Marinova contacted Old Colony to schedule a visit with Mr. Jones. Mr.

Jones had just recently been placed in the special management unit, also known as the segregation unit at the institution. Department of Correction visitor scheduling log for the SMU shows that the DOC approved Ms. Marinovas visit and reflects that Representative Fox will be accompanying her alo -- on that visit. On the day in question, 7 May, Ms. Marinova gave Representative Fox a ride to the prison, the state representative not driving a car. When they arrived, they went A

into the visitors lobby where Ms. Marinova presented her drivers license to the guards. The representative and Ms. They

Marinova were asked some questions about contraband. denied having any such items.

Without further effort to search

them, they passed through a metal detector and entered the prison itself.

1-6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

They approached the entrance of the secure area and were met there by the Superintendant of the institution, Steven OBrien. He and a Captain Kenneth Iola escorted them to the The superintendant did not

SMU in order to meet Mr. Jones.

inquire who Ms. Marinova was, but, because she was with Representative Fox, he assumed that he -- that she was Representative Foxs aide. When they arrived at the SMU, the representative and Ms. Marinova were showed into an interview room. Mr. Jones was

escorted into an adjoining room, the two rooms being separated by a barred somewhat small window. and shackles. Mr. Jones was in handcuffs

Shortly after Ms. Marinova and the

representative were seated, a sergeant on duty, Brian Schwenk told the superintendant that Ms. Marinova was Mr. Joness girlfriend. This immediately prompted the superintendant to call Ms. Marinova out into the hall and he asked her some questions at that location. He asked whether she had visited Mr. Jones The superintendant then

before and she replied that she had.

decided that Ms. Marinova should not continue to participate in the visit and he asked Officer Graham Trout to bring or escort Ms. Marinova back through the facility to the visitors lobby. They did that and Ms. Marinova waited in the lobby for Representative Fox to conclude her meeting with Mr. Jones and this took some four hours to accomplish, the meeting that is.

1-7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

It appears that Ms. Marinova did not inform Representative Fox that the inmate they were going to visit was her boyfriend. The representative denies ever referring to Ms. Marinova as her aide or intern. And the lobby to which Ms. Marinova was

escorted is technically or strictly speaking outside of the institution itself. After Ms. Marinova had left the SMU, the superintendant checked Mr. Joness prison records to see who Ms. Marinova was, and at that time he saw a disciplinary report dated November 2008 which related to Mr. Jones. The report indicated that Mr. Number one, Number two, And

Jones had been charged with three offenses. engaging in sexual acts with another person.

refusing a direct order by a member of the prison staff.

number three, conduct which disrupts the normal operations of the prison facility or unit. A disciplinary report contained a narrative description of the incident that prompted these three charges. That narrative

says that on November 29th, while on duty in the visiting room, a Corrections Officer, David Hockey or Hokey, observed inmate Daryl Jones kissing his visitor, identifying Ms. Marinova as that visitor at 4:25 p.m. and placing his hands on her leg at 4:44 p.m. The narrative reports that this was in violation of The narrative

the rules and regulations of the visiting room.

further reports that the inmate had been given a verbal warning the day before, on the 28th of November, about the same

1-8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

behavior, namely placing his hands on the same visitors leg as well as his kissing her hands and her rubbing her hands over his face. The report further points out that inmate Jones had received a verbal warning about a week ago. Approximately, it

would appear, November 22, concerning his hand on the same visitors thigh. The report notes that Mr. Jones was found

guilty of the second charge, refusing a direct order by a staff member, but further notes that the first and third charges had been dismissed. Once he read this disciplinary report and confirmed that Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones new one another, the superintendant became concerned that there could have been some sort of a security breach when Ms. Marinova came to the SMU. Accordingly, the superintendant placed a call to his superior, the Deputy Commissioner of the DOC, James Bender. Deputy Commissioner

Bender was not available, so the Superintendant gave a report to the Deputy Commissioners Assistant, Michelle Richard. Ms. Richard recorded the report in an e-mail she sent to the Deputy Commissioner. This e-mail reported that Mr. OBrien

had notified -- had called to notify the Deputy Commissioner that Representative Fox is currently visiting Mr. Jones, an inmate, that she brought with her a woman who signed in as Ms. Marinova, and the e-mail says, Representative Fox told OCC staff that she was part of her -- meaning Representative Foxs

1-9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-- team.

Once inside the facility, the e-mail says a staff

member notified the superintendant that the woman was Mr. Joness girlfriend and the superintendant told her she would have to leave. The e-mail further reports that when Mr. OBrien checked his records he discovered that Ms. Marinova had visited Mr. Jones on some 20 occasions since February, that in addition Mr. Jones had received a disciplinary report on 29 November of 08 for excessive kissing/touching his visitor. The e-mail

concludes an important part that the superintendant informed Ms. Richard that since Ms. Marinova was in the room with Representative Fox and Mr. Jones, the inmate would be carefully searched at the conclusion of the visit. After making this report to the Deputy Commissioner and after Representative Fox left the prison, the superintendant ordered the guards to search Mr. Jones as well as the area where Mr. Jones and Representative Fox had met. found. Nothing was

Captain Ayala, pursuant to the ordinary practice of the

DOC, drafted an incident report which reports, in relevant part, that on 7 May at about 3:15 he was instructed by another person to escort Representative Fox and her assistant to the segregation unit to speak to Mr. Jones. He reports that these

persons were not searched, but merely asked if they had any item which could be contraband. They signed the entrance log. They were escorted to the

1-10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

unit by the superintendant and himself.

They were seated. Moments later

Jones was seated in an adjacent holding area.

Sergeant Schwenk said that he believed that the Representatives Assistant was the inmate's girlfriend. This

was confirmed by another officer who had seen Ms. Marinova previously. With this information, the superintendant directed The

Ms. Marinova be escorted out of the institution.

representative expressed the wish that she wanted her assistant, and Im quoting, "to stay", however, Ms. -- Mr. OBrien said that because she sees -- meaning Ms. Marinova -the inmate on a social level, that that visit would only being appropriate in the visiting room. The report of the captain indicates that Ms. Marinova left without incident. The representative remained in the interview And it concludes by pointing out

room until about 7:30 p.m.

that the superintendant and himself then escorted her out of the facility without incident. It concludes that Mr. -- pardon

me -- that Ms. -- Representative Fox was met in the lobby by Ms. Marinova and they left together. A couple a days after all of this, on 11 May, Ms. Van Sack, a reporter for the Boston Herald, apparently received a tip informing her of the May 7 visit and she began an investigation. The record seems to indicate that she spoke

with three confidential sources, including two such sources at the Department of Correction. Secondly, that she obtained

1-11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

copies of the November 2008 disciplinary report.

Third, that

she obtained a copy of the SMU visitor's scheduling log. On 28 May, an article about this May 7th visit was published in the newspaper. The front page of the paper

contained a bold large print headline saying, and I quote, "Fox in the big house apool -- or appall -- probed for slipping killers gal pal into prison". Within the body of the newspaper

there was a further headline, "Sources: Fox aided beau in prison visit with killer." The article followed. I have read

the article on several occasions as I know all of you have. In March of 2010, Ms. Marinova filed this lawsuit against the Boston Herald and Ms. Van Sack as well as other Defendants not active in todays Motion. The lawsuit proceeds on three

counts, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. alleged defamatory portions of the article focus on three sentences or parts of three sentences. The first being that State Representative Gloria Fox is under state scrutiny for allegedly sneaking a murderer's girlfriend previously bagged for engaging in sexual acts with a killer con into a state prison in Bridgewater the Herald has learned. The second alleged defamatory statement reads, but Fox and the woman were bagged by a vigilant guard who recognized the aide as Joness girlfriend, a woman previously written up for The

1-12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

engaging in prohibited sexual acts in the visitor room with Jones. And the last statement reads, after Marinova was booted from the prison, Fox spent four hours and ten minutes with Jones according to a visitors log. The newspaper and the reporter now move for summary judgment. They make three arguments. First, that each of the

alleged defamatory statements is not capable as a matter of law of a defamatory meaning. Second, that the Plaintiff, Ms.

Marinova, cannot prove that the statements were actionably false. And third, that in any event, the statements are

privileged as fair -- as a fairer report of official government actions and documents. This case has, of course, some procedural aspects to it. Im well aware that its a Summary Judgment Motion. Im well Im

aware of the burdens of the parties on Summary Judgment.

certainly aware that in defamation cases involving the media, that there must be sensitivity in the courts to freedom of the press and the need to take prompt action. And Im also aware

that many of the questions presented, whether something is capable of a defamatory meaning, for example, are questions of law, although they are obviously animatedly tied up with factual nuances. Ive read your memoranda carefully and do not think I would benefit from -- respectfully, from a conventional type

1-13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

argument, which is not an unusual approach.

I take this

approach on most just dispositive motions I address, because I try to prepare in advance. So lets talk about whether these statements are capable of a defamatory meaning and I would like to ask some questions of the parties. I know how the standard is how a reasonable

reader could view the statement, the statement itself and also the context in which the statement appears. So Ms. Ritvo, youll be arguing for the Herald I trust? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Yes, I will, Your Honor. Let me ask you. Why a reasonable reader would

not conclude as follows: That the state representative snuck Ms. Marinova into the institution because she was not otherwise free to come in there because she had been previously caught or bagged engaging in overt sexual conduct, meaning sexual intercourse in the prison visiting room, and that on account of that, she was promptly booted from the prison. reasonable person take that reading? MS. RITVO: Your Honor, I would say that if the reasonable Why wouldnt a

reader looks at the context of the statements, if the reasonable reader looks at what was actually published, if the reasonable reader looks at the entirety of what the article says, the reasonable reader will find that there is a reference in terms of what engaging in sexual acts means. As the court

has noted in its recitation of facts, engaging in sexual acts

1-14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

is in quotations. THE COURT: quotations? MS. RITVO:

What also comes -But what follows from the fact that its in

Because, Your Honor, if you continue to the

end of the article, the penultimate paragraph says, as the court probably has read several times, -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: I have read it several times. -- on November 29th, Jones was cited for,

"engaging in sexual acts with Marinova the day after receiving a warning for the same behavior according to a disciplinary report". THE COURT: Where in the article is there any content or

meaning given to what is meant by sexual acts? MS. RITVO: I would say, Your Honor, that the meaning of

and the significance of the term engaging in sexual acts is the charge, the charge being in the disciplinary report. And I

would suggest to the court that the Herald used the language and used the disciplinary report in the same way that the DOC did, which is, it tells the reader, in the context of the article, several things. That Ms. Marinova was engaged in a

romantic relationship with Daryl Jones, this was known to the DOC because of the disciplinary report, and Ms. Marinova was allowed into a secure area of the prison. And the article

specifically says -- it doesnt say the whole prison, it says into a high security segregation unit of Old Colony. And when

1-15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you put that together, Your Honor, Id respectfully argue that in context, when you look at the focus of the article, which is critically important in this analysis, the article is about Representative Fox bringing in Ms. Marinova into the prison, the fact that a security breach occurred. The purpose of the

article, the focus, was not on the specifics of the -- the conduct on November 29th, it was simply of the fact that Ms. Marinova was known to the institution. And even if the court obviously has gone through the record, if you look in the first instance in terms of why did the disciplinary report even come up, it came up because one of the officers, Officer Schwenk, said that he recalled that Ms. Marinova had been involved in some activity with Mr. Jones in the visiting room. The DOC and the Herald and the article are

all using the disciplinary report, the fact of the disciplinary report, the fact that there was a charge brought that indicated a relationship between Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones. I would

say, Your Honor, that, in context, when you look at the focus of the article, when you look at the entirety of the article, thats what a reasonable reader would find. THE COURT: Your argument reduces to the disciplinary

report was referred to only to document that the two were romantically involved. MS. RITVO: And that because of that it was knowledge that

the DOC had and yet Ms. Marinova was able to come into the

1-16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

secure area into the segregation unit and that that was a security breach, correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: you, Ms. Ritvo. The other side is -- Well, let me say this to It appears to me that that there were a number

of -- Im not sure what the plural of focus is -- focuses of the article, and let me get your thoughts on this. Again, with

a reasonable reader type of a context, it seems to me that to borrow from some of the language of defamation law, that the sting or gist of the article reached a number of people. of all, the state representative. Secondly, the prison First

officials, who the article suggests permitted some sort of a unusual transfer of Mr. Jones the next day. Third, Mr. Jones,

himself, in terms of his past conduct and possible violation of prison rules about visitors. And fourth, Ms. Marinova. I

think my question is, wouldnt any reasonable reader read this article and come away with some negative assessments of all four of those groups or individuals? MS. RITVO: The fact that someone -- Ill start with that The fact that a reader might have

question and work backward.

a negative assessment is really not the -- is not the standard, because a reader could have a negative assessment from privileged or protected statements, number one. And number

two, I would say that the -- there are facts, what the court has identified are a number of facts in several different areas that are presented in the article, but the overarching theme,

1-17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the over arching focus is, in fact, the security breach at the prison. Thats the -- Thats what the lead of the story is,

that shes under state scrutiny for sneaking a girlfriend into a secure facility. THE COURT: But does a focus or a lead, even if you are

correct factually about how to read this article, does a focus or a lead provide a license, if you will, to not be too worried about the accuracy or the defamation of collateral matters? MS. RITVO: Of course not, Your Honor. I would say,

however, that the focus of an article determines -- and we have cited cases in our brief, where the -- when you look at the focus of an article, the editorial choices that are made. was not an article about Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones. This

It wasnt

an article about the discipline -- the conduct and the disciplinary proceeding that followed from their conduct in November of 2008. a prison. It was an article about a security breach at

When you look at the focus for that purpose, then

the courts have recognized that the press has the right, the protection to write the article that it intends to write with the focus that it intends to write, not to include what sometimes is called exculpatory language. And I would also note, Your Honor, that in this case, in the sur-reply, Ms. Marinova has said that shes not suing based on omissions from the article, she said shes suing on what the article itself said. And so the idea of what else may or --

1-18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

could or could not have been included in the article I think they have conceded theyre not suing on. THE COURT: The other side is gonna tell me, perhaps

orally, what it put in some of its papers and Id like to get your response to this quoting from a decision. not so much who was aimed at, as who was hit? MS. RITVO: concerning. Yes, that often comes up Your Honor, in of and The question is

I mean, that language comes from the case there's

a -- deal with the element of defamation, which is whether a publication is of and concerning the Plaintiff. The relevance

of that to this argument is solely as to the statement which weve argued they actually didnt claim was -- they were suing upon, which is whether or not the sneaking statement they had claimed was a subject of their defamation claim. But the of

and concerning standard, and courts do say it doesnt matter who aim at, who you -- is -- who you hit, is, in this case, we would say as to the sneaking allegation and it's relevant, Your Honor, to no other allegation in the case. Its that when you

look at the language and the context of the article, it all focuses on Representative Fox. Representative Fox is under State scrutiny for allegedly sneaking her in, thats in the opening paragraph. If you look

at the caption under the photograph, under scrutiny, Representative Gloria L. Fox right allegedly helped Marinova visit her boyfriend in the high security segregation unit of

1-19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Old Colony.

Again, the front page, the headline is not in dis But that too focuses on The of and concerning

-- in play in this litigation.

Representative Fox being probed herself.

argument as to the sneaking statement, I would say it is of and concerning Representative Fox. THE COURT: But one could just as easily say it was of and

concerning Ms. Marinova. MS. RITVO: Respectfully, Your Honor, I would say no.

When -- You have to look at -- And thats the balance of looking at the principles that all the courts recite, we recite, and youve recited in decisions, which is, you look -you read a statement in context, you look at the totality of the article, youre not allowed to parse -- you know, take statements out of context, look at them in isolation, but you do have to come back to the statement as it was published. And

here, the fact that someone might make an argument, I think, is not the standard. The standard is looking at the text in

context and here, as to the sneaking allegation, it is really the focuses on Representative Fox being under scrutiny. the one who was the -- it says shes under scrutiny for allegedly sneaking Ms. Marinova in, thats the focus. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Was Ms. Marinova ever bagged for anything? Was she -- She was cited, Your Honor, in the The -Shes

disciplinary report for engaging in intimate conduct. THE COURT: You mean she was mentioned?

1-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO: report on -THE COURT: Ritvo? MS. RITVO: THE COURT:

No -- Shes mentioned in the disciplinary

Cited is sort of a legal term, isnt it, Ms.

I would -Doesnt it generally mean youre accused and

you must defend yourself? MS. RITVO: court has. People can be cited as their cases that the

People can be cited, people can be arrested, that Simply the fact of there have

doesnt mean they did anything. been cited -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT:

But there -- But no --- and in the fair report --- But no formal action or even informal

action was ever brought against Ms. Marinova. MS. RITVO: doesnt say that. THE COURT: it? MS. RITVO: It says that -- Actually, it says, Your Honor, Well, cited would seem to imply that, wouldnt Thats correct, Your Honor, and the article

that Daryl Jones was cited. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Okay. Well, how about --

Daryl Jones was cited. -- bagged? What was she bagged for?

She was named in the visiting room, she was

1-21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

identified as engaging in sexual activities -- sexual acts with Mr. Jones. And I believe in the record, Your Honor, theres

reference to the fact that within the DOC, thats the only charge that there is that can be assigned to this kind of conduct. offenses. THE COURT: What about written up, doesnt that carry a Theres a list of offenses and this is one of the

clear legal sort of implication that she was charged? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: I would say no, Your Honor. Again, shes --

What was the term written up mean in common

parlance to a reasonable reader? MS. RITVO: I would say written up means, if you look at

in the context of the disciplinary report, she is con -- she is in the disciplinary report in which Daryl Jones is cited. THE COURT: But doesnt that sort of blink reality, Ms.

Ritvo, when people use the expression, I will write you up, or he was written up, dont we all understand that to mean, at a minimum, called on the carpet and more likely formally accused of something in some sort of setting, corporate, business, legal, military? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: I guess I wouldnt -Youd say it just refers to the fact that your

name appears in a writing? MS. RITVO: Well, that certainly is true in terms of the But I would also say that you

fair report privilege argument.

1-22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

have to look at the context in which this was used.

And I

think the court's questions go more towards taking this sentence perhaps one paragraph and not looking at the entire context of the article. THE COURT: What about the term, sexual acts? Is it fair,

do you think, to include kissing someone on the hands or even on the face, or touching someones leg, is it fair to include those as sexual acts, do you think? MS. RITVO: The fact is, Your Honor, that John Poulin, who

assigned the charges, assigned those charges to that conduct. Its not that the Herald made this up. Its that someone who

was charged with assigning charges to the conduct that was described believed that that was a charge that applied to the activity -- activities of November 29th, 2008. And I think,

Your Honor, this gets to a -- you know, a point which is certainly discussed in both of the briefs of what does sexual acts mean. And I think again you come back to context and

focus, because sexual acts, in a number of different circumstances, can mean different things. If its taken out of

the context of the Herald article, then Id say it's -- it becomes too vague for it to be capable of defamatory meaning because it could mean anything. THE COURT: And you think a reasonable reader would read

the article and conclude this is a vague term and it really is hard to say exactly what is being suggested?

1-23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

No.

I think a reasonable reader would look at

the statement in context seeing -- reading the entire article, looking at the focus on the security breach, looking on the focus on Representative Fox, looking at the entire article, reading to the end and seeing the reference to the disciplinary report, and would understand that Ms. Marinova was the girlfriend of -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Mm, hmm. -- of Daryl Jones and that she was allowed And, again, this part of

into the secure part of the prison.

the prison, Your Honor, there can be visits in the -- for prisoners in this -- the SMU, but those visits do not take place in the part of the prison where this interview took place. And thats why it was a security breach. Okay. If I could also add, Your Honor, that, you

THE COURT: MS. RITVO:

know, in terms of, you know, in the briefs there certainly has been discussion about a reasonable reader might only read the first sentence or one or two sentences, a reasonable reader wouldnt understand that -- what it means to leave the -- one part of the prison to go to another. I think that that's --

you cannot take -- you know, when you say that statements have to be read in context in the entirety of the article, you cannot -- the courts, you know, have instructed us that you have to read the whole article, a reasonable reader has to read

1-24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the whole article.

The court cant be taking a look at one or

two sentences surrounding alleged defamatory statements and then trying to decide what it means. incorrect request of the court. THE COURT: Well, you'd agree that suggesting that someone I think thats an

or saying that someone engaged in sexual acts in an open area accessible to the public is a crime in Massachusetts -- is reporting a crime? MS. RITVO: In -- If that is in context what was said, I

think there is absolutely no basis, Your Honor, to look at the text of this article and suggest that it stated that Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones engaged in sex in the visiting room of Old Colony. And Id suggest that the court compare what

Channel 7 published, which was that -THE COURT: Well, how about the language, a woman

previously written up for engaging in prohibited sexual acts in the visitor room with Jones? MS. RITVO: Correct, Your Honor. And I would say if you

look at that in the context of the penultimate paragraph, that tells you what it means. That there was a citation for conduct

and that showed that the DOC knew that she was the girlfriend and that it was a breach of security, which caused a potential danger, a security breach to those at the Old Colony facility. THE COURT: Alright. Let me -- Before I turn to issues of

actionable falsehood, let me give Mr. Rich an opportunity to be

1-25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

heard, please. MR. RICH: Sure. Your Honor, I can --Im gonna try and

keep this simple and if you -- if Im going astray of where you want me to go, you feel free to sort of reel me in. to stay very focused. First of all, the Riley vs. Herald case is very clear that while it is true that the issue of whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is initially a question of law, if it is both capable of both a defamatory and a non-defamatory meaning, its a question for the jury to decide. I think this is not even a close call, but the best they can argue is that maybe you can argue it one way and maybe you can argue it another. But here, Your Honor, we dont only have Im trying

inferences, we have actual evidence of how actual readers read, perceived, and understood this article. registered on that -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: Ive read the brief that reports --- And so --- the comments --- And so, you know, this is a situation, Your People signed up and

Honor, where effectively, unless youre gonna strike this evidence, and I dont think theres a basis to strike it, the court would have to ignore how actual readers observed and reviewed and understood this article if holding as a matter of law that no reasonable reader could conclude that the article

1-26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

didnt say that Ms. Marinova was snuck into the prison because she had previously been bagged or caught engaging in sexual acts. Now, break -- if we break it down that Ms. Van Sack testified, bagged to her means caught. It is no longer -- and

Im sliding a little bit into falsity -- but it is -- it -- you -- one cannot say, and one cannot rely upon the penultimate sentence in the para -- in the article and try and refer back to the original paragraph to suggest it says something different than what it says. It says, Ms. Marinova was caught Thats what

engaging in "sexual acts" in the visitors room. it says.

Beside from not being true, the only logical, the

only reasonable inference that one could ever draw from that was just as you laid out. means. Theres no context for what sex acts

It might be something that the DOC knows about, but the

readers of the Boston Herald dont know what "sex acts" are. So they use their common experience as to how those terms are used. You look in the dictionary, sex acts means sexual intercourse. You look at federal law, how that defines sex You look at cases around the

acts, sexual intercourse. country.

We cited in our brief, sex acts is hard core sexual Weve cited the comments. If you

misconduct, sexual behavior.

look at cite fact 109, again, actual evidence in the record, Ms. Marinovas employer was deposed in this case and said I

1-27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

read the article, I thought she had been caught having sex with an inmate in the prisoners visiting room. He went on to

testify that Press Pass TV, the organizations Board of Directors, held a meeting to discuss whether to fire Ms. Marinova because all of their perceptions, observations, and understanding was that she had been caught having sex in the visitors room. So --

And then, of course, theres a letter from Reverend Barry that he wrote complaining to the Boston Herald drawing the exact same conclusion. The Herald would have you disregard all

of that evidence and hold as a matter of law that no reasonable person, no reasonable reader reading this article could conclude that Ms. Marinova had been caught having sex in the visitors room and/or that that wouldnt -- that whole first paragraph and what flows therefrom would not hold Ms. Marinova up to ridicule or scorn in a respected segment of the community. You know, the -- this argument that they make about well, its really about a security breach. And we can talk a little

bit about, you know, Commissioner Clark saying no, its no security breach. The gentleman who runs security saying there

was no security -- but put that all aside, having an article about what they say is one thing doesnt give you license to defame in other things. I couldnt write -- I dont believe

the Boston Herald could write an article about the Red Sox game

1-28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

last night, talk about the game and say, Dustin Pedroia, the Red Sox second baseman who has previously been caught engaging in sexual misconduct, went two for three and hit a double, and the Herald could come in and say, Your Honor, were just talking about the Red Sox game in order to contextualize that Dustin Pedroia played second base for the Boston Red Sox, we can say whatever we want about him. And I do take issue with the fact that this article is about the -- about a security breach. first sentence, read the headlines. Read the lead, read the

Its about Representative

Fox sneaking an individual into a prison, that same individual had -- who had been previously bagged for engaging in sexual acts. Youre exactly right that she wasnt cited for anything, But even if you sort of

she wasnt written up for anything.

allow this argument that Ms. Marinova -- the Jones disciplinary report can be attributed to Marinova, the charged was dismissed. The disciplinary officer, the hea -- the person who

wrote the Correctional Officer Hockey, testified at the disciplinary proceeding there were no sexual acts. The hearing

officer who held the hearing six months before the article was written said, theres no evidence of sexual acts. So, again, I

-- Im good at giving hokey examples, but if the Herald were to report that I had been bagged for robbing a bank, but the Herald at the same time knew that there was a trial, I was acquitted, Im no longer bagged for robbing a bank. Maybe you

1-29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can say I was accused of something, but thats not what they wrote. They made the affirmative factual statement that she

had been caught engaging in sex acts, it's the first sentence of the article. THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: I think I have --I could go on, but --- I think I have your position -Right. I do too.

-- on this issue, counsel. Right. Your Honor, may I respond very briefly to -Very briefly, counsel, please. -- to two points. Yep. Certainly on the issue of the comments,

whether the court strikes them or ignores them, they are -they are not evidence before the court. who these people are, what theyre -THE COURT: Let me address that, counsel. I know you have The court has no idea

a Motion on this and please have a seat, Ms. Ritvo, for a sec. And Ive -- I know, you each have arguments, the Plaintiff urges that these people register, they have to have valid email addresses, they cant be entirely anonymous. The Herald

controls the comments, certainly has the editorial power to not print a comment or make a comment available online. So I know

1-30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

those are the arguments and the Plaintiff also urges that in the Murphy/Herald case that such were permitted by the trial judge. It seems to me the arguments on the other side are also quite strong that these are unreliable because we dont know precisely who wrote them. We dont know exactly what sort of

state of mind the writers may have had, what their purposes might have been. And I acknowledge all of that, and Im not Im

too concerned about it in terms of todays hearing.

comfortable that I can make a ruling on the question of whether these alleged defamatory statements are capable of a defamatory meaning without help from the comments. On balance, I think I will deny the Motion to Strike, but I wanna make it clear that by no means on the limited record before me do I equate a series of comments on an article that may have been read by tens of thousands of people. I dont

think 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 comments reveals or indicates what a reasonable reader would conclude. Im aware, I think, that

theres always some people in life who will think and conclude the very worst about anything and they make highly emotional comments about innocuous -- relatively innocuous items that appear in the newspaper. It also seems to me its a little bit like epidemiology in a sense, if five or six people get sick from a prescription drug that millions of people take, thats probably not enough

1-31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

evidence to suggest that the drug caused a particular harm. But if some critical mass determined by scientists, an epidemiologist, become ill then the experts in that field are much more comfortable in attributing causative effect. There

may be something like that with respect to the reactions of people in the public to a newspaper article. In other words,

it may be relevant evidence at a trial that many witnesses who appear and take an oath speak in a certain way. But for purpose of todays hearing, its not, in my view, a critical issue. Ive read them. I take them with a healthy

dose of concern and skepticism.

I dont know the people who

wrote them or what their thinking was exactly, but they provide some evidence of what apparently some people might have thought. issue. Now, let me turn, ladies and gentleman, please, to the second element. And before I turn to that element, I know So Im happy to leave it there, counsel, on that

theres a burden of proof issue and I know that our law apparently provides that the Plaintiff must dis -- must demonstrate substantial falsity or not substantially true when the publication at issue is -- relates to a matter of public concern. side. I know that the Plaintiff has put forward an argument and its a creative one that because there is so little of If it doesnt, the burden is reversed on the other

1-32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

substance the argument runs to the defamatory material in the article at issue that it cannot be thought to address a matter of public concern. Im not at all sure that the genuineness or

substantial truth of an article relates to whether or not it addresses a matter of public concern. Matters of public

concern are those that can fairly be considered to relate to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. On its face, it seems to me, the article here relates to such concerns. It relates to issue -- or to matters allegedly

taking place in a state prison in a segregation unit involving an elected legislator involving possible issues of impropriety and the like with respect to people coming in to visiting rooms. On its face, I think that relates to a matter of public So I think the burden is on the Plaintiff to

concern.

demonstrate that the offending passages are false or not substantially true. And Im aware that minor inaccuracies dont mean that something is false. The real Governor from the New Yorker

Supreme Court case is whether -- is that a statement is not considered false unless it would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the truth would have produced. So I think the question becomes whether it would

make a difference to a reader, a reasonable reader, if that person knew that Ms. Marinova had not been written up, charged

1-33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with anything, that she had not been found to have committed any wrongful act or bagged for anything, certainly not bagged for engaging in sexual acts. These statements seem to me, Ms. They seem to be false,

Ritvo, to be not substantially true.

but I wanna give you an opportunity to persuade me otherwise. MS. RITVO: Well, again, Your Honor, I agree with most of I would say the test is not substantial

the setup on this.

falsity, thats absolutely not in the case law. THE COURT: And not substantially true is probably a

better way to express it. MS. RITVO: The Plaintiff has to prove that the statements

are false by clearing and convincing evidence. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Right. Thats the Plaintiffs burden. And thats certainly a trial burden. And that should be the burden here on -- I

mean, thats the burden the Plaintiff will have to prove -THE COURT: hearing. MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Okay. Why is it not false to say that she had been Lets assume thats the burden at this

bagged for engaging in sexual acts in the visiting room? MS. RITVO: Again, Your Honor, I would look at this --

somewhat we talked about before in terms of in the argument of whether it was capable of defamatory meaning looking at the

1-34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

context and the focus.

Id also look at the argument of gist And here, if

or sting which certainly relates to the context.

you took the details, if you had reported the details of the disciplinary report, which is that there was a disciplinary report that said she was -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Touching -Touching hand on the thigh, -Yes. -- rubbing hands on the face, -And kissing. -- kissing. Yep. The gist or the sting is, again, that, you

know, inappropriate behavior took place in the visiting room. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: dismissed? MS. RITVO: Theres testimony in the record, Your Honor, Well, -I simply do not believe, Your Honor, --- was it inappropriate? The charge was

which is that Corrections Officer Hawkey thought that it was inappropriate not for children in a -- in the visiting room. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Well, but the hearing -Poulin said it was inappropriate behavior --- and its at least a debatable point, the

hearing officer dismissed the charge.

1-35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

Your Honor, that has to -- The fact that in a

-- Theres no debate in terms of -- And, again, we get perhaps to the fair report privilege, because there it was found that this -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Well get to that, yep. Okay. The conduct that was described is -- I

mean, I dont accept, Your Honor, that saying that -- in context that when she had been -- that Jones was cited for engaging in sexual acts and the other two statements. I dont

-- I submit it is not a reasonable, I think its a strained and tortured interpretation to say that that means she was accused of having sexual intercourse in the visiting room. -THE COURT: The trouble I have with that, Ms. Ritvo, and I I just -- I

wanna be candid with you, is that it seems to me that not only a reasonable reader, but virtually any reader, even a First Amendment lawyer would read that and think this person was involved on some sort of sexual intercourse with this man at the prison. otherwise. I dont know how a reasonable person could think I mean, sexual acts do not, in common language, do

not mean placing a hand on someones leg or -MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: That, however, is the charge --- or kissing someone. -- that is the charge, Your Honor, that people

in prison are charged with, and thats actually what the

1-36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

disciplinor -- disciplinary report revealed.

And when the

court looks at why the disciplinary report was looked at by the people within the DOC and what they actually told each other, they were looking at it because it showed that Jones and Marinova knew each other. THE COURT: It showed --

And a reasonable reader could trace that

series of steps in the Herald article? MS. RITVO: I would suggest, Your Honor, that a reasonable

reader, as the courts have said, that when you say even that someone was arrested, it doesnt mean that they were convicted, it simply means that they were arrested. THE COURT: Thats a well known distinction, but words

like bagged very much muddle that distinction, dont you think? MS. RITVO: I would say, Your Honor, theres nothing in

the article that says that she was convicted, found guilty of anything. It says that Jones was cited and it identifies

Marinova as being the person with whom his conduct occurred. Theres nothing that says Marinova was cited herself. THE COURT: But let me be clear. Do you really contend,

counsel, that its true to say that Ms. Marinova was bagged or caught? MS. RITVO: She is the individual who is identified as

having engaged in the conduct with Mar -THE COURT: Alright, so you think thats true? And you

also think its true to say that she engaged in sexual acts

1-37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with Jones? MS. RITVO: cited for. She was involved in conduct that Jones was

Thats what the article said, Your Honor, and you

cant re -- the context, the fact that it upset Ms. Marinova, if the cases direct the court to look at what actually is published, youre not to be held liable for what you didnt publish, which seems to be somewhat where the court may be going. THE COURT: Okay. The other article, let me ask you about

this as well, while youre addressing these points, please, counsel. It seems to me the booted statement is a much more But the

difficult issue in terms of whether it is false.

statement does suggest, or at least it seems to, that Ms. Marinova was not free to enter the institution because of her former sexual behavior with Jones, that she was thrown out of the institution after she was caught sneaking into the institution. There are, as I count them, four assertions

there, all of which I think are reasonably set out in the article. Number one, that she was not free to enter because

of, two, former sexual behavior; three, that she was thrown out; after four, being caught sneaking in. Only the third one Booted

is arguably accurate, that she was told to leave. carries whether to certain connotation.

Its well removed from

more neutral terms, but is that context, even in that -- even on this booted statement, do you say thats true, counsel?

1-38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

I do.

I mean, in terms of the -- you're I

describing it as, you know, with different connotations.

would say that booted is actually the type of language thats protected which is rhetorical, hyperbole -THE COURT: Even though she was allowed to remain in the

prison for four hours? MS. RITVO: She was -- When you look again at what it

actually says, Your Honor, it says that she was ushered -- they were ushered uncert into an area she would normally have been barred from, a clear security breach according to two sources. And if you look at the paragraph above, its because they were in a high security segregation unit of Old Colony Correctional Center. THE COURT: But the paragraph at issue or the phrase at

issue is she was booted from the prison. MS. RITVO: She was booted from the prison, which is this

-- shes in the visiting room. THE COURT: And you say that the reasonable reader would

understand that to not include the prison? MS. RITVO: A reasonable reader would know that she was

removed from -- When you look at all of it together, it -- she was in a -- an area where she normally wouldnt have been in allowed in. It was a high security segregation unit and I

would suggest to Your Honor, theres no difference in the gist to say that she was booted from the segregation unit than to

1-39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

say she was booted from the prison.

She wasnt supposed to be She was removed as

in the part of the prison that she was in.

soon as it was found out who she was by the superintendant because it was a security risk. I dont think it makes any

difference whether you say she was booted from the SMU or she was booted from the prison. was a security breach. The reason is the same, that it

She would not normally have been And, again, its the context of

allowed into that secure area.

the entire article that tells you that. THE COURT: you. Mr. Rich, this is similar to what you argued previously, did you wanna add anything? MR. RICH: Very very little. You know, the sentence says, It didnt I understand that argument, counsel, thank

after Marinova was booted from the prison, period. say after she was asked -THE COURT: point. MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: Oh, youre right, -Yeah. -- it does say comma. Yeah.

It says comma actually, but I understand your

I think you understand our arguments, they're This is summary judgment. Just --

well set out in the brief.

And youre right, the booted does come sort of closest to --

1-40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

but theres arguments on both sides and, as a matter of law, as a matter of undisputed fact, there is not sufficient evidence in the record from which you can conclude that that statement is not -- is -- that we havent met our burden. THE COURT: I understand your argument as well, Mr. Rich.

Thank you very much. Let me turn to the fair report privilege, counsel. And I

know the -- at least I believe I do, but Ill defer to your knowledge. I know you both work in this field. I understand

that a -- the republication of a defamatory statement subjects the re-publisher to liability just as if it were the original publisher but, importantly to our democracy, we have a fair report privilege that protects a media Defendant who publishes otherwise defamatory material so long as that material is a fair and accurate report of an official action or an official statement. The Hull case, of course, is a leading decision in

our jurisdiction on this issue. I know that theres a four step analysis here whether something is official. It must be formal, it must governmental

as opposed to informal, or non-governmental, or private. However, that includes both public and closed door proceedings of the government. An official statement, though, is not one Nevertheless, it need not be made by

that is made anonymously.

a high ranking official, it could be a relatively low ranking official, or even a non-official third party source.

1-41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The second element is whether the statements were accurate, whether they were substantially correct accounts of the proceedings, or whether they give a reader an erroneous impression of what actually occurred. Relatedly, but somewhat

differently, the statements must be fair, which is taken to mean that they must not be edited in such a way as to misrepresent what occurred and to mislead, or to give an erroneous impression once again. Lastly, the statements must be published without malice. This is a difficult area because we dont have clear cut case law, at least in our jurisdiction as to what malice means. the one hand, we the New York Times v. Sullivan standard of intentional falsehood or reckless disregard for truth or falsity, and on the other hand, we have the common law notion of ill will or an intent to cause injury. One Appeals Court On

decision suggests that repetition of a falsehood with a purpose to do maximum injury would qualify. And I know that the Plaintiff says that it needs to conduct certain discovery which heretofore has been unable to conduct about undisclosed confidential sources of the newspaper and that it needs to conduct that discovery in order to demonstrate possible malice. Let me say at this point, and

without prejudice to anyone, but on the summary judgment record before me as it has been developed to this point, I dont perceive any malice in either the New York Times sense or the

1-42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

common law sense, but that is just an observation to narrow the scope of argument here. I dont make that as ruling of law. I

dont preclude the Plaintiff from trying to demonstrate that at trial, from making efforts to conduct discovery and the like. Id rather focus today only on questions having to do with fair and accurate. I recognize that the newspaper and Ms. Van Sack say that they were addressing a number of official actions, statements, and documents, specifically the disciplinary report of November 2008. Superintendant OBriens report captured in the e-mail

by his assistant to Deputy Commissioner Bender, the report of Captain Ayala, which was a writing, the conduct of Officer Trout, which was an action, and I know those are the predicates and that they all certainly relate to and appear to properly invoke official documents. Im also aware, though, that some

of these documents were not in the hands, apparently, as I understand the facts, of Ms. Van Sack when she wrote her article. She had the disciplinary report, she had the To my knowledge, she did not have To

visitors log of the SMU.

the e-mail from Ms. Richard to Deputy Commissioner Bender.

my knowledge, she did not have the captains incident report. She did have, she says, some confidential sources, but one can only go so far with those and they are not official within the meaning of official actions, or reports, or documents, because they remain anonymous.

1-43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

So, bearing in mind those kinds of issues, I think Id like to first address whether the bagged and written up statements where fair and accurate reports of the disciplinary reports and Superintendant OBriens report. Ms. Ritvo, let me call again on you as the moving party here. Does the disci -- does the article accurately reflect

the disciplinary report, even though it does not, the article that is, say that no action was taken with respect to Ms. Marinova, that the sexual act charge against Mr. Jones was dismissed? Is -- Can it be said to be accurate if -- with

those two omissions? MS. RITVO: If -- I will answer that. May I just respond

to one statement of law that you made, -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Sure. -- Your Honor?

In Howell, the SJC has said that you dont -- for some -for the fair report privilege to apply, the reporter doesnt need to have the record or document that shows that its a fair report of that official action. always a risk. The court cautions that's

You could not -- For example, you could report

on something that happened at a meeting that you werent present at, but as long as what you reported was correct, the fair report privilege covers it. Similarly, if there's a

document that confirms what was published that the reporter didnt have, that doesnt matter as long as the report -- the -

1-44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

- what was reported -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: materials? MS. RITVO: But it doesnt matter, Your Honor, under the But it's undisputed, --- is a fair report. -- isn't it, that she didnt have those

guidance of Howell whether she had it or not as long as her article is a fair report of materials that existed or official statements. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Even though she relied on an anonymous source? That doesnt matter if there are official

statements that, for example, are in records that someone doesnt have, but it turns out what they published was true. The fair report privilege -- or what they published at -THE COURT: So let me get the practical impact. You could

rely on a confidential source and hope that down the road youll find documents they bear you out? MS. RITVO: Yes. I -- If I sat down, I would find the

specific line which in Howell which I can -- but that is a point that the court makes and, in fact, it says -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: And is what I have just said accurate? Correct. It is. It is, because if you look

at the purpose of the fair report privilege, its, you know, allowing if -- if the statement was made by a -THE COURT: Well, it's a fair --

1-45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Ritvo? MS. RITVO:

-- public official --- report of something, though, isnt it, Ms.

But the courts -- Its a fair report of How a reporter -- If I might -

official actions, official statements.

you have a confidential source who tells -- Alright.

- I'm getting the exact -- It is -- The -- It is correct, Your Honor, that if you make a -- if a reporter makes a statement and it turns out that the truth -- the truth of the statement and the truth is not whether its actually true, but whether its a fair and accurate report of official -- an official statement or action. As long as its a fair and accurate

report of what actually occurred, the fair report privilege applies. It doesnt matter that the reporter didnt have that And the court advises that

document in his or her possession. its a risk, you can be wrong.

So, for example, -- I mean the

issue sometimes comes up if somebody makes a report of what happened in a courtroom. Somebody wasnt in the courtroom, but

if theyve accurately reported what was said, a Plaintiff cant go and argue that its a defamatory statement, because you've - you werent there, you didnt hear it. The privilege would

cover the fact that that statement was actually made in court. And, so, I dont think it is -- it shouldnt affect, I think, the courts ruling here except -THE COURT: Im gonna take your word for it, for purposes

1-46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of a hearing. MS. RITVO: THE COURT: No, Im gonna take your word for it, but I Well, if you could give a -- I will be happy -

think it nevertheless needs to be noted that, one, Ms. Van Sack did not have those materials and, two, the sources she relied upon are anonymous at this juncture and therefore could not be an official -- her report could not be of something official. So it seems to me those are substantial issues -MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: We are not relying on --- for you, Ms. Ritvo. -- what her confidential sources said to -Well, then you boil down to Ms. Van Sack had

the visitors log and the disciplinary report. MS. RITVO: But it is also the case, Your Honor, that the

-- OBriens report to Bender as conveyed through his -through Michelle Richard, I submit that the Herald article is also a fair report of his report. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Even though she didnt have it? Thats correct. Yeah. And the protection does apply. Well, Im perfectly happy to analyze the issue

assuming that you are right, although I am not altogether confident that you are.

1-47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

By the time were done, Your Honor, I will

have this citation for you. THE COURT: Well, Im perfectly happy to do it, because I

-- that would be the careful thing to do in this case, I think. So lets look at the disciplinary report for starters. Is what

the article said an accurate reflection of the disciplinary report? MS. RITVO: I would say it is, Your Honor. That in

context of an article on a security breach invol -- at the prison involving Representative Fox, the statements are fair and accurate. Again, the disciplinary report specifically

identified Joanna Marinova as the woman with whom Mr. Jones was cited, "for engaging in sexual acts". disciplinary report almost verbatim. The article tracks the As weve discussed, it

reports that Marinova had a romantic relationship with Jones. Again, there was institutional knowledge of the relationship and that she had access to Jones in the secure area. The fact

that the disciplinary report -- the fact of the disciplinary report was what was material to the focus of the Herald article. Again, and this matters particularly in the fair

report context, that this was not an article about the disciplinary proceeding and it was not an article about Mr. Jones. And this does come up, Your Honor, bec -- you know, in

terms of cases that have been cited where someone is covering - Oh, we found the cite -- where someone has been covering a

1-48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

trial, the whole purpose of the article, the coverage, is the trial and then you dont report -- you skip the acquittal. that context, courts have said is it fair and accurate. Cases where the focus is not the judicial proceeding, then here I would tell the -- suggest to the court that in context, when the Herald was free to make its editorial decision, that its focus was on the security breach, it is fair and accurate of the report. And you also, in terms of the fair report In

privilege, I would suggest that the court should give no weight to the suggestion that because the paragraph is towards the end of the article that its too far removed from the other statements. Again, thats not a basis in law to ignore the I think also, Your Honor, -- Well, the

entire context.

citation for -- in the Howell case, Your Honor, just for the court's reference, -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Sure. -- it would be at Howell, 455 at 659, and the

court says, "if however a source is an unofficial or anonymous one, a report based on that source runs the risk, the underlying official action will not be accurately and fairly described by the source and so wont be protected by the privilege or the information provided will go beyond the bounds of official action and into unprivileged territory." THE COURT: MS. RITVO: So if its anonymous, -It says it -But --

1-49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO:

-- you run the risk that -Right. -- there may be nothing to -But it says "it should be of no moment", and

this is 658, "that a reporters source is, in fact, a high official low merely one who overheard" -THE COURT: picking you up -MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Okay. -- there, Ms. Ritvo. "So long as the official action, it is the So basically, the court Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble

official action thats reported." gives a caution that -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: I understand.

-- you may not -- if you dont have it in a

written document in front of you, you didnt hear it with your own ears, you run a risk that what you report exceeds the official action, the official statement, but the mere fact that you werent the observer or didnt have the document. And that

makes sense, Your Honor, in terms of the policy behind the fair report privilege. Why would not protect if the purpose is to

allow the public to know what goes on with the actions of its state officials. That policy is served when youre informing That

the public of official actions, official statements.

policy is served whether or not a reporter had an official

1-50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

document in his hands, a confidential source told him about it as long as it was true. THE COURT: I accept your position on the -- Im not

necessarily having to have the document in your position, but let me have you step back, though, a bit, Ms. Ritvo. You say

this article is fair and accurate and reflexes accurately and fairly the substance of the e-mail communication, the disciplinary report, and Captain Ayalas memorandum. MS. RITVO: I do, Your Honor. Weve talked about the

disciplinary report.

I think when you look at OBriens report

to Bender, weve already, you know, reviewed the testimony of what he said in his report to his superior, his description of the receipt -- Jones' receipt of the disciplinary report and what -- arising from his conduct with Marinova. Again, he

doesnt -- And he also talks about his investigation of the security breach, which was caused by Marinova gaining access to the SMU. Then I would say the gist or the sting of what the Herald reported is similar, its then -- that Marinova engaged in physical and intimate activity in the visiting room of the correctional facility and that that information was known to the institution. THE COURT: well, counsel. I dont know what else I can -No, youve made your argument, youve made it If you didnt have anything else to add, Ill

give Mr. Rich an opportunity?

1-51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

Oh.

Were still on -- And that's on the --

Were not going on to bat -- to booted, we're s -- we've already sort of argued that? THE COURT: Im perfectly had to hear -- happy to hear you Let me give you a -- Let me set It seems to me that

on booted as well, counsel.

out the issue there at least in my mind.

that word in the article and that part of that phrase may well be accurate, hyperbolic, but accurate, but is it fair? MS. RITVO: Its -- I -- Your Honor, it is fair. It is --

She was removed from the institution.

Every DOC person who

testified said that theres a secure part of the prison, she wasnt entitled to be there and we removed her. And if the

court is -- You know, weve reviewed the testimony of each of the individuals, Superintendant OBrien, Correction Officer Trout. THE COURT: Theres no question but that Ms. Marinova was

taken out of the prison. MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: And if the court is looking at -Thats why I say it's accurate. If its colorful language, Your Honor, thats

absolutely protected. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: No, but is it misleading, counsel? I would say -Doe --- its not --

1-52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

-- Does it suggest that she was run out of

town, so a speak, because she had previously engaged in sexual acts and had been caught for it? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Absolutely not, Your Honor. An forbidden to enter the prison? No. She was -- Again, in context, it said she

got -- was allowed to go unsearched into an area where she normally would have been barred from, which is absolutely, absolutely true. Honor. space. Again, thats the security breach here, Your

The DOC took it very seriously that she was in that It was a risk to inmates. It was a risk to correction There was grave concern

officers.

It was a risk to visitors.

that she had gotten access there.

And as soon as it was

understood that she wasnt the aide that she was the girlfriend, she was taken out of there. Whether you say its

booted, she was removed, she had no right to be there. THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: Alright, Ms. Ritvo, thank you. Thank you. On the fair and accurate -Yes. -- report privilege, Mr. Rich? But if the court will indulge me for 30 seconds

on the -- this issue about what Howell says about you can backfill essentially, after the fact you can collect the evidence that your anonymous source told you.

1-53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MR. RICH:

Yes. That's not what Howell says. And let me tell

you what Howell says. again and you're -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT:

And I know you're going to read Howell

I have read Howell, but I --- you may go back --- I need to reread this page [Indiscernible

at 3:47:56 p.m. - simultaneous speech] -MR. RICH: -- with this in mind.

What Howell is saying is that if you have a source, even a low level source, that tells you something and you dont actually have physically in your hand what it is that the source is telling you, that's okay, you can -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: email. You can run that risk. You can run that risk. Well, that's what Ms. Ritvo said. But the Herald report wasnt about O'Brien's It was about

It wasnt about the -- Ayala's report.

conduct, and the basis of her report on the conduct was the disciplinary report and what her secret sources, what she has not disclosed and which, quite frankly, it's unfair at this point for them to rely at summary judgment having told Judge Quinlan they would not be moving for summary judgment or anything having to do with who the source was or what the source was told, but put that to the side for the moment. The

1-54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-- What they -- What they would have Your Honor hold is that they can have a document that they get completely wrong in their possession, report something completely different, and then go in discovery and find some other piece of information that they didnt have access to, that they didnt know anything about, that the source never told them about, that somehow someway substantiates some sliver of what it is that they reported on and say, ah, hah, we're immune, we're privileged. It doesnt work that way. And quite frankly, Your Honor, if

you actually look at the Ayala report and the O'Brien report, it doesnt say that she was found to -- engaging in sex acts. It said there was excessive kissing I think is what it said. And -THE COURT: Richard to -MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: superior. Right. The -Well, that was in the Memorandum from Ms.

-- the Deputy Commissioner. -- The hearsay email from Richard to his

And, of course, the context of that is that these

are DOC officials communicating with DOC officials, all of whom have access to the report itself. This is not what the

newspaper is reported -- the public doesnt have access to the disciplinary report, and it goes back again to where we started. And I dont -- I'm gonna talk about fairness and

accuracy in a moment, starts where you started.

1-55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

If you accept the proposition that a reasonable reader could glean from this article that Marinova was snuck into the prison, was be -- and had to be snuck in 'cause she was caught engaging in some overt sexual conduct, she got caught and she got booted the prison. If you accept that as a plausible

justifiable reading of the article, there is no report anywhere, whether the Herald had it or didnt have it, which fairly or accurately describes that in any way, in any shape, in any form. In fact, Your Honor, in some ways, the best evidence of the unfairness and inaccuracy is we asked Officer Hawkey at his deposition, and this is in the record. We said, Officer

Hawkey, what was your reaction when you read the Herald on May 28th? And he said, honestly, I thought they must have been

talking about some other incident, not the -- So the individual who wrote the report didnt recognize it as being published. And if he couldnt recognize it, how on earth could they -- the Herald insi -- ask the court to accept that it's fair and accurate. Your Honor, in addition to the Howell case, it's -- You should take a look at the Oort case, O-O-R-T, if you haven't already. That's Judge Gantz's decision when he was sitting in

the BLS, and he was on the SJC when the Howell decision, so I think it's fair -- It's not an SJC decision, but I think it -I think it's helpful to the court.

1-56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

On -- And by the way, on fairness, the courts -- the Howell court at 661 says, if there's a basis for divergent views about whether it was fair or accurate, summary judgment's improper. So I dont even think there's a basis for divergent

views, but basically what Howell is saying is if it's close, the court can't decide this as a matter of law. THE COURT: You made this point previously. We're still

on summary judgment. MR. RICH: Yeah, we're still on summary judgment. And,

listen, Ms. Ritvo can stand up in front of the jury and make all these arguments, and she probably will, but summary judgment's something different. But Judge Van -- Judge Gants -

- I'm sorry -- said that in reporting the iss -- the fair reporting code says a reporter to the reading public is similar to that of a prosecutor to a grand jury. She may not conceal

information that so greatly undermines the information published as to fundamentally distort a reasonable reader's understanding of the gist of the report. THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: And what do you say was fundamentally -To --- not concealed? Not reporting that the charge was dismissed,

not reporting that Ms. Marinova wasnt written up, caught -sorry -- not written up, not bagged for anything. And, Your

Honor, it's not fair to use the word "sexual acts" in quotation

1-57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

marks and not describe to the readers what a charge, which the Herald had right at their fingertips, meant and understood, because, of course, the concept -THE COURT: To use a metaphor from the Uniform Code of

Military Justice, if you're gonna reveal the charge and it's sexual acts, you need to detail as well the specification, which is kissing and touching. MR. RICH: Absolutely, and it's -- and, again, this isn't And on fairness,

an accuracy issue, this is a fairness issue. what -- how would -- and that isn't fair.

And if you read the

Howell decision, a report is fair if it's not edited and deleted as to misrepresent the proceedings and thus be misleading. It's necessary that nothing be omitted or

misplaced, and I'm quoting, in such a manner as to convey an erroneous impression. So we're talking about the impression And I

that someone would take walking away from this article.

can tell you, Your Honor, that no person reading this article would say, oh, Marinova was caught, the charge was dismissed, it was listed as sexual acts -- Marinova wasnt charged with anything -- but the sexual acts was touching the knee and kissing the hand. There is absolutely no basis, I would

respectfully submit, for the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that that is a reasonable fair and accurate depiction of what's in the article. It's also, Your Honor, not accurate. And the reason why

1-58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it isn't accurate is -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: down. THE COURT: MR. RICH: Well, you take your time, counsel. The booted comment, there's no report that says She was asked to sit in the Well, I think I have your argument -Okay. -- on that, --So -- Two --- Mr. Rich. -- One more point and then I promise I will sit

she was booted from the prison. visiting area.

The connotation, the impression, the fairness

that's left with the reasonable reader of this article is that she was expelled from the prison. There's a procedure to expel Ms. Van Sack

someone from a prison, to ban them from a prison. testified she knew all about that. THE COURT: to visit anyway? MR. RICH:

You mean, meaning that she could never return

Or that her privileges were suspended, revoked, The

removed, taken away for a period of time for misconduct.

sneaking into the prison, there is -- not only is there no evidence, the evidence is to the contrary, but there's no official report that suggests that she was snuck into the prison. What really happened here is that Superintendent

O'Brien made an assumption and his assumption wasnt correct.

1-59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MR. RICH:

And he so testified? And so testified that it was an assumption he

made that within seconds they sorted it out, they pulled Marinova in the hallway, as you pointed out, they said are you a regular visitor, she said absolutely. She said you can't

then sit in on this meeting, and she went and she sat in the lobby for four hours. That's it. That is a fair and accurate

report as to what happened, not her getting booted from prison and having been caught engaging in sex acts. THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: Alright. Thank you. That's a good argument. Ms. Ritvo, I'll give Mr. Rich, thank you very much.

you the last moment. MS. RITVO: I actually wanted, Your Honor, just to correct

a statement that's been -- we actually had expected it to be corrected as opposed to repeated, which is that Officer Hawkey, it's in the record in short form, it's in the record in longer form. Officer Hawkey testified repeatedly he didnt read the

Herald article, and that's been relied upon by the Plaintiff in its Opposition Brief and it's Sur-Reply Brief. page -THE COURT: Did he answer some sort of hypothetical If you look at

question about it? MS. RITVO: It's relied upon as it was just -- the

argument was just made to you, Your Honor, that even Officer

1-60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Hawkey didnt recognize it's -- the article was so inaccurate that even Hawkey didnt recognize -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: No, I heard the argument. -- the disciplinary report. And he was asked

-- and this part is in the record, Your Honor, it's at Exhibit 14, which is Officer Hawkey's deposition, "Do you recall seeing that article before today?" "No. But some of the information We also --

I had seen in a headline, a different headline."

There is deposition testimony where he was asked, and this is not in the record, but I have the deposition here, "Did you read the Herald article then?" you recall seeing --" THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Well, did he read it at the depos -"-- that article before today?" Did he read it --- "No" --- at the deposition, Ms. Ritvo? Yes, but he didnt read it, it was being -"No, I didnt read it". "Do

suggested that he saw it at the time and he didnt -THE COURT: MS. RITVO: Okay. -- he didnt recognize it, Your Honor. Again,

that's not a major point, but I think there have been some misstatements in the record on that. THE COURT: MS. RITVO: But -I would --

1-61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

-- but I gather when shown the article at

deposition, he did give testimony along the lines reported? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: witnessed? MS. RITVO: article. He didnt say that I didnt recognize the I would say he did not, Your Honor. Okay. He did not say that's not the conduct I

The -- I didnt -- he said he never read it. Okay. Well, he -- I understand that he didnt

THE COURT:

read it before coming to the deposition, you agree with that, Mr. Rich? MR. RICH: have quotes. No. He -- I -- And I -- If you look at -- I I said,

I have his deposition testimony quoted.

"When you saw the Herald article, did you take note of the reference to an incident involving Ms. Marinova and Mr. Jones?" Answer: "I think I may have read that she had been barred for something, for a sexual act or something. put that together with my report." I honestly didnt

Question: "So when you read

the Herald, you thought the Herald must have been relying upon another incident?" A, answer: "I didnt think it was

something -- I thought it was something other than my thing." Question: "Why was that?" Answer: "Because it's a big --

because a sex act, like I -- like what I said earlier, as I described, as I interpreted, you know, hands on genitals is rather talk of the town, it's a big thing." Question: "And so

the incident report that you prepared was not consistent with

1-62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

what you read in the Herald?" the two." THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Okay.

Answer: "I just didnt relate

"I didnt relate the two." I -- Let me -- I'm glad to have this

clarification from both of you, but, counsel, let me assure you that this is very much, in my view, like comments to the Herald article published online. I dont see it as dispositive of

today's Motion by any stretch. Anything else you wanted to add, Ms. Ritvo? MS. RITVO: The one thing I would add, Your Honor, is that

in looking at the fair and accurate analysis, especially as set forth in Howell and it's a fairness overlay to a fair and accuracy test, is it is -- I would suggest to the court that it's not correct to ask what is the impression that the article gives because you can have an impression of an article that is based on protected speech, and that's why you have to go down and look at the specific statements in the context of the entire article. THE COURT: you. Okay. Well, counsel, I thank you both, all of

I know your colleagues contributed, I'm sure, enormously

to the effort here today and that there's certainly an extensive effort and the papers on both sides are extremely well written and highly professional. I'm prepared to make a decision here on the record this

1-63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

afternoon.

I deny the Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel.

have set forth the predicate facts and, from time to time during the hearing, both counsel have elaborated to some extent on factual type issues, but I think for summary judgment purposes, the background facts are essentially what I described at the outset of the hearing. In my view, both the -- and I'll abbreviate here, not out of any disrespect, but simply to be precise and concise. In my

view, both the bagged and written up statements are capable of defamatory meaning. I think a reader -- a reasonable reader of

the article could have concluded that the state representative snuck Ms. Marinova into the institution because she was not otherwise free to enter the institution, having previously been caught engaging in sexual activity, which I think a reasonable reader would believe meant sexual intercourse in the prison visiting room, and I think a reasonable reader as well would have concluded that on account of all of that, when detected, she was promptly booted from the prison. I do not think that

that is a tortured reading of the article as the Defendant suggests. I think it is a reasonable reading. At the very

minimum, it is a reading that warrants denial of a Summary Judgment Motion and permits the matter to go forward in front of a jury. The same analysis, in my view, applies to the so-called bagged statement, the booted statement, and the written up

1-64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

statement.

I think these statements are actionably false, at

least, again, for purposes of summary judgment, I cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that these statements are false. I have indicated that I

think the Herald article written by Ms. Van Sack addresses a matter of public concern, and I operate, for purposes of this Motion at least, on the assumption that it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove that the offending passages are false, that is to say that they are not substantially true. Plaintiff has carried that burden. I think the statements as published had a different effect on the mind of a reasonable reader from that which the truth would have produced. I do not think, again, that the Herald I think the

can avoid this set of conclusions by taking the position, as it has here, that the overarching purpose of the publication was to focus on the security breach at the institution and to focus upon such a breach possibly being facilitated by a representative of the general court. Stated differently, I do not think it can be fairly said that Ms. Marinova's role in the article was merely collateral or merely peripheral. Whether intentional or not, the article

had a real impact, in terms of statements that were capable of a defamatory meaning and that appear to be false, upon her. Ms. Marinova was not caught or bagged or written up for anything. Only Mr. Jones had a disciplinary report filed

1-65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

against him.

No action was taken by any prison official Second, it is clear that Ms. Marinova

against Ms. Jones [sic].

did not engage in a sexual act with Mr. Jones as that set of words is reasonably and ordinarily understood in our English language. The disciplinary report itself, which was available and in the possession of the reporter, makes it clear not only that the sexual acts charge was dismissed, but also that the acts detailed in the report were not in any significant sense sexual, but consisted only of kissing and the placing of a hand upon a leg. Had such details been accurately reported, the

effect on the mind of a reasonable reader would have been very different than that which was produced by the article as published. Furthermore, it seems to me that the distance between the bagged and written up statements and the sentence detailing, to some extent, the disciplinary report, is a considerable distance and, at a minimum, would create confusion for any reasonable reader as to the interconnection. It is, as I observed, a closer question as to whether the booted statement is a false statement. It certainly has some

measure of truth, but I conclude, at least for purposes of summary judgment, that it was not substantially true. When

examined in context, the booted statement as well as the others appears to suggest that Ms. Marinova, not being free to enter

1-66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

into the institution on account of former sexual behavior with Mr. Jones, was thrown out of the institution having been caught sneaking into it. true. This, I do not think, was substantially

Ms. Marinova was permitted to stay in the lobby of the She

prison, was only told that she could not be in the SMU.

was never told that she remained unable to visit Mr. Jones in the visiting room. She was not removed from the SMU because of

a prior sexual act, but simply because she had regularly visited Mr. Jones and was not the legislative aide of Representative Fox. Indeed, the visitor's log indicates her

visit had been pre-approved, and this certainly is at odds with her having snuck into the prison. And, again, that log was in

the possession of the Herald and its reporter. I do not think these allegedly defamatory statements were protected by the fair report privilege. based on official documents and actions. They appear to be And as I have However, I

indicated, I do not reach the question of malice.

think that they were, for the most part, neither accurate nor fair. They were not substantially correct accounts of the They were not -- or pardon me -- They were edited

proceedings.

in such a fashion as to effectively misrepresent what occurred and to be effectively misleading. The disciplinary report itself does not suggest any action was taken against Ms. Marinova. The disciplinary report itself

states that the engaging in sexual act charge against Mr. Jones

1-67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was dismissed indicating, obviously, that Ms. Marinova did not engage in any sexual acts with Jones. For the same reasons,

these statements were an unfair report because they mischaracterized what the disciplinary report stated actually occurred. With respect to the memorandum by email to the Deputy Commissioner of Superintendent O'Brien's phone call with her, they are not substantially accurate reports of Superintendent O'Brien's report. Superintendent -- The Superintendent's

report never said words to the effect that Marinova had been caught or written up for engaging in sexual acts with Jones. It did not state an action was taken against Marinova, and merely stated that Mr. Jones received a disciplinary report for excessive kissing and touching. It's difficult for this court to conclude that the fair report privilege is well served if the reporter ignores a document in her possession that reveals an accurate picture of official action. I am speaking of the disciplinary report.

The booted statement, again, in the context of the fair report privilege, is a more difficult issue, but I am again mindful that I am at summary judgment. I think it was an

accurate report, again embellished hyperbolic, but not inaccurate. Ms. Marinova was asked to leave the SMU and she

was, it appears in some technical sense, taken out of the prison. However, it is not a fair report of what occurred.

1-68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Read in context, even this statement is misleading and I so conclude for summary judgment purposes. Even this statement

suggests that Marinova had not been free to enter the institution because of former sexual behavior with Mr. Jones and accordingly that she was thrown out of the prison after having been caught sneaking into it. The booted statement

implies a much more serious and strong action was taken against her for much more substantial reasons than was actually the case. So for these reasons, counsel, I deny the Motion for a Summary Judgment. We are on the record and, of course, my

decision, briefly summarized here in the last ten minutes, can be readily transcribed should that become necessary. If it is,

I reserve the right to make some punctuation corrections and the like to make it coherent, but I am otherwise entirely comfortable with it. The Clerk will simply enter a docket

entry that after hearing and after review of the papers, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied for the reasons set forth on the record in open court. Now, counsel, while I have you all here, how are -- I know there's a discovery issue on confidential sources. Does other

-- Is there other discovery that remains to be accomplished? MR. RICH: I think that the answer to that question is --

and Ms. Ritvo, correct me if I'm wrong -- there is a little -there's a little bit left, but it will largely be driven by

1-69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

their -- We have our Motion to Reveal Sources.

They have a

outstanding Motion to Compel Ms. Marinova to produce Facebook posts, and there are a few outstanding small issues that everyone -- Judge Co -- When we argued the Motion on sources, they -- the Herald indicated they wanted to move for summary judgment, and there were a bunch of other Motions that were -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: No, I'm -Yeah, --- I'm aware the --- and Judge Quinlan said I'm not gonna act on

anything else, there are three or four other little things, we'll deal with that after -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: The --- this is done. -- The case is in this session. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Although -Judge Quinlan only acted on it because the

former judge in this session apparently had some sort of a conflict. MR. RICH: Yeah, I think Judge Holtz recused herself.

Judge Quinlan indicated, at least to us, although I -- it's fine by us, that she intended to hold the sources Motion and didnt act on it. I dont know whether she wants to then send

1-70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that to you to act on. THE COURT: in this session.

We argued it.

I think the sources Motion will be conducted It may not be reached by me, I'm leaving this

session in about seven or eight days to go to a criminal session, but -MR. RICH: THE COURT: hearing. MR. RICH: Yeah. It -- Because we actually argued the Okay. 'Cause it was -- 'cause --

-- but we can certainly schedule it for a

Motion, and she took it under advisement and then she issued an order -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: be rearg -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: It would. -- it would need to be -It needs to --- reargued. -- It need -- The briefs are apparently Well, let me be clear, Mr. Rich. Sure. Judge Quinlan will not -Okay. -- decide the Motion. Okay. So then I presume that it would need to

accomplished and it would need to be argued. MR. RICH: Okay. So then I presume that the next thing

1-71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that needs to happen is we need a date for that. THE COURT: And you have some more discovery that you want

to pursue, Ms. Ritvo, Facebook and otherwise? MS. RITVO: There is discovery damages, medical, Ms. There are also some issues with the DOC,

Marinova's doctors.

the clean-up, and there are other documents -- There was a Motion to Compel Ms. Marinova, which included, among other things, these Facebook posts, but there was other information that we were seeking, and all of that had been put to one side. THE COURT: Where are we with the tracking order? I

assume we're well within it? MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: We are passed the discovery. We had extended it --- We had extended it --- and -- but our agreement was is that we'd We had ex --

extend it only for the limited purpose of doing a few things. We then filed the sources Motion and everything sort of was frozen in time because Quin -- Judge Quinlan, as I said, -THE COURT: The Clerk and I will talk. We'll get you a

date relatively soon on that Motion, counsel, -MR. RICH: THE COURT: Sure. -- and is there a Motion you've also filed on

the Facebook issue, Ms. Ritvo? MS. RITVO: Yes. That was part of, actually, the larger

Motion for -- to Compel Additional Discovery from Ms. Marinova.

1-72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

Does it make sense to do these Motions one at What is your sense, folks?

a time or together? MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: Judgment -MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: I --

My onl -- Well, -The Motion on Confident -Your Motion to Compel --- And then there's also Channel 7's --- your -I think --- excuse me -- Channel 7 also has its Summary

-- Motion. -- I think it largely will be a function of the

court's capacity to handle these issues because -- or the court's willingness to hear the type of oral argument Judge Quinlan heard. I think we had an hour and a half oral argument

and it would be a lot to then move to other discovery issues, but Im not suggesting -THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: I doubt --- that meets the hump --- I doubt -- I doubt a judge in this session

will need an hour and a half. MR. RICH: THE COURT: I -- Fair enough. And I agree with --

But I think we have usually a number of I think it probably makes

matters every afternoon scheduled.

1-73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

sense to do them one at a time. MR. RICH: THE COURT: period of time. I agree. They dont have to be separated by a long So we have your Motion to Compel on the

defense side, Ms. Ritvo, and your Motion to Compel as well, I guess, for -MR. RICH: THE COURT: THE COURT: -MS. RITVO: And then there was a Motion for a Protective Yeah, --- on your side? -- yeah, absolutely. It's a Motion to Compel

Order with Sem -- Dr. Seminara. MR. RICH: THE COURT: Yeah. I wont try to go down the road too far. We'll

try to schedule those two Motions -MR. RICH: THE COURT: that. well? MR. GASS: Yes, Your Honor. Fully briefed, but based on I think that's right. -- one -- maybe a week apart or something like

And, counsel, you have a Summary Judgment Motion as

the schedule that Judge Quinlan set up addressing this Motion first, it has not yet been filed, and I believe -THE COURT: filed? MR. GASS: But not filed. So it's been served, responded to, but not

1-74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MR. GASS: THE COURT: MR. GASS: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT:

Why -By agreement. -- did you not file it, counsel? Why? Yes. Judge Quinlan ordered it not be -But I'm --- not to be filed. -- that's -- I'm not sure what the thinking

was, but I'm sure it was sound. MR. GASS: THE COURT: MR. GASS: It was very -- It was sound thinking. Yes. We had initially interpreted the expedited

summary judgment order to include all summary judgments -Motions. By the time we had briefed it, Judge Quinlan

clarified that she only intended it to apply to this Motion, so we agreed to with -- to hold ours and -THE COURT: MR. GASS: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: Why dont you go ahead and file it, counsel. Okay. There's one caveat to that. Yeah. I hate to -- I'm always throwing wrinkles in.

The issue that caused the Heral -- the Channel 7's Motion not to be filed was that the Herald filed a Joinder Motion, which was a very thick --

1-75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH:

I remember that. -- pack of paper. Yeah, on the -Last --- on --- A couple of weeks ago before Judge Quinlan,

she said that the way it would work is Channel 7 would be given permission to file at which point we would have 30 days to respond to the joinder, and then that everything would be filed at that point. I'm not sure we need 30 days, but the joinder

Motion Judge Quinlan found, I believe, -- I dont think I'm -THE COURT: Compel? MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: MR. GASS: MS. RITVO: No. -No, it was a joinder on --- No, no, no. A joinder on their -It's the Joinder on Ms. Ritvo's Motion to

-- the Herald --- Motion for a Summary -Motion for Summary Judgment --- The Herald was joining the Channel 7's

Motion on whether or not Ms. Marinova was a public figure and Ms. Marinova took the position that we shouldnt be able to join in that Motion. THE COURT: type defense, -Your Motion is grounded on a public figure

1-76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. GASS: THE COURT: MR. GASS: THE COURT: joinder? MS. RITVO: MR. GASS: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH:

Yes. -- counsel? Limited purpose public figure, which goes to -And who did the joinder? Ms. Ritvo did the

I did. Yes. Okay. And so -Well, --- so we just need to respond to that. To respond to? Their joinder, because it isn't the one And --

paragraph we join the Motion, it's a ten page memo of law with 20 new facts, [Indiscernible at 4:18:09 p.m. - simultaneous speech] -THE COURT: Alright. Let -- Let's try to keep this

straightforward, folks.

Counsel, why dont you file your Ms. Ritvo's

Summary Judgment Motion at your convenience. Joinder is already filed I gather? MS. RITVO: THE COURT: It's already been served. It's been served.

Why dont you take what

time you need, ten days, two weeks, -MR. RICH: THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think Ms. Deluhery will --

How long do you need, Ms. Deluhery?

1-77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. DELUHERY: MR. RICH:

I --

Us together. Right, right. I think two weeks should be

MS. DELUHERY: enough time. THE COURT:

Well, I'm perfectly happy to give you three

weeks, counsel, if you'd -MS. DELUHERY: would be better. THE COURT: Right. No, that's perfectly fair. So why Well, if you would give three weeks, that

dont we say counsel will file this fully briefed Summary Judgment Motion, we'll get in the queue for hearing, -MR. GASS: THE COURT: counsel. MR. GASS: THE COURT: I understand. 'Cause we have a long line. And then counsel Yes. That may be some months down the road,

for the Plaintiffs will respond to Ms. Ritvo's Joinder Motion on the public figure issue, why dont we say by 17 October, how's that, counsel? MR. RICH: I'll do it, thank you. And since they're

filing the papers, we'll just file our Opposition to Joinder directly with the court or is Ms. Rit -THE COURT: Well, Ms. Ritvo said she just served it, so

why dont you do it in the ordinary fashion, send it back to Ms. Ritvo and she'll send it into the court.

1-78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. RITVO:

Seems like logically they should all go with

the package that's the summary judgment package. MR. GASS: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: queue, -MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: MS. RITVO: THE COURT: Oh. -- but I dont care. Oh, we'll do -Yeah, I --- whatever the court directs. -- I think you can make it clear in a That's -But then it probably doesnt get filed until -Yeah. -- the 17th, which may put further down the

transmittal letter that it's part and parcel of -MS. RITVO: THE COURT: and I'm sure -MR. RICH: THE COURT: MR. RICH: more to come. THE COURT: MR. RICH: THE COURT: Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I just assume have you file it, you've got it And we'll --- the Clerk --- let the Clerk's Office know that there's Okay. -- the earlier filed Summary Judgment Motion

already briefed and I just assume get you moving on the queue

1-79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

than -- rather than waiting another month on it, folks. MR. RICH: THE COURT: Terrific. The Clerk and I will put our heads together

and try to schedule about a week apart, Mr. Clerk, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and the Defendant's Motion to Compel. Perhaps you could leave that message for Ms. Goldrick

and she can fit it into the schedule as it will work. THE CLERK: THE COURT: Okay. I dont think I'll have a chance to reach that I'd be perfectly happy to.

with only a week remaining, folks.

I'm sure the issues would be interesting and I know they're important, so it'll be the next judge in the session that will tackle that. Is there anything else I can do to help you out today, ladies and gentlemen? MS. RITVO: MR. RICH: THE COURT: again. MS. RITVO: MR. GASS: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. [Off the record at 4:20:59 p.m.] Nope. No. Thank you for the -Thanks

Okay. Counsel, nice to see you all.

1-80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Pamela Borges DosSantos, an Approved Court Transcriber, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript from the audio recording provided to me by Lisa Sealey of the Suffolk County Superior Court proceedings in the above-entitled matter. I, Pamela Borges DosSantos, further certify that the foregoing is in compliance with the Administrative Office of the Trial Court Directive on Transcript Format. I, Pamela Borges DosSantos, further certify that I neither am counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this hearing was taken, and further that I am not financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

______________________________ Pamela Borges DosSantos October 5, 2011 Date 460 County Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Telephone: (508)996-3898 Email: p.dossantos@verizon.net

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE TRIAL COURT Office of Transcription Services (OTS) Two Center Plaza Boston, Massachusetts 02108

AUDIO ASSESSMENT FORM (AAF)


Approved Court Transcriber: Complete one (1) Audio Assessment Form (AAF) for each volume of transcript, attach the original AAF to the next to last page of each volume of transcript, and FAX a copy of the AAF to OTS at 617-878-0762.
TODAYS DATE: 10/6/2011 CASE NAME: TRANSCRIBER NAME: ___Pamela Borges DosSantos DOCKET NO: SUCV2010-01316

Marinova v. Boston Herald, et al

JUDGE: Judge Brassard

RECORDING DATE:

September 22, 2011

TRANSCRIPT VOLUME: ___1______ OF ____1

______

---------------------------------------------------------------------QUALITY OF AUDIO: TYPE OF AUDIO: (check one) (check one) [ ] excellent [x] good [ ] fair [ ]poor [x] CD [ ] TAPE TIME STAMP or INDEX NUMBER (check all that apply) [ ] low audio at side bar [ ] indiscernible speech [ ] speaking away from microphone [x] simultaneous speech 3:47:56; 4:18:09

COMMENTS:

Please see Word Index for indiscernible portions and page and line numbers.

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin -im(1) 25:2 abbreviate(1) 63:7 able(2) 15:25 75:22 above(1) 38:11 above-entitled(1) 80:12 absolutely(11) 24:10 33:8 51:21 52:4 52:8 52:9 57:8 57:21 59:5 69:16 73:9 abuses(2) 5:2 5:7 accept(5) 35:7 50:3 55:1 55:5 55:18 acknowledge(1) 30:8 acquittal(1) 48:2 acquitted(1) 28:25 act(10) 33:2 43:9 61:16 61:22 65:3 66:8 66:25 69:10 69:25 70:1 add(5) 23:16 39:13 50:24 allegedly(6) 11:19 18:21 62:10 62:11 18:24 19:21 32:10 66:14 addition(2) 9:7 55:20 additional(1) 71:25 address(4) 13:2 29:19 32:2 43:2

allow(2) 28:15 49:22 allowed(7) 14:23 19:13 23:9 38:5 38:23 39:8 52:7 allowing(1) 44:24 acted(1) 69:19 addresses(3) 29:23 32:5 almost(1) 47:14 action(20) 12:19 20:14 20:15 40:15 42:13 43:8 64:5 alo(1) 5:15 43:19 45:12 48:20 48:23 along(2) 5:3 61:2 49:11 49:12 49:18 65:1 addressing (3) 37:10 42:8 already(7) 4:19 50:11 66:23 67:12 67:18 68:7 73:21 51:3 55:22 76:20 76:21 80:26 80:30 78:25 access(6) 47:17 50:16 adjacent(1) 10:2 52:13 54:5 54:21 54:22 alright(9) 3:4 3:20 4:6 actionable(1) 24:25 adjoining(1) 6:10 24:24 36:24 45:6 52:17 actionably(2) 12:10 64:1 administrative(1) 80:17 59:10 76:17 accessible(1) 24:7 actions(7) 12:13 42:8 advance(1) 13:3 accompanying(1) 5:15 42:24 45:5 49:22 49:24 advisement(1) 70:10 although(4) 12:22 46:24 accomplish(1) 6:25 66:16 69:18 69:23 advises(1) 45:15 accomplished(2) 68:22 active(1) 11:13 70:24 advocacy(1) 5:5 activities(2) 21:1 22:14 altogether(1) 46:24 affect(1) 45:23 always(3) 30:19 43:20 according(3) 12:5 14:10 activity(4) 15:13 22:14 affirmative(1) 29:2 50:20 63:14 74:22 38:10 afternoon(4) 3:2 3:14 63:1 72:25 amendment(1) 35:17 accordingly(2) 8:14 68:5 acts(41) 7:12 13:24 13:25 14:9 14:13 14:15 21:1 against(9) 11:11 20:15 among(1) 71:7 account(3) 13:16 63:17 22:5 22:8 22:17 22:18 analysis(4) 15:3 40:18 66:1 43:9 65:1 65:2 66:24 24:6 24:16 26:3 26:11 62:12 63:24 66:25 67:12 68:7 26:14 26:16 26:19 26:21 accounts(2) 41:2 66:19 26:22 28:13 28:19 28:21 ago(2) 8:5 75:6 analyze(1) 46:23 accuracy(4) 17:8 54:25 29:3 33:3 33:22 35:9 57:9 62:14 agree(5) 24:5 33:6 61:9 and/or(1) 27:14 35:20 36:25 47:13 52:3 72:23 73:2 animatedly(1) 12:22 54:11 56:25 57:6 57:19 accurate(30) 37:22 40:15 anita(1) 3:17 57:20 59:9 65:8 65:8 41:2 42:6 43:3 43:10 agreed(3) 4:20 5:8 74:17 anonymous(7) 29:23 44:21 45:11 45:12 47:6 67:2 67:11 agreement(2) 71:15 74:2 42:25 44:10 46:7 48:18 47:11 48:3 48:7 50:6 48:24 52:25 ahead(1) 74:18 acts(2) 11:20 12:1 51:8 51:8 51:19 52:19 aide(4) 6:7 7:4 52:14 66:9anonymously(1) 40:23 55:19 56:3 57:23 57:25 actual(5) 2:12 25:14 another(9) 4:25 7:12 8:12 aided(1) 11:8 25:14 25:23 26:24 58:1 59:7 62:12 66:18 9:20 10:5 23:21 25:13 aim(1) 18:16 67:8 67:17 67:22 80:6 61:19 79:1 aimed(1) 18:6 actually(21) 13:21 18:12 allegation(3) 18:17 18:18 accurately(6) 43:6 45:19 20:20 35:25 36:3 37:5 answer(7) 43:12 59:22 19:18 38:3 38:8 39:17 41:4 48:20 50:6 55:8 65:11 61:15 61:19 61:21 62:1 45:10 45:13 45:22 53:12 alleged(7) 5:2 5:7 11:16 68:23 54:10 59:14 59:15 67:4 11:23 12:8 24:2 30:11 accused(4) 20:6 21:18 anyone(1) 41:23 68:8 70:9 71:24 29:1 35:11
10/05/11 12:54:02

Page : 1

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin anything(19) 19:22 20:10 22:22 28:13 28:14 30:20 33:1 33:2 36:16 39:13 50:24 53:24 54:5 56:24 57:20 62:10 64:25 69:11 79:14 anyway(1) 58:18 anywhere(1) 55:7 apart(2) 73:17 79:4 apool(1) 11:6 appall(1) 11:6 apparently(8) 4:19 4:23 10:21 31:13 31:19 42:16 69:20 70:23 argument(22) 13:1 15:21 18:11 19:4 19:16 21:25 27:18 28:15 31:24 32:1 33:24 34:1 39:10 40:5 42:2 50:23 58:2 59:12 59:25 60:3 72:15 72:16 arguments(7) 12:7 29:21 30:1 30:4 39:23 40:1 56:11 arising(1) 50:14 around(1) 26:21 arrested(3) 20:9 36:10 36:11 assigned(3) 21:4 22:10 22:10 assigning(1) 22:12 assist(1) 4:20 assistant(5) 8:18 9:21 10:4 10:9 42:11 assume(4) 33:18 71:11 78:24 78:25 bank(2) 28:23 28:25 barred(4) 6:11 38:10 52:8 61:15 barry(1) 27:8 base(1) 28:6 based(5) 17:23 48:19 62:17 66:16 73:20

baseman(1) 28:2 basic(1) 4:10 assumed(1) 6:6 basically(2) 49:12 56:5 assuming(1) 46:24 basis(7) 24:10 25:22 assumption(4) 58:25 48:12 53:19 56:2 56:4 58:25 59:2 64:7 57:21 arrived(2) 5:19 6:8 appeals(1) 41:15 bat(1) 51:2 appear(6) 8:6 30:22 31:8 article(103) 11:3 11:9 assure(1) 62:6 bear(1) 44:17 11:10 11:16 13:22 14:5 astray(1) 25:3 42:14 64:23 66:15 bearing(1) 43:1 14:12 14:20 14:23 15:2 attributed(1) 28:16 beau(1) 11:8 appears(6) 7:1 13:8 16:4 15:3 15:6 15:14 15:19 attributing(1) 31:4 bec(1) 47:23 15:19 16:6 16:9 16:11 21:23 65:25 67:24 audio(2) 2:12 80:8 became(2) 4:24 8:13 16:16 16:25 17:6 17:10 available(3) 8:17 29:25 become(2) 31:3 68:13 17:12 17:13 17:14 17:16 65:6 applied(1) 22:13 becomes(2) 22:21 32:23 17:19 17:24 17:25 18:1 applies(2) 45:14 63:24 before(15) 1:17 5:9 6:19 18:19 19:13 20:16 22:4 avoid(1) 64:14 apply(3) 43:17 46:22 7:25 24:24 28:20 29:17 22:20 22:24 23:2 23:4 approach(2) 13:1 13:2 aware(8) 12:15 12:16 30:15 31:17 33:24 41:24 23:23 23:25 24:1 24:11 12:17 12:19 30:18 32:18 60:7 60:14 61:9 75:6 approached(1) 6:1 25:15 25:24 25:25 26:8 42:15 69:9 appropriate(1) 10:12 27:1 27:12 27:22 27:25 approved(4) 1:40 1:43 began(1) 10:22 28:8 28:20 29:4 30:15 5:14 80:4 away(3) 16:16 57:16 begins(1) 4:12 31:6 32:2 32:4 32:9 36:7 ayala(3) 9:18 42:12 54:10 behavior(9) 8:1 14:10 36:15 37:3 37:9 37:19 approximately(1) 8:5 ayala's(1) 53:18 26:23 34:14 34:23 37:15 39:9 42:18 43:6 43:7 arching(1) 17:1 ayalas (1) 50:8 37:20 66:1 68:4 44:8 46:17 47:6 47:9 area(13) 6:1 9:16 10:2 back(8) 6:22 19:15 22:17 47:13 47:20 47:21 47:22 26:8 50:5 53:6 54:23 14:23 16:1 24:6 38:9 behind(2) 4:17 49:20 38:22 39:8 41:10 47:17 48:1 48:11 50:6 51:7 77:24 believe(7) 21:2 27:24 55:2 55:6 57:16 57:17 52:7 58:12 backfill(1) 52:24 34:16 40:8 63:15 73:22 57:24 58:13 59:19 60:1 75:11 background(1) 63:5 60:7 60:11 60:14 61:1 areas(1) 16:24 backward(1) 16:19 believed(2) 10:3 22:13 61:7 61:13 62:8 62:15 arguably(1) 37:22 bagged(22) 11:20 11:24 bender(6) 8:16 8:17 62:16 62:19 63:11 63:19 argue(5) 15:1 25:12 13:15 19:22 20:24 20:24 42:11 42:20 46:16 50:11 64:5 64:20 64:21 65:13 25:12 25:13 45:20 26:2 26:5 28:12 28:23 28:25 33:2 33:2 33:22 benefit(1) 12:25 ascertain(1) 2:14 argued(7) 18:12 39:12 36:13 36:20 43:2 56:24 berlack(1) 1:29 aside(1) 27:22 51:3 69:4 70:1 70:9 63:9 63:25 64:24 65:16 beside(1) 26:12 aspects(1) 12:14 70:24 best(2) 25:11 55:10 assertions(1) 37:17 arguing(1) 13:9 balance(2) 19:9 30:13 better(2) 33:10 77:8 assessment(2) 16:20 16:21 ban(1) 58:15 between(2) 15:17 65:15 assessments(1) 16:16
Page : 2 10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin beyond(1) 48:22 big(3) 11:6 61:21 61:24 bit(5) 26:6 27:20 30:23 50:5 68:25 briefed(4) 73:20 74:15 77:10 78:25 briefly(3) 29:11 29:12 68:12 carpet(1) 21:18 carried(1) 64:10 carries(1) 37:23 carry(1) 21:7 case(22) 3:1 4:8 4:12 12:14 17:22 18:8 18:16 18:18 25:6 26:25 30:2 32:20 33:8 40:16 41:10 46:15 47:4 48:14 55:20 55:21 68:9 69:15 charge(17) 8:8 14:16 14:16 15:16 21:4 22:13 34:17 34:25 35:22 35:24 43:9 56:22 57:1 57:5 57:18 65:8 66:25 charged(7) 7:11 21:8 22:12 28:16 32:25 35:25 57:19 charges(5) 7:17 8:9 22:10 22:10 22:12

blink(1) 21:15 briefs(3) 22:16 23:17 bls(1) 55:23 bring(2) 4:10 6:21 board(1) 27:3 bringing(1) 15:4 body(1) 11:7 brought (3) 8:23 15:16 boil(1) 46:13 20:15 bold(1) 11:5 booted(27) 12:3 13:17 37:11 37:22 37:25 38:3 brown(1) 1:29 38:15 38:16 38:25 39:1 bunch(1) 69:6 burden(11) 31:18 31:22 39:5 39:6 39:15 39:25 32:15 33:14 33:15 33:16 51:2 51:5 52:16 55:5 58:10 58:11 59:8 63:18 33:17 33:18 40:4 64:8 63:25 65:21 65:24 67:19 64:10 68:6 burdens(1) 12:16 borrow(1) 16:8 business(1) 21:19 boston(13) 1:13 1:25 1:27 call(5) 6:16 8:15 25:11 1:31 1:37 3:9 4:11 10:21 43:5 67:7 11:12 26:16 27:9 27:25 28:6 called(6) 3:1 5:5 5:6 8:21 both(12) 22:16 25:9 25:9 17:21 21:18 40:1 40:9 40:21 62:6 62:20 62:23 63:3 63:7 candid(1) 35:15 63:9 cannot(7) 12:10 23:22 bounds(1) 48:22 23:24 26:7 26:7 32:2 64:2 boyfriend(2) 7:2 18:25 brackets(4) 2:9 2:11 2:16 cant(4) 24:1 29:23 37:4 2:20 45:19

cases(7) 12:17 17:11 20:8 26:21 37:5 47:24 48:4 checked(2) 7:8 9:5 children(1) 34:21 choate(2) 1:35 3:16 caught(23) 13:14 26:2 26:5 26:10 27:1 27:6 choices(1) 17:12 27:13 28:2 29:3 36:21 christy(2) 3:17 3:18 37:16 37:21 52:3 55:3 circumstances(1) 22:19 55:4 56:23 57:18 59:9 citation(3) 24:20 47:2 63:14 64:24 66:2 67:11 48:14 68:6 causative(1) 31:4 cite(2) 26:24 47:25 cause(5) 41:15 55:3 70:6 cited(20) 14:8 17:11 70:6 77:16 19:23 20:3 20:8 20:9 20:11 20:18 20:21 20:23 caused(4) 24:22 31:1 21:14 26:22 26:23 28:13 50:16 74:23 35:8 36:16 36:18 37:3 47:13 47:24 caution(1) 49:13 claim(2) 18:12 18:14 cautions(1) 43:19 claimed(1) 18:14 caveat(1) 74:20 clarification(1) 62:6 center(3) 1:30 4:14 38:13 clarified(1) 74:16 certain(4) 4:23 31:8 clark(1) 27:20 37:23 41:19 brassard(1) 1:17 capable(10) 12:8 12:21 clean-up(1) 71:6 13:4 22:21 25:8 25:9 breach(20) 8:14 15:5 clear(11) 3:22 21:8 25:6 30:11 33:25 63:9 64:22 certainly(14) 12:17 21:24 30:14 36:19 38:10 41:10 16:2 17:1 17:16 23:3 22:16 23:17 29:15 29:24 65:2 65:7 70:12 78:13 23:14 24:22 24:23 27:19 33:2 33:15 34:2 42:14 27:21 28:9 38:10 39:7 capacity(1) 72:14 47:9 48:7 50:16 52:9 captain(5) 6:3 9:18 10:13 62:22 65:21 66:11 70:7 clearing(1) 33:12 64:16 64:17 42:12 50:8 clerk(6) 68:16 71:19 certify(3) 80:6 80:15 break(2) 26:4 26:4 78:19 79:3 79:4 79:8 chance(1) 79:9 brian(1) 6:13 captains (1) 42:21 channel(7) 3:17 24:14 bridgewater(1) 11:21 caption(1) 18:23 clerk's(1) 78:20 72:6 72:9 74:23 75:7 brief(6) 17:11 25:17 captured(1) 42:10 close(3) 4:24 25:11 56:5 75:20 26:22 39:24 59:20 59:20 car(1) 5:19 closed(1) 40:21 care(1) 78:9 closer(1) 65:20 careful(1) 47:4 closest(1) 39:25 carefully(2) 9:12 12:24 co-defendant(1) 4:3
Page : 3 10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin code(2) 56:14 57:4 coherent(1) 68:15 collateral(2) 17:8 64:20 colleagues(1) 62:21 collect(1) 52:24 colony(9) 4:14 4:17 5:2 5:10 14:25 19:1 24:13 24:23 38:12 colorful(1) 51:20 comes(4) 14:1 18:7 18:8 45:17 comfortable(3) 30:10 31:4 68:16 coming(2) 32:13 61:9 comma(2) 39:17 39:21 comment(3) 29:25 29:25 58:10 comments(11) 2:10 2:12 25:19 26:23 29:15 29:24 30:12 30:15 30:17 30:21 62:7 commissioner(10) 8:16 8:16 8:20 8:21 9:14 27:20 42:11 42:20 54:17 67:7 commissioners(1) 8:18 committed(1) 33:1 common(5) 21:10 26:17 35:20 41:14 42:1 communicating(1) 54:20 communication(1) 50:7 community(2) 27:17 32:8 compare(1) 24:13 compel(10) 69:2 71:7 71:25 72:5 73:4 73:5 73:9 75:13 79:5 79:6 complaining(1) 27:9 completely(2) 54:2 54:3 compliance(1) 80:17 con(2) 11:21 21:13 conceal(1) 56:15 concealed(1) 56:21
Page : 4

conceded(1) 18:2 concept(1) 57:3 concern(9) 31:11 31:22 32:3 32:5 32:6 32:7 32:15 52:12 64:6

contacted(2) 4:19 5:10 contained(2) 7:16 11:5 contend(1) 36:19 content(1) 14:12 context(37) 13:8 13:20 14:19 15:2 15:18 16:7 concerned(2) 8:13 30:9 18:19 19:12 19:14 19:18 21:13 22:1 22:4 22:17 concerning(7) 8:6 18:8 18:10 18:15 19:3 19:5 22:20 23:2 23:23 24:9 19:7 24:19 26:14 34:1 34:2 35:8 37:4 37:24 39:8 concerns(1) 32:10 47:9 47:21 48:3 48:5 concise(1) 63:8 conclude(13) 6:24 13:12 48:13 52:6 54:19 62:18 22:24 25:25 27:13 30:18 65:24 67:19 68:1 30:19 40:3 57:22 64:3 contextualize(1) 28:5 65:22 67:15 68:2 continue(2) 6:20 14:4 concluded(2) 63:11 63:17 contraband(2) 5:22 9:24 concludes(3) 9:10 10:15 contrary(1) 58:22 10:17 contributed(1) 62:21 controls(1) 29:24 conclusion(2) 9:13 27:10 convenience(1) 76:19 conclusions(1) 64:14 conventional(1) 12:25 conduct(25) 7:14 13:15 convey(1) 57:14 15:7 16:13 17:14 17:15 conveyed(1) 46:16 19:24 21:5 22:10 22:12 convicted(2) 36:10 36:15 24:20 35:6 36:17 36:23 convincing(1) 33:12 37:2 41:19 41:20 41:21 copies(1) 11:1 42:4 42:12 50:14 53:19 copy(1) 11:2 53:19 55:4 61:4 core(1) 26:22 corporate(1) 21:19 conducted(1) 70:2 correct(15) 4:5 16:2 17:6 confident(2) 46:25 72:4 20:16 24:18 41:2 43:22 confidential(8) 10:24 44:22 45:7 46:20 58:25 41:20 42:22 44:16 45:6 59:14 62:15 66:19 68:24 46:12 50:1 68:21 corrected(1) 59:16 confirmed(2) 8:11 10:5 correction(4) 5:13 10:25 confirms(1) 43:24 51:14 52:11 conflict(1) 69:21 confusion(1) 65:18 correctional(4) 4:14 connection(1) 4:13 28:18 38:12 50:21 connotation(2) 37:23 connotations(1) 38:2 corrections(3) 7:19 34:20 considerable(1) 65:17 68:14 considered(2) 32:6 32:21 consisted(1) 65:10 couldnt(2) 27:24 55:17 consistent(1) 61:25

counsel(33) 4:7 29:9 29:12 29:19 31:14 36:20 37:11 37:25 39:10 40:7 50:24 51:5 51:22 58:9 62:6 62:20 63:1 63:3 68:10 68:20 71:20 73:18 74:3 74:18 76:2 76:18 77:6 77:10 77:14 77:16 77:19 79:18 80:24 count(1) 37:17 country(1) 26:22 counts(1) 11:14 county(3) 1:45 80:10 couple(2) 10:20 75:6 course(8) 4:9 12:14 17:9 27:8 40:16 54:19 57:3 68:11 court's(4) 22:2 48:15 72:14 72:15 courtroom(2) 45:18 45:18 courts(9) 12:18 17:18 18:15 19:10 23:24 36:9 45:4 48:3 56:1 courts (1) 45:24 cover(1) 45:22 coverage(1) 48:1 covering(2) 47:24 47:25 covers(1) 43:23 create(1) 65:18 creative(1) 31:25 crime(2) 24:7 24:8 criminal(1) 70:4 critical(2) 31:2 31:10 critically(1) 15:3 currently(1) 8:22 cut(1) 41:10 damages(1) 71:4 danger(1) 24:23 daryl(7) 4:15 7:20 14:21 20:21 20:23 21:14 23:9 dashes(2) 2:5 2:7 date(3) 71:1 71:20 80:38 dated(1) 7:9 david(3) 1:22 3:2 7:19
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin day(4) 5:17 7:25 14:9 16:12 days(6) 5:9 10:20 70:4 75:8 75:10 76:23 denied(2) 5:23 68:18 denies(1) 7:3 deny(3) 30:13 63:1 68:10 department(3) 1:6 5:13 10:25 different(11) 16:24 22:18 22:19 26:10 32:21 38:2 54:3 56:12 60:8 64:11 65:13 differently(2) 41:5 64:19 difficult(4) 37:12 41:10 67:15 67:20 disrupts(1) 7:14 distance(2) 65:15 65:18 distinction(2) 36:12 36:13 distort(1) 56:17 distress(2) 11:15 11:15 divergent(2) 56:2 56:4 doc(16) 5:14 8:16 9:19 14:18 14:22 15:14 15:25 direct(3) 7:13 8:8 37:5 21:3 24:21 26:15 36:3 directed(1) 10:6 51:10 52:10 54:20 54:20 directive(1) 80:19 71:5 directly(1) 77:22 docket(2) 1:7 68:16 directors(1) 27:4 doctors(1) 71:5 directs(1) 78:12 document(10) 15:22 43:18 43:24 45:15 49:16 dis(2) 19:1 31:19 49:19 50:1 50:4 54:2 disci(1) 43:6 disciplinary(52) 7:9 7:16 67:17 8:11 9:8 11:1 14:10 14:16documents(8) 12:13 42:9 14:18 14:22 15:11 15:15 42:15 42:16 42:24 44:17 15:15 15:21 17:15 19:24 66:16 71:6 20:1 21:13 21:14 23:5 28:15 28:17 28:19 34:4 doe(1) 51:24 34:4 36:1 36:2 42:9 doesnt(21) 14:24 18:15 42:18 43:3 43:7 46:14 20:6 20:10 20:17 21:7 47:5 47:6 47:11 47:14 21:15 27:23 31:22 36:10 47:18 47:18 47:22 50:8 43:17 43:25 44:6 44:11 50:10 50:13 53:20 54:23 44:13 45:14 50:15 54:9 60:4 64:25 65:6 65:17 54:11 54:22 78:4 66:23 66:24 67:4 67:13 67:18 dont(39) 21:17 25:13 discipline(1) 17:14 25:22 26:16 27:24 30:5 30:6 30:16 31:11 32:18 disciplinor(1) 36:1 35:7 35:9 35:19 36:13 disclosed(1) 53:21 39:4 41:10 41:24 42:2 (1) 9:6 discovered discovery(11) 41:19 41:21 42:3 43:16 45:23 48:2 42:4 54:4 68:21 68:22 49:15 50:22 53:11 54:24 56:4 62:8 69:25 73:3 71:2 71:4 71:12 71:25 74:18 75:11 76:18 76:22 72:17 77:10 77:18 77:24 78:9 discuss(1) 27:4 discussed(2) 22:16 47:14 79:9 door(1) 40:21 discussion(1) 23:18 dismissed(8) 28:17 34:18 dose(1) 31:11 34:25 43:10 56:22 57:18 double(1) 28:3 doubt(3) 72:19 72:21 65:8 67:1 down(9) 26:4 44:16 44:18 46:13 58:8 62:17 73:14 dispositive(2) 13:2 62:8 disregard(2) 27:10 41:13 77:13 78:6 disrespect(1) 63:8 drafted(1) 9:19
10/05/11 12:54:02

deal(2) 18:9 69:12 depiction(1) 57:23 debatable(1) 34:24 depos(1) 60:13 debate(1) 35:2 deposed(1) 26:25 decide(4) 24:3 25:10 56:6 deposition(8) 55:12 60:6 70:16 60:9 60:10 60:17 61:2 61:9 61:12 decided(1) 6:20 decision(10) 18:5 40:16 deputy(10) 8:15 8:16 41:16 48:6 55:22 55:23 8:18 8:20 8:21 9:14 55:24 57:11 62:25 68:12 42:11 42:20 54:17 67:6 decisions(1) 19:11 defamation(6) 11:14 12:17 16:8 17:8 18:9 18:14 defamatory(20) 11:16 11:23 12:8 12:9 12:21 13:5 22:21 24:2 25:8 25:9 30:11 30:11 32:1 33:25 40:10 40:14 45:20 63:10 64:23 66:14 describe(1) 57:1 described(5) 22:13 35:6 48:21 61:23 63:5

describes(1) 55:8 describing(1) 38:2 description(2) 7:16 50:12 designate(1) 2:9 designated(1) 2:5 detail(1) 57:6 detailed(1) 65:9 defame(1) 27:24 detailing(1) 65:16 defend(1) 20:7 details(3) 34:3 34:3 65:11 defendant(5) 1:27 1:33 detected(1) 63:17 3:10 40:13 63:19 detector(1) 5:24 determined(1) 31:2 defendant's(1) 79:5 determines(1) 17:10 defendants(1) 11:12 developed(2) 4:23 41:24 defense(2) 73:5 75:25 dictionary(1) 26:19 defer(1) 40:8 didnt(32) 18:12 26:1 defines(1) 26:20 37:6 39:15 43:25 44:4 deleted(1) 57:12 45:14 45:21 46:19 49:16 deluhery(10) 3:5 3:5 3:6 49:19 50:24 54:5 54:5 3:7 3:8 76:24 76:25 77:1 55:7 55:16 59:18 60:1 77:3 77:7 60:2 60:11 60:18 60:19 60:21 61:6 61:6 61:7 democracy(1) 40:12 61:8 61:16 61:19 62:1 demonstrate(4) 31:20 62:4 69:25 32:16 41:22 42:3 difference(3) 32:24 38:24 39:5 denial(1) 63:21
Page : 5

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin experts(1) 31:3 express(1) 33:10 expressed(1) 10:8 (1) 80:24 (1) 62:12 employed especially expression(1) 21:16 employer(1) 26:25 esquire(3) 1:22 1:28 1:34 extend(1) 71:16 end(4) 2:10 14:5 23:5 essentially(2) 52:24 63:5 extended(2) 71:13 71:14 48:10 etc(1) 2:11 extensive(2) 4:8 62:23 even(22) 15:9 15:11 17:5 extent(2) 63:3 65:17 engage(2) 65:3 67:2 20:14 22:6 25:11 28:14 extremely(1) 62:23 35:16 36:9 37:24 37:24 face(5) 8:3 22:7 32:9 engaged(7) 14:20 24:6 24:12 36:23 36:25 50:19 38:5 40:25 43:7 44:10 32:14 34:9 52:2 46:19 53:10 56:4 59:25 engaging(26) 7:12 11:20 60:2 68:1 68:2 facebook(4) 69:2 71:3 12:1 13:15 13:24 13:25 71:8 71:23 14:9 14:15 19:24 21:1 event(1) 12:11 24:16 26:2 26:11 28:2 eventually(1) 4:24 earlier(2) 61:22 78:16 facilitated(1) 64:17 28:12 29:3 33:3 33:22 ever(4) 7:3 19:22 20:15 facility(7) 6:22 7:15 9:1 ears(1) 49:17 35:9 47:13 54:11 55:4 26:13 10:17 17:4 24:23 50:21 earth(1) 55:17 59:9 63:14 66:25 67:11 easily(1) 19:6 everyone(1) 69:4 fact(26) 14:2 15:5 15:7 edited(3) 41:6 57:11 english(1) 65:4 everything(2) 71:17 75:9 15:15 15:16 16:18 16:19 editorial(3) 17:12 29:24 enormously(1) 62:21 evidence(15) 25:14 25:22 17:1 19:16 20:10 21:3 48:6 (3) 30:25 72:23 enough 26:24 27:11 28:21 29:17 21:22 22:9 26:24 28:8 31:1 31:7 31:13 33:12 35:1 37:4 40:2 44:20 effect(5) 31:4 32:21 64:11 77:4 40:2 52:25 55:10 58:22 45:22 47:17 47:18 49:5 65:12 67:10 enter(7) 37:14 37:19 52:5 58:22 49:18 52:24 55:10 effectively(3) 25:21 66:21 63:13 65:25 68:3 68:16 exact(2) 27:10 45:7 exactly(4) 22:25 28:13 facts(8) 4:10 13:25 16:23 66:22 entered(1) 5:24 30:6 31:12 16:24 42:17 63:2 63:5 entire(6) 22:3 23:2 23:4 76:15 effort(3) 5:23 62:22 62:23 39:9 48:13 62:19 examined(1) 65:24 factual(3) 12:23 29:2 63:4 efforts(1) 42:4 example(5) 2:10 12:21 factually(1) 17:6 eight(1) 70:4 entirely(2) 29:23 68:15 43:20 44:12 45:16 failed(1) 64:3 either(1) 41:25 entirety(3) 13:22 15:19 fair(53) 12:12 20:13 elaborated(1) 63:3 23:23 examples(1) 28:22 21:25 22:5 22:7 35:3 elected(1) 32:12 exceeds(1) 49:17 40:7 40:12 40:15 41:5 electronic(1) 1:39 entitled(2) 4:16 51:12 42:5 43:3 43:17 43:18 except(1) 45:24 element(4) 18:9 31:17 (2) 6:1 9:25 entrance excessive(2) 54:12 67:14 43:23 44:3 44:8 44:14 31:17 41:1 entry(1) 68:17 44:23 44:25 45:4 45:11 exculpatory(1) 17:21 45:12 45:13 46:18 47:10 epidemiologist(1) 31:3 excuse(1) 72:9 elizabeth(2) 1:28 3:9 47:20 48:3 48:7 48:8 epidemiology(1) 30:23 exhibit(1) 60:5 else(6) 17:25 50:22 50:24 49:20 50:6 51:8 51:9 equate(1) 30:15 exhibits(1) 1:3 62:10 69:11 79:14 52:19 55:18 55:24 56:3 erroneous(3) 41:3 41:8 existed(1) 44:8 56:13 56:25 57:10 57:11 57:15 expected(1) 59:15 email(4) 53:18 54:18 67:6 57:23 59:7 62:12 62:13 expedited(1) 74:13 80:46 66:15 66:19 67:15 67:19 escort(2) 6:21 9:21 expel(1) 58:14 67:25 72:23 77:9 expelled(1) 58:14 embellished(1) 67:22 experience(1) 26:17 fairer(1) 12:12
Page : 6 10/05/11 12:54:02

draw(1) 26:13 drawing(1) 27:9 driven(1) 68:25 drivers(1) 5:21 driving(1) 5:19 drug(2) 30:25 31:1 during(1) 63:3 dustin(2) 28:1 28:6 duty(2) 6:13 7:18 e-mail(9) 8:19 8:20 8:24 9:1 9:5 9:9 42:10 42:20 50:7 each(5) 12:7 29:21 36:3 36:5 51:13

emotional(3) 11:14 11:15 escorted(6) 6:3 6:10 7:5 30:20 9:25 10:7 10:16

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin fairly(5) 32:6 48:20 50:7 first(14) 5:3 8:9 11:18 55:8 64:19 12:7 15:10 16:9 23:19 25:6 27:14 28:10 29:3 35:16 43:2 73:22 (6) 54:24 56:1 fairness 57:9 57:9 58:12 62:13 fit(1) 79:7 false(13) 12:11 32:16 five(1) 30:24 32:19 32:21 33:4 33:12 flows(1) 27:15 33:21 37:12 64:1 64:4 focus(23) 11:16 15:2 15:6 64:8 64:23 65:21 15:18 16:5 17:1 17:5 17:6 17:10 17:12 17:17 falsehood(3) 24:25 41:13 17:20 19:21 22:18 23:3 41:16 23:4 34:1 42:5 47:19 48:4 48:7 64:16 64:16 falsity(4) 26:6 31:20 33:8 41:14 focused(1) 25:5 focuses(4) 16:5 18:20 far(3) 42:23 48:11 73:14 19:2 19:19 fashion(2) 66:21 77:24 february(1) 9:7 folks(5) 3:20 72:2 76:18 79:1 79:10 federal(1) 26:20 feel(1) 25:4 follow(2) 4:18 4:22 fellow(1) 5:4 followed(4) 2:16 2:19 few(2) 69:3 71:16 11:9 17:15 field(2) 31:3 40:9 figure(4) 75:21 75:24 follows(2) 13:12 14:2 76:3 77:18 forbidden(1) 52:5 foregoing(2) 80:6 80:17 file(7) 74:3 74:18 75:8 76:18 77:10 77:21 78:24 form(3) 55:9 59:17 59:18 formal(2) 20:14 40:19 filed(15) 4:11 11:11 formally(1) 21:18 64:25 71:17 71:22 73:22 format(1) 80:19 73:24 73:25 74:8 74:24 former(5) 37:15 37:20 74:24 75:9 76:20 78:4 66:1 68:4 69:20 78:16 filing(1) 77:21 forster(3) 3:12 3:13 3:14 filings(1) 4:7 forth(3) 62:13 63:2 68:18 financial(1) 1:30 forward(2) 31:24 63:22 financially(1) 80:28 found(9) 8:7 9:18 33:1 find(5) 13:23 15:20 44:17 35:3 36:15 39:3 47:25 44:18 54:4 54:11 75:11 fine(2) 69:24 78:22 fingertips(1) 57:2 fire(1) 27:4 four(9) 6:25 12:4 16:17 37:17 37:21 38:6 40:18 59:7 69:11 fourth(1) 16:14
Page : 7

fox(30) 5:6 5:8 5:15 5:18 6:6 6:24 7:2 8:22 8:24 9:12 9:15 9:17 9:21 10:18 11:5 11:8 11:18 11:23 12:4 15:4 18:20 18:21 18:24 19:3 19:5 19:19 23:4 28:11 47:10 66:10 foxs (2) 6:7 8:25 frankly(2) 53:21 54:9 free(8) 13:14 25:4 37:14 37:19 48:6 63:13 65:25 68:3 freedom(1) 12:18 front(5) 11:4 19:1 49:16 56:10 63:22 frozen(1) 71:18 fully(2) 73:20 77:10 function(1) 72:13 fundamentally(2) 56:17 56:19

gets(1) 22:15 getting(2) 45:7 59:8 girlfriend(9) 6:15 9:3 10:4 11:20 11:25 17:3 23:7 24:21 52:15 gist(6) 16:9 34:1 34:13 38:24 50:18 56:18 given(3) 7:24 14:13 75:7 giving(1) 28:22 glad(2) 4:6 62:5 glean(1) 55:2 gloria(3) 5:6 11:18 18:24 goldrick(1) 79:6 gone(1) 15:9 gonna(8) 18:3 25:2 25:21 45:25 46:4 54:24 57:5 69:10 good(4) 3:2 3:14 28:22 59:12

gotten(1) 52:13 further(10) 5:23 7:24 8:4 government(2) 12:12 8:9 9:5 11:8 78:6 80:15 governmental(1) 40:19 80:22 80:26 governor(1) 32:19 graham(1) 6:21 furthermore(1) 65:15 grand(1) 56:15 g-a(1) 3:19 grave(1) 52:12 gaining(1) 50:16 greatly(1) 56:16 gal(1) 11:7 grounded(1) 75:24 game(3) 27:25 28:1 28:5 group(1) 5:5 gants(1) 56:12 groups(1) 16:17 gantz's(1) 55:22 guard(1) 11:24 gass(25) 1:34 3:16 3:16 guards(2) 5:21 9:16 3:18 3:19 3:22 3:25 4:1 guess(2) 21:21 73:6 4:2 4:5 73:20 73:25 74:2 guidance(1) 44:7 74:4 74:11 74:13 74:19 guilty(2) 8:8 36:15 75:19 76:1 76:3 76:7 hah(1) 54:8 77:12 77:15 78:3 79:21 half(2) 72:16 72:22 hall(3) 1:35 3:16 6:17 gather(3) 5:7 61:1 76:20 hallway(1) 59:4 general(1) 64:18 hand(8) 8:6 34:7 35:21 generally(1) 20:6 41:12 41:14 53:12 57:21 genitals(1) 61:23 65:10 gentleman(2) 27:21 31:16 handcuffs(1) 6:11 gentlemen(1) 79:15 handle(1) 72:14 genuineness(1) 32:3
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin hands(9) 7:21 8:1 8:2 8:2 her(38) 5:6 5:15 5:20 house(1) 11:6 22:6 34:9 42:16 50:1 6:17 6:24 7:2 7:3 7:21 howell(17) 43:16 44:7 61:23 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:23 8:25 9:3 44:19 48:14 48:17 52:23 9:21 10:8 10:16 10:22 53:2 53:3 53:3 53:5 (1) 71:1 happen happened(4) 43:21 45:18 18:22 18:25 26:5 37:14 53:10 55:20 55:23 56:2 42:17 44:7 45:15 46:8 56:5 57:11 62:13 58:24 59:8 46:12 51:12 53:19 53:20 58:19 59:8 64:23 66:10 however(7) 10:9 17:10 happy(7) 31:14 46:2 66:12 67:7 67:17 68:8 35:22 40:21 48:18 66:17 46:23 47:3 51:4 77:5 67:25 79:10 heral(1) 74:23 hull(1) 40:16 hard(2) 22:25 26:22 herald(45) 1:13 1:27 3:9 hump(1) 72:20 harm(1) 31:1 4:11 10:21 11:12 11:21 hyperbole(1) 38:4 hate(1) 74:22 13:9 14:17 15:14 22:11 hyperbolic(2) 51:8 67:22 havent(1) 40:4 22:20 25:6 26:16 27:9 hypothetical(1) 59:22 hawkey(7) 34:20 55:11 55:13 59:16 59:18 60:1 27:10 27:25 28:4 28:22 i'm(23) 45:7 49:7 49:7 28:24 29:23 36:7 46:17 54:24 56:13 57:14 62:5 60:2 47:19 48:6 50:18 53:17 62:21 62:25 68:24 69:7 hawkey's(1) 60:6 55:7 55:13 55:18 57:2 69:9 69:10 70:3 74:7 hea(1) 28:17 59:19 60:11 61:13 61:18 74:9 74:10 74:22 75:10 headline(5) 11:5 11:8 61:18 62:1 62:7 64:5 75:11 77:5 78:17 79:11 19:1 60:8 60:8 64:13 66:13 69:5 74:24 75:17 75:20 idea(2) 17:25 29:17 headlines(1) 28:10 identified(4) 16:24 21:1 heads(1) 79:3 hereby(1) 80:6 36:22 47:12 healthy(1) 31:10 heretofore (1) 41:19 hear(5) 45:21 49:16 51:4 herself(3) 19:3 36:18 identifies(1) 36:16 51:4 72:15 high(6) 14:25 18:25 identifying(1) 7:20 heard(3) 25:1 60:3 72:16 38:12 38:23 40:24 49:5 ignore(2) 25:23 48:12 ignores(2) 29:16 67:16 hearing(15) 1:10 28:19 highly(2) 30:20 62:24 ill(2) 31:3 41:15 28:20 30:9 31:9 33:19 himself(3) 10:1 10:16 immediately(1) 6:16 34:22 34:25 46:1 63:3 16:13 63:6 68:17 70:8 77:11 immune(1) 54:8 80:26 impact(2) 44:15 64:22 hit(3) 18:6 18:16 28:3 hearsay(1) 54:18 implication(1) 21:8 held(3) 27:4 28:20 37:6 hockey(2) 7:19 28:18 implies(1) 68:7 hokey(2) 7:19 28:22 help(2) 30:12 79:14 imply(1) 20:18 hold(5) 27:11 27:15 54:1 important(3) 9:10 15:3 helped(1) 18:24 69:24 74:17 79:12 helpful(1) 55:25 holding(2) 10:2 25:24 holtz(1) 69:22 honestly(2) 55:14 61:16 honorable(1) 1:17 hope(1) 44:16 hour(2) 72:16 72:22 hours(4) 6:25 12:4 38:6 59:7
Page : 8

inaccurate(2) 60:1 67:23 inappropriate(4) 34:14 34:17 34:21 34:23 inc(3) 1:13 1:27 1:33 incarcerated(1) 4:17 incident(9) 7:17 9:19 10:14 10:17 42:21 55:15 61:14 61:19 61:25 include(5) 17:20 22:6 22:7 38:19 74:14 included(2) 18:1 71:7 includes(1) 40:21 including(1) 10:24 incorrect(2) 2:19 24:4 indeed(1) 66:10 indicate(1) 10:23 indicated(7) 2:7 7:10 15:16 64:4 66:17 69:5 69:23 indicates(3) 10:13 30:17 66:10 indicating(1) 67:1 indiscernible(2) 53:7 individual(4) 28:11 28:11 36:22 55:15 individuals(2) 16:17 51:14 indulge(1) 52:22 inference(1) 26:13 inferences(1) 25:14 infliction(2) 11:14 11:15 inform(1) 7:1 informal(2) 20:14 40:20 information(10) 5:4 5:7 10:6 48:22 50:21 54:4 56:16 56:16 60:7 71:8 informed(2) 5:1 9:10 informing(2) 10:22 49:23 initially(2) 25:8 74:13 injury(2) 41:15 41:17

importantly(1) 40:12 impression(7) 41:4 41:8 57:15 57:15 58:12 62:15 62:16 improper(1) 56:4 impropriety(1) 32:12 inaccuracies(1) 32:18 inaccuracy(1) 55:11

10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin inmate(9) 4:15 7:2 7:19 involved(8) 3:25 4:16 7:24 8:4 8:23 9:12 10:11 4:24 5:3 15:13 15:23 27:2 35:18 37:2 involving(5) 12:17 32:11 32:12 47:10 61:14 inmate's(1) 10:4 inmates(2) 5:2 52:11 innocuous(2) 30:21 30:21 iola(1) 6:3 isnt(2) 20:3 45:2 inquire(1) 6:5 isolation(1) 19:14 insi(1) 55:18 israels(1) 1:29 inside(1) 9:1 iss(1) 56:13 instance(1) 15:10 institution(17) 5:12 6:2 issue(25) 25:7 28:8 29:9 29:15 31:10 31:15 31:18 7:6 10:7 13:13 15:8 37:14 37:16 37:17 50:22 31:21 32:2 32:10 37:12 51:10 63:12 63:13 64:16 38:14 38:15 40:17 45:17 46:23 51:6 52:23 57:9 66:1 66:2 68:4 57:9 67:20 68:21 71:23 74:23 77:18 institutional(1) 47:16 instructed(2) 9:20 23:24 intended(2) 69:24 74:16 issued(1) 70:10 issues(10) 24:24 32:12 intends(2) 17:19 17:20 43:1 46:9 63:4 69:3 71:5 intent(1) 41:15 intentional(3) 11:14 41:13 72:14 72:17 79:11 64:21 it'll(1) 79:12 interconnection(1) 65:19 item(1) 9:24 items(2) 5:23 30:21 intercourse(6) 13:16 26:20 26:21 35:12 35:18 itself(8) 5:25 7:6 13:7 17:25 54:21 65:6 66:23 63:15 66:24 interested(1) 80:28 its (36) 12:15 14:2 18:18 interesting(1) 79:11 22:11 22:11 22:19 25:10 intern(1) 7:4 27:19 27:20 28:10 30:23 international(1) 1:36 31:9 31:25 34:24 35:10 interpretation(1) 35:11 interpreted(2) 61:23 74:13 36:20 36:25 37:23 38:11 39:8 43:18 44:23 45:4 interrupted(2) 2:4 2:6 45:10 45:11 45:12 45:16 interruption(1) 2:6 45:20 48:7 48:11 48:24 interview(3) 6:9 10:14 50:19 51:9 51:20 51:25 23:13 52:15 id(7) 15:1 18:4 22:20 intimate(2) 19:24 50:20 24:13 34:1 42:5 43:1 investigation(2) 10:23 50:15 ill(3) 16:18 40:8 50:24 ive(4) 12:24 25:17 29:21 invoke(1) 42:15 31:10 invol(1) 47:9 james(1) 8:16 jessica(1) 3:10
Page : 9

joanna(2) 1:9 47:12 john(1) 22:9 join(2) 75:23 76:14 joinder(12) 74:24 75:9 75:10 75:12 75:15 75:16 76:4 76:5 76:13 76:20 77:17 77:21

joining(1) 75:20 jones(68) 4:15 4:15 4:22 5:1 5:7 5:8 5:10 5:11 6:4 kissing/touching(1 9:9 6:9 6:11 6:18 6:24 7:10 knee(1) 57:20 7:11 7:20 8:4 8:7 8:12 knew(5) 24:21 28:24 8:22 9:7 9:8 9:12 9:16 32:25 36:5 58:16 9:17 9:22 10:2 12:2 12:5 14:8 14:21 15:13 15:17 knowledge(5) 15:24 40:9 16:12 16:12 17:13 20:21 42:19 42:21 47:16 20:23 21:2 21:14 23:9 24:12 24:17 28:15 35:8 known(6) 2:18 5:12 36:4 36:16 37:1 37:2 14:21 15:8 36:12 50:21 37:15 43:9 47:12 47:15 47:17 47:23 50:13 61:14 knows(1) 26:15 64:25 65:2 65:3 66:2 ladies(2) 31:16 79:15 66:6 66:9 66:25 67:2 laid(1) 26:14 67:11 67:13 68:4 language(10) 14:17 16:8 17:21 18:8 18:19 24:15 joness (4) 6:14 7:8 9:3 35:20 38:3 51:20 65:5 11:25 large(1) 11:5 judgment(28) 4:11 12:7 largely(2) 68:25 72:13 12:15 12:16 39:24 41:23 larger(1) 71:24 53:22 53:23 56:8 56:9 last(6) 3:6 12:3 28:1 63:1 63:4 63:22 64:2 59:13 68:12 75:4 65:23 67:21 68:2 68:11 68:18 69:6 72:10 73:18 lastly(1) 41:9 74:14 75:19 76:19 77:11 later(1) 10:2 78:2 78:16 law(20) 12:8 12:22 16:8 25:8 25:25 26:20 27:11 judgment's(2) 56:3 56:12 31:18 33:8 40:1 41:11 judgments(1) 74:14 41:14 42:1 42:2 43:13 judicial(1) 48:4 48:12 56:6 57:23 64:3 juncture(1) 46:7 76:14 jurisdiction(2) 40:17 lawsuit(2) 11:11 11:13 jury(4) 25:10 56:10 56:15 lawyer(1) 35:17 63:23 lead(4) 17:2 17:5 17:7 28:9 justice(2) 1:17 57:5 justifiable(1) 55:6 leading(1) 40:16 keep(2) 25:3 76:17

kenneth(1) 6:3 killer(2) 11:9 11:21 killers(1) 11:7 kind(1) 21:4 kinds(1) 43:1 king(2) 5:4 5:5 kissing(11) 7:20 8:2 22:6 34:10 34:11 35:23 54:12 57:7 57:21 65:10 67:14

10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin learn(1) 4:20 learned(1) 11:22 least(9) 34:24 37:13 40:8 41:11 51:6 64:2 64:7 65:22 69:23 man(1) 35:18 management(1) 5:11 manner(1) 57:14 many(2) 12:20 31:7 location(1) 6:18 mar(1) 36:23 log(8) 5:13 9:25 11:2 march(1) 11:11 leave(6) 9:4 23:20 31:14 12:5 42:19 46:14 66:10 marinova(99) 1:9 4:12 37:22 67:23 79:6 66:12 4:22 5:1 5:3 5:9 5:17 logical(1) 26:12 5:20 5:22 6:5 6:9 6:12 leaving(1) 70:3 logically(1) 78:1 6:14 6:17 6:20 6:22 6:23 left(6) 7:7 9:15 10:13 7:1 7:3 7:4 7:7 7:8 7:20 long(10) 40:14 43:22 10:19 58:13 68:25 43:25 44:7 45:12 49:11 8:12 8:14 8:24 9:6 9:11 50:2 73:3 76:25 77:16 10:5 10:7 10:10 10:13 10:19 11:11 12:3 12:10 leg(5) 7:21 8:1 22:7 35:21 65:11 13:13 14:9 14:20 14:22 longer(3) 26:5 28:25 look(36) 15:2 15:10 15:18 15:4 15:8 15:13 15:17 legal(3) 20:3 21:8 21:20 15:19 17:11 17:17 18:19 15:25 16:14 17:13 17:23 18:22 19:9 19:11 19:12 18:24 19:7 19:21 19:22 legislative(1) 66:9 20:15 23:6 24:12 26:1 19:14 21:12 22:1 23:1 legislator(1) 32:12 24:1 24:10 24:19 26:19 26:10 27:5 27:13 27:15 lengthy(1) 2:5 26:20 26:21 26:24 33:23 28:15 28:16 32:25 36:5 let(22) 13:11 16:3 16:6 36:17 36:18 36:20 37:4 24:24 24:25 29:19 31:16 34:1 37:5 38:7 38:11 38:21 44:22 47:5 50:10 37:14 39:15 43:9 47:12 36:19 37:9 40:7 41:22 54:10 55:21 59:20 61:11 47:15 50:14 50:16 50:19 43:5 44:15 50:5 51:5 51:16 55:2 56:23 57:18 62:18 51:5 53:2 62:5 62:6 57:19 59:4 61:14 63:12 looked(1) 36:2 70:12 76:17 78:20 (10) 19:10 19:17 64:24 65:2 65:25 66:4 looking 66:24 67:1 67:10 67:12 22:3 23:3 23:3 23:4 let's(1) 76:17 33:25 36:4 51:18 62:12 67:23 68:3 69:2 71:7 letter(2) 27:8 78:14 71:25 75:21 75:22 lets (3) 13:4 33:18 47:5 looks(4) 13:20 13:21 level(2) 10:11 53:11 marinova's(2) 64:20 71:5 13:22 36:2 liability(1) 40:11 marinovas (3) 4:19 5:14 liable(1) 37:6 26:25 lot(1) 72:17 license(3) 5:21 17:7 27:23 low(3) 40:24 49:6 53:11 life(1) 30:19 marks(1) 57:1 made(14) 17:12 22:11 likely(1) 21:18 29:2 40:23 40:23 43:13 mass(1) 31:2 limited(3) 30:14 71:16 44:24 45:22 50:23 50:23 massachusetts(3) 1:4 1:43 line(2) 44:19 77:16 24:7 56:7 58:25 59:3 59:25 lines(1) 61:2 lisa(1) 80:8 material(4) 32:1 40:14 mail(1) 29:23 list(1) 21:5 40:14 47:19 major(1) 60:22 listed(1) 57:19 makes(7) 39:4 44:20 45:8 listen(1) 56:10 45:17 49:20 65:7 72:25 materials(3) 44:5 44:8 litigation(2) 2:12 19:2 little(9) 26:6 27:19 30:23 31:25 39:14 49:7 68:24 making(2) 9:14 42:4 malice(5) 41:9 41:11 68:25 69:11 41:22 41:25 66:17
Page : 10

llp(2) 1:29 1:35 lobby(7) 5:20 6:22 6:23 7:4 10:18 59:7 66:4

matter(21) 12:8 18:15 25:24 27:11 31:21 32:2 32:5 32:7 32:14 40:1 40:2 43:25 44:6 44:11 45:14 56:6 57:22 63:22 64:3 64:6 80:12 matters(5) 17:8 32:5 32:10 47:20 72:25 maximum(1) 41:17 maybe(4) 25:12 25:12 28:25 73:17 maam(1) 3:6 mean(19) 18:8 19:25 20:6 20:10 21:10 21:17 22:17 22:19 22:22 32:18 33:17 35:7 35:20 35:21 36:10 38:1 41:6 45:16 58:17 meaning(17) 8:25 10:10 12:9 12:21 13:5 13:15 14:13 14:14 22:21 25:8 25:10 30:12 33:25 42:24 58:17 63:10 64:23 means(12) 13:24 21:12 23:20 24:3 24:20 26:5 26:15 26:19 30:14 35:11 36:11 41:11 meant(3) 14:13 57:2 measure(1) 65:22 media(2) 12:17 40:13 medical(1) 71:4 meet(2) 5:8 6:4 meeting(5) 6:24 6:25 27:4 43:21 59:6 meets(1) 72:20 megan(1) 3:5 mel(1) 5:4 member(4) 5:4 7:13 8:9 9:2 memo(1) 76:14 memoranda(1) 12:24
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin memorandum(3) 50:8 54:14 67:6 months(2) 28:20 77:13 more(11) 21:18 22:2 31:4 37:11 37:24 58:7 67:20 (2) 19:25 20:1 68:7 68:8 71:2 78:21 mentioned mere(1) 49:18 most(3) 13:2 33:6 66:18 merely(5) 9:23 49:6 64:20 64:21 67:13 motion(51) 1:10 3:25 4:10 11:13 12:15 29:20 30:13 62:9 63:1 63:22 message(1) 79:6 64:7 68:10 68:18 69:1 met(5) 4:14 6:2 9:17 69:2 69:4 69:24 70:2 10:18 40:4 70:10 70:16 71:7 71:17 71:20 71:22 71:25 72:4 metal(1) 5:24 72:5 72:12 73:4 73:5 metaphor(1) 57:4 73:9 73:11 73:18 73:21 michael(2) 1:34 3:16 74:16 74:23 74:24 75:11 michelle(2) 8:18 46:17 75:12 75:18 75:19 75:21 might(8) 4:20 16:19 19:16 23:18 26:15 30:8 75:23 75:24 76:14 76:19 77:11 77:17 78:16 79:5 31:13 45:6 79:5 military(2) 21:20 57:5 motions(5) 13:2 69:6 millions(1) 30:25 mind(7) 30:7 32:22 43:1 72:1 73:15 74:15 51:6 53:9 64:12 65:12 move(3) 12:6 69:5 72:17 moving(5) 3:23 4:4 43:5 mindful(1) 67:21 minimum(3) 21:18 63:21 53:23 78:25 65:18 much(10) 3:21 18:6 31:4 36:13 37:11 40:6 59:10 minor(1) 32:18 62:7 68:7 68:8 minutes(2) 12:4 68:12 mischaracterized( 67:4 misconduct(3) 26:23 28:3 muddle(1) 36:13 murderer's(1) 11:19 58:20 murphy/herald(1) 30:2 name(4) 3:2 3:6 4:15 mislead(1) 41:7 misleading(4) 51:22 57:13 21:23 66:22 68:1 named(1) 20:25 namely(1) 8:1 misplaced(1) 57:14 narrative(4) 7:16 7:17 misrepresent (3) 41:7 7:22 7:23 57:12 66:21 misstatements(1) 60:23 moment(4) 49:4 53:25 54:25 59:13 moments(1) 10:2 month(1) 79:1
Page : 11 10/05/11 12:54:02

need(15) 12:19 40:23 43:18 53:7 57:6 70:17 70:20 70:23 70:24 71:1 72:22 75:10 76:11 76:23 76:25 needs(5) 41:18 41:21 46:5 70:21 71:1 negative(3) 16:16 16:20 16:21

november(11) 7:9 7:18 7:25 8:6 9:8 11:1 14:8 15:7 17:16 22:14 42:9 nuances(1) 12:23 number(12) 7:11 7:12 7:14 16:4 16:9 16:22 16:22 16:24 22:18 37:19 42:8 72:24 o'brien(2) 54:10 58:25 o'brien's(3) 53:17 67:7 67:9

narrow(1) 42:1 nathan(1) 3:12 necessarily(1) 50:4 necessary(2) 57:13 68:13

negligent(1) 11:15 neither(2) 66:18 80:22 neutral(1) 37:24 o-o-r-t (1) 55:21 never(5) 54:6 58:17 61:7 oath(1) 31:8 66:6 67:10 observation(1) 42:1 observations(1) 27:5 nevertheless(2) 40:23 46:5 observed(3) 7:19 25:23 newspaper(8) 11:4 11:7 65:20 12:6 30:22 31:6 41:20 42:7 54:22 observer(1) 49:19 obtained(2) 10:25 11:2 (3) 16:12 70:25 79:12 obviously(3) 12:22 15:9 next nice(1) 79:18 67:1 night(1) 28:1 non-defamatory(1 25:9 occ(1) 8:24 non-governmenta occasions(2) 9:7 11:10 non-official(1) 40:25 occurred(8) 15:5 36:17 41:4 41:7 45:13 66:21 non-profit(1) 4:13 67:5 67:25 nope(1) 79:16 nor(3) 66:18 80:24 80:28 occurs(1) 2:6 normal(1) 7:14 normally(4) 38:9 38:22 october(2) 77:18 80:37 odds(2) 5:5 66:11 39:7 52:8 off(1) 79:22 notary(1) 1:42 offending(2) 32:16 64:8 note(2) 17:22 61:13 offenses(3) 7:11 21:5 21:6 noted(2) 13:25 46:5 office(2) 78:20 80:17 notes(2) 8:7 8:9 officer(17) 6:21 7:19 10:5 15:12 28:17 28:18 28:20 nothing(5) 9:17 36:14 34:20 34:25 42:12 51:14 36:18 49:3 57:13 55:11 55:12 59:16 59:18 59:25 60:6 notified(2) 8:21 9:2 notify(1) 8:21 officers(2) 15:12 52:12 notion(1) 41:14

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin official(34) 12:12 40:15 40:15 40:19 40:22 40:24 40:25 42:8 42:15 42:23 42:24 43:19 44:8 44:11 45:1 45:5 45:5 45:11 45:11 46:8 48:20 48:23 49:6 49:11 49:12 49:18 49:18 49:24 49:24 49:25 58:23 65:1 66:16 67:18 oral(2) 72:15 72:16 orally(1) 18:4 order(9) 6:4 7:13 8:8 28:5 41:21 70:11 71:10 73:12 74:14 own(1) 49:17 obrien(5) 6:3 8:20 9:5 10:10 51:14 obriens (4) 42:10 43:4 46:16 50:10 pack(1) 75:2 package(2) 78:2 78:2 page(5) 11:4 19:1 53:7 59:21 76:14 pages(1) 1:2 pal(1) 11:7 paper(2) 11:4 75:2 papers(4) 18:4 62:23 68:17 77:21 people(18) 16:9 20:8 20:9 20:9 21:16 25:15 29:18 29:22 30:16 30:19 30:24 30:25 31:6 31:11 31:13 32:13 35:24 36:3 perceive(1) 41:25 perceived(1) 25:15 perceptions(1) 27:5 perfectly(6) 46:23 47:3 51:4 77:5 77:9 79:10 perhaps(4) 18:3 22:3 35:2 79:6

ordered(2) 9:16 74:6 ordinarily(1) 65:4 ordinary(2) 9:18 77:24 organization(2) 4:13 4:20 officials(4) 16:11 49:23 organizations(1) 27:3 54:20 54:20 original(2) 26:9 40:11 other(27) 4:23 11:12 16:3 often(1) 18:7 18:3 18:18 27:24 30:4 old(9) 4:14 4:17 5:2 5:10 31:6 31:22 32:7 35:9 14:25 19:1 24:13 24:23 36:3 36:5 37:9 41:14 38:12 48:11 54:4 55:15 61:20 omissions(2) 17:24 43:11 68:21 68:22 69:6 69:11 omitted(1) 57:13 71:6 71:7 71:8 72:17 once(3) 8:11 9:1 41:8 one(39) 2:10 2:10 4:18 others(1) 65:24 4:24 7:11 8:12 15:11 otherwise(8) 13:13 33:5 16:22 19:6 19:20 21:5 35:20 40:14 63:13 68:15 22:3 23:19 23:20 24:1 71:3 80:28 25:12 26:7 26:7 26:13 27:23 31:25 37:19 37:21 our(13) 17:11 26:22 40:22 41:12 41:15 42:22 31:18 39:23 40:4 40:12 43:13 46:5 48:19 49:6 40:17 41:11 65:4 69:1 58:7 62:11 71:9 72:1 71:15 77:21 79:3 73:1 73:17 74:20 76:13 ours(1) 74:17 onl(1) 72:3 out(28) 4:9 6:17 8:4 10:7 online(2) 29:25 62:8 10:15 10:16 19:14 22:19 only(20) 10:11 15:22 21:3 26:14 37:15 37:18 37:21 23:18 25:13 26:12 26:13 39:3 39:24 44:13 44:17 35:15 37:21 42:5 42:23 45:9 51:6 51:17 52:1 58:21 64:25 65:7 65:10 52:15 59:3 59:4 63:7 66:5 69:19 71:16 74:16 66:2 67:24 68:5 79:14 79:10 oort(1) 55:21 outcome(1) 80:28 open(2) 24:6 68:19 outset(1) 63:6 opening(1) 18:22 outside(1) 7:5 operate(1) 64:6 outstanding(2) 69:2 69:3 operations(1) 7:14 over(2) 8:2 17:1 opportunity(3) 24:25 33:5 overarching (2) 16:25 50:25 overheard(1) 49:6 overlay(1) 62:13 opposed(2) 40:20 59:16 overt(2) 13:15 55:4 opposition(2) 59:20 77:21
Page : 12

period(3) 39:15 58:20 peripheral(1) 64:21 permission(1) 75:8 permits(1) 63:22 para(1) 26:8 paragraph(10) 14:5 18:22 permitted(3) 16:11 30:2 22:3 24:19 26:9 27:15 66:4 38:11 38:14 48:10 76:14 person(11) 7:12 9:21 13:18 27:12 28:17 32:25 paralegal(1) 1:44 35:17 35:19 36:17 51:10 parcel(1) 78:14 57:17 pardon(2) 10:17 66:20 persons(1) 9:23 parlance(1) 21:11 persuade(1) 33:5 parse(1) 19:13 part(15) 2:12 8:25 9:10 phone(1) 67:7 9:20 23:10 23:10 23:13 phonetically(1) 2:16 photograph(1) 18:23 23:21 39:2 51:7 51:11 60:5 66:18 71:24 78:14 phrase(2) 38:14 51:7 physical(1) 50:20 participate(1) 6:20 physically(1) 53:12 particular(1) 31:1 picking(1) 49:8 particularly(1) 47:20 picture(1) 67:17 parties(3) 12:16 13:6 piece(1) 54:4 parts(1) 11:17 place(5) 1:36 23:13 23:14 party(3) 4:4 40:25 43:5 32:11 34:14 pass(1) 27:3 placed(2) 5:11 8:15 passages(2) 32:16 64:8 passed(3) 5:3 5:24 71:12 placing(4) 7:21 8:1 35:21 65:10 past(1) 16:13 pauses(1) 2:5 pedroia(2) 28:1 28:6 penultimate(3) 14:5 24:19 26:7
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin plaintiff(19) 1:21 3:3 3:5 4:12 12:9 18:10 29:21 30:1 31:19 31:24 32:15 33:11 33:17 41:18 42:3 45:19 59:19 64:3 64:10 plaintiff's(2) 64:7 79:5 plaintiffs(1) 77:17 plaintiffs(1) 33:14 plausible(1) 55:5 play(1) 19:2 played(1) 28:6 please(5) 25:1 29:12 29:20 31:16 37:10 plural(1) 16:5 point(12) 22:15 34:24 39:18 41:22 41:24 44:20 53:22 56:7 58:7 60:22 75:8 75:10 pointed(1) 59:4 pointing(1) 10:15 points(3) 8:4 29:13 37:10 policy(3) 49:20 49:23 49:25 preclude(1) 42:3 predicate(1) 63:2 predicates(1) 42:13 prejudice(1) 41:23 prepare (1) 13:3 prepared (2) 61:25 62:25 prescription(1) 30:24 present(1) 43:22 presented(3) 5:20 12:20 16:25 press(3) 12:19 17:18 27:3 presume(2) 70:17 70:25 previously(12) 10:6 11:20 11:25 13:14 24:16 26:2 28:2 28:12 39:12 52:2 56:7 63:13 privileges(1) 58:19 probably(6) 14:6 30:25 33:9 56:11 72:25 78:4 probed(2) 11:6 19:3 procedural(1) 12:14 procedure (1) 58:14 proceeding(4) 17:15 28:19 47:22 48:4 public(19) 1:42 24:7 31:6 31:21 32:3 32:5 32:5 32:14 40:21 45:1 49:22 49:24 54:22 56:14 64:6 75:21 75:24 76:3 77:18 publication(3) 18:10 31:21 64:15

principles(1) 19:10 print(2) 11:5 29:25 prior(1) 66:8 prison(57) 5:5 5:18 5:25 7:8 7:13 7:15 9:15 11:7 11:9 11:21 12:4 13:16 13:17 14:23 14:24 15:4 16:10 16:14 17:2 17:17 political(1) 32:7 23:10 23:11 23:13 23:21 26:1 28:11 32:11 35:19 portions(1) 11:16 35:25 38:6 38:15 38:16 position(5) 29:7 50:3 38:19 39:1 39:2 39:6 50:4 64:14 75:22 39:15 47:10 51:11 51:17 possession(5) 45:15 54:3 52:5 55:3 55:5 58:11 58:14 58:15 58:15 58:21 65:7 66:13 67:17 58:24 59:8 63:15 63:18 possible(3) 16:13 32:12 65:1 66:5 66:12 67:25 68:5 41:22 prisoners(1) 23:12 prisoners(1) 27:2 possibly(1) 64:17 private(1) 40:20 posts(2) 69:3 71:8 privilege(17) 21:25 35:3 potential(1) 24:22 40:7 40:13 43:17 43:23 poulin(2) 22:9 34:23 44:14 44:23 45:13 45:21 power(1) 29:24 48:9 48:22 49:21 52:21 ppearances(1) 1:19 66:15 67:16 67:20 practical(1) 44:15 practice(1) 9:18 privileged(3) 12:12 16:22 pre-approved (1) 66:11 54:8 precise(1) 63:8 precisely(1) 30:6
Page : 13

publish(1) 37:7 proceedings(6) 1:39 40:21 published(14) 11:4 13:21 41:3 57:12 66:20 80:10 19:15 24:14 37:6 41:9 43:24 44:13 44:14 55:16 56:17 62:8 64:11 65:14 proceeds(1) 11:13 produce(1) 69:2 produced(4) 1:40 32:23 publisher(1) 40:12 publishes(1) 40:13 64:13 65:13 pulled(1) 59:3 punctuation(1) 68:14 production(1) 4:16 purpose(10) 15:5 17:17 professional(1) 62:24 prohibited(2) 12:1 24:16 31:9 41:16 44:23 48:1 49:21 64:15 71:16 76:3 projects(1) 4:23 promise(1) 58:7 purposes(7) 30:7 45:25 prompt(1) 12:19 63:5 64:2 64:6 65:22 prompted(2) 6:16 7:17 promptly(2) 13:17 63:18 68:2 pursuant(1) 9:18 proof(1) 31:18 pursue(1) 71:3 properly(1) 42:14 put(9) 15:1 18:4 27:22 proposition(1) 55:1 31:24 53:25 61:17 71:9 prosecutor(1) 56:15 78:6 79:3 protect (1) 49:21 protected(6) 16:22 38:4 48:21 51:21 62:17 66:15 qualify(1) 41:17 question(16) 5:17 16:15 protection(2) 17:19 46:22 16:19 18:5 25:8 25:10 30:10 32:23 51:16 59:23 protective(1) 73:11 61:17 61:21 61:24 65:20 protects(1) 40:13 66:17 68:23 prove(5) 12:10 33:11 33:17 64:4 64:8 questions(7) 5:22 6:17 12:20 12:21 13:5 22:2 provide(2) 17:7 31:12 42:5 provided(2) 48:22 80:8 queue(3) 77:11 78:7 78:25 provides(1) 31:19 quin(1) 71:18 quinlan(12) 53:23 69:10 69:19 69:23 70:14 71:18 72:16 73:21 74:6 74:15 75:6 75:11
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin quite(3) 30:5 53:21 54:9 quotation(1) 56:25 quotations(2) 14:1 14:3 quote(1) 11:5 quoted(1) 61:12 quotes(1) 61:12 quoting(3) 10:9 18:5 ranking(2) 40:24 40:24 rather(3) 42:5 61:24 79:1 re-publisher(1) 40:11 reach(2) 66:17 79:9 reached(2) 16:9 70:3 reaction(1) 55:13 reactions(1) 31:5 read(38) 8:11 11:9 12:24 14:6 14:7 16:15 17:6 19:12 22:23 23:18 23:23 23:25 23:25 25:14 25:17 27:1 28:9 28:9 28:10 30:16 31:10 35:17 53:3 53:5 55:13 57:10 59:18 60:11 60:11 60:13 60:15 60:18 61:7 61:9 61:15 61:17 62:1 68:1 reader(40) 13:7 13:11 13:20 13:21 13:22 13:23 14:19 15:20 16:7 16:15 16:19 16:21 21:11 22:23 23:1 23:18 23:19 23:25 25:25 27:12 30:18 32:22 32:24 32:24 35:16 35:16 36:6 36:9 38:18 38:20 41:3 55:1 58:13 63:10 63:10 63:15 63:16 64:12 65:12 65:19 reader's(1) 56:17 readers(4) 25:14 25:23 26:16 57:1 readily(1) 68:13 reading(10) 13:18 23:2 23:5 27:12 55:6 56:14 57:17 63:19 63:20 63:21 reads(2) 11:23 12:3 real(2) 32:19 64:22
Page : 14

reality(1) 21:15 records(3) 7:8 9:6 44:12 remaining(1) 79:10 really(6) 16:20 19:18 recused(1) 69:22 remains(1) 68:22 22:24 27:19 36:19 58:24 red(4) 27:25 28:2 28:5 remember(1) 75:1 28:6 removed(9) 37:23 38:21 rearg(1) 70:18 39:2 48:11 51:10 51:12 52:16 58:20 66:7 reargued(1) 70:22 reduces(1) 15:21 reason(2) 39:6 57:25 reel(1) 25:4 repeated(1) 59:16 reasonable(40) 13:6 13:11 refer(1) 26:8 13:18 13:19 13:21 13:22 reference (5) 13:23 21:3 repeatedly(1) 59:18 13:23 15:20 16:7 16:15 23:5 48:15 61:14 repetition(1) 41:16 21:11 22:23 23:1 23:18 replied(1) 6:19 23:19 23:25 25:25 26:13 referred (1) 15:22 report(121) 7:9 7:10 7:16 27:11 27:12 30:18 32:24 referring(1) 7:3 8:4 8:7 8:11 8:17 8:19 35:10 35:16 35:19 36:6 refers(1) 21:22 9:8 9:14 9:19 10:13 11:1 36:8 38:18 38:20 55:1 12:12 14:11 14:16 14:18 reflect(1) 43:6 56:17 57:23 58:13 63:10 reflection(1) 47:6 14:22 15:11 15:15 15:16 63:14 63:16 63:20 64:12 reflects(1) 5:14 15:22 19:24 20:2 20:13 65:12 65:19 21:13 21:14 21:25 23:6 reflexes(1) 50:6 28:16 28:23 34:4 34:5 reform(1) 5:5 reasonably(2) 37:18 65:4 refusing(2) 7:13 8:8 35:3 36:1 36:2 40:7 reasons(4) 67:2 68:8 40:13 40:15 42:9 42:10 register(1) 29:22 68:10 68:18 42:11 42:18 42:21 43:4 registered (1) 25:16 43:7 43:17 43:19 43:20 regular(1) 59:5 43:23 43:25 44:3 44:8 recall(2) 60:6 60:12 regularly(1) 66:8 44:14 44:23 45:2 45:4 recalled(1) 15:12 regulations(1) 7:23 receipt(2) 50:13 50:13 relate(4) 32:6 42:14 62:1 45:11 45:13 45:13 45:17 46:8 46:14 46:16 46:18 received(4) 8:5 9:8 10:21 62:4 46:18 47:5 47:7 47:11 67:13 47:14 47:18 47:19 47:21 related(2) 7:10 80:24 48:2 48:8 48:8 48:19 receiving(1) 14:9 relatedly(1) 41:4 49:17 49:21 50:8 50:10 recently(1) 5:11 relates(6) 31:21 32:4 32:9 50:10 50:12 50:13 52:21 recitation(1) 13:25 32:10 32:14 34:2 53:17 53:18 53:19 53:20 recite(2) 19:10 19:11 54:3 54:10 54:10 54:21 recited(1) 19:11 relationship(5) 4:24 14:21 54:23 55:6 55:16 56:18 reckless(1) 41:13 15:17 47:15 47:16 57:11 58:10 58:23 59:8 recognize(7) 42:7 55:16 60:4 61:17 61:25 64:25 55:17 60:1 60:2 60:21 relatively(3) 30:21 40:24 65:6 65:9 65:17 66:15 61:6 71:20 66:23 66:24 67:3 67:4 recognized(2) 11:24 17:18 67:9 67:10 67:13 67:16 record(22) 2:12 4:9 4:10 relevance(1) 18:10 67:18 67:20 67:22 67:25 10:23 15:10 21:2 26:24 relevant(3) 9:19 18:17 30:14 34:19 40:3 41:23 relied(4) 44:10 46:6 reported(11) 8:20 34:3 43:18 55:12 59:17 59:17 59:19 59:24 43:22 44:1 45:19 49:12 60:5 60:10 60:23 62:25 50:19 54:8 54:22 61:2 68:11 68:19 79:22 rely(3) 26:7 44:16 53:22 65:11 relying(2) 46:10 61:18 recorded(2) 1:39 8:19 remain(2) 38:5 42:25 recording(2) 1:39 80:8 remained(2) 10:14 66:6
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin reporter(12) 10:21 12:6 43:17 43:24 45:5 45:8 45:14 49:25 56:14 65:7 66:13 67:16 reporters (1) 49:5 reporting(5) 24:8 56:13 56:14 56:22 56:23 revealed(1) 36:1 reveals(2) 30:17 67:17 reverend (1) 27:8 reversed(1) 31:22 review(1) 68:17 reviewed(4) 4:8 25:24 50:11 51:13 ritvo(153) 1:28 3:9 3:9 3:12 13:9 13:10 13:19 14:4 14:8 14:14 15:24 16:4 16:18 17:9 18:7 19:8 19:23 20:1 20:4 20:5 20:8 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:23 20:25 21:9 21:12 21:16 21:21 21:24 22:9 23:1 23:9 23:16 24:9 24:18 29:11 29:13 29:15 29:20 33:4 33:6 33:11 33:14 33:16 33:20 33:23 34:7 34:9 34:11 34:13 34:16 34:19 34:23 35:1 35:6 35:14 35:22 35:24 36:8 36:14 36:22 37:2 38:1 38:7 38:16 38:20 43:5 43:12 43:15 44:3 44:6 44:11 44:18 44:22 45:1 45:3 45:4 46:2 46:10 46:11 46:12 46:15 46:20 46:22 47:1 47:8 48:17 48:25 49:2 49:4 49:9 49:10 49:11 49:15 50:5 50:9 51:1 51:9 51:18 51:20 51:23 51:25 52:4 52:6 52:17 53:16 56:10 59:12 59:14 59:24 60:4 60:14 60:16 60:17 60:18 60:21 60:25 61:3 61:6 62:4 62:10 62:11 68:24 71:3 71:4 71:12 71:14 71:23 71:24 72:4 72:6 72:9 72:12 73:5 73:11 75:15 75:17 75:20 76:4 76:6 76:21 77:23 77:25 78:1 78:5 78:8 78:10 78:12 78:15 79:16 79:20 ritvo's(3) 75:12 76:19 77:17 room(25) 6:9 6:10 7:18 7:23 9:11 10:12 10:15 12:1 13:16 15:14 20:25 24:12 24:17 26:11 27:2 27:7 27:14 33:22 34:14 34:21 35:12 38:17 50:20 63:16 66:7 rooms(2) 6:10 32:14 rubbing(2) 8:2 34:9 rudnick(1) 1:29 rules(2) 7:23 16:14 ruling(3) 30:10 42:2 run(5) 49:1 49:17 52:1 53:14 53:15 runs(3) 27:21 32:1 48:19 s's(1) 3:19 sack(11) 3:10 4:11 10:21 11:12 26:4 42:7 42:17 46:5 46:13 58:15 64:5 sam(1) 3:19 same(11) 7:25 8:1 8:6 14:10 14:18 27:10 28:11 28:24 39:6 63:24 67:2 sat(2) 44:18 59:6 saying(7) 11:5 24:6 27:20 27:21 35:7 53:10 56:5 says(33) 7:18 8:24 9:1 13:23 14:5 14:24 14:24 19:20 20:20 20:20 26:9 26:10 26:10 26:12 36:15 36:16 36:18 38:8 38:8 39:14 39:17 41:18 42:22 44:20 48:18 48:25 49:4 52:23 53:2 53:3 56:2 56:14 58:10

revoked(1) 58:19 reports(11) 7:22 7:24 9:5 rhetorical(1) 38:4 9:19 9:22 25:17 42:24 rich(97) 1:22 3:2 3:3 3:4 43:3 43:4 47:15 67:8 24:25 25:2 25:18 25:20 29:6 29:8 29:10 39:12 represent (1) 3:3 39:14 39:19 39:21 39:23 representative (39) 5:6 5:8 40:5 50:25 52:18 52:20 5:15 5:18 5:19 5:21 6:6 52:21 52:22 53:2 53:6 6:7 6:8 6:13 6:24 7:1 7:3 53:9 53:15 53:17 54:16 8:22 8:24 8:25 9:12 9:15 54:18 56:9 56:20 56:22 9:17 9:21 10:8 10:14 57:8 58:3 58:5 58:6 58:7 10:18 11:18 13:12 15:4 58:10 58:19 59:2 59:10 16:10 18:20 18:21 18:24 59:11 61:10 61:11 68:23 19:3 19:5 19:19 23:4 69:8 69:10 69:14 69:16 28:10 47:10 63:11 64:18 69:18 69:22 70:6 70:9 66:10 70:12 70:13 70:15 70:17 70:20 70:22 70:25 71:13 representatives (2 5:9 71:15 71:21 72:3 72:8 10:4 72:11 72:13 72:20 72:23 73:2 73:7 73:13 73:16 representing (2) 3:9 3:17 74:6 74:8 74:20 74:22 75:2 75:4 75:6 75:14 republication(1) 40:10 75:16 75:18 76:9 76:11 request(1) 24:4 76:13 76:24 77:2 77:20 reread (1) 53:7 78:4 78:6 78:9 78:18 reserve(1) 68:14 78:20 78:23 79:2 79:17 respect(4) 31:5 32:13 43:8 67:6 richard(7) 8:18 8:19 9:11 42:20 46:17 54:15 54:18 respected(1) 27:16 respectfully(4) 12:25 15:1 ride(1) 5:18 19:8 57:22 ridicule(1) 27:16 respond(6) 29:11 43:12 riley(1) 25:6 75:9 76:11 76:12 77:17 risk(11) 39:4 43:20 45:16 48:19 49:1 49:17 52:11 52:11 52:12 53:14 53:15 responded(1) 73:23 response(1) 18:5 rit(1) 77:22 resumption(1) 2:6 return(1) 58:17 reveal(2) 57:5 69:1
Page : 15

schedule(6) 5:10 70:7 road(3) 44:16 73:14 77:13 73:15 73:21 79:4 79:7 robbing(2) 28:23 28:25 role(1) 64:20 scheduled(1) 72:25 romantic(2) 14:21 47:15 scheduling(2) 5:13 11:2 romantically(1) 15:23 schwenk(3) 6:13 10:3 15:12
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin scientists(1) 31:2 scope(1) 42:2 scorn(1) 27:16 scrutiny(6) 11:19 17:3 18:21 18:23 19:19 19:20 sealey(1) 80:10 search(2) 5:23 9:16 searched(2) 9:13 9:23 seat(2) 4:7 29:20 seated(3) 6:13 10:1 10:2 sec(2) 4:7 29:20 second(8) 8:8 11:23 12:9 28:2 28:6 31:17 41:1 65:2 secondly(2) 10:25 16:10 seconds(2) 52:22 59:3 secret(1) 53:20 secure(8) 6:1 14:23 16:1 17:4 23:10 39:8 47:17 51:11 security(26) 8:14 14:25 15:5 16:2 17:1 17:16 18:25 23:3 23:14 24:22 24:23 27:19 27:21 27:21 27:22 28:9 38:10 38:12 38:23 39:4 39:7 47:9 48:7 50:16 52:9 64:16 seeing(4) 23:2 23:5 60:6 60:12 seeking(1) 71:9 seem(3) 20:18 33:3 33:4 seems(13) 10:23 16:7 30:4 30:23 32:9 35:15 37:7 37:11 37:13 46:9 51:6 65:15 78:1 sees(1) 10:10 segment(1) 27:16 segregation(9) 5:12 9:22 14:25 16:1 18:25 32:11 38:12 38:23 38:25 sem(1) 73:12 seminara(1) 73:12 send(3) 69:25 77:24 77:25
Page : 16

sense(9) 30:24 41:25 42:1 sexual(55) 7:12 13:15 simply(7) 15:7 20:10 49:20 65:9 67:24 72:1 13:15 13:24 13:25 14:9 34:16 36:11 63:8 66:8 72:2 73:1 14:13 14:15 21:1 21:1 68:16 22:5 22:8 22:16 22:18 simultaneous(2) 53:8 24:6 24:16 26:2 26:11 sensitivity(1) 12:18 since(3) 9:7 9:11 77:20 26:19 26:21 26:22 26:23 sit(3) 58:7 58:11 59:6 sent(1) 8:19 28:3 28:12 28:19 28:21 sitting(1) 55:22 sentence(7) 22:3 23:19 33:3 33:22 35:9 35:12 26:8 28:10 29:3 39:14 situation(1) 25:20 35:18 35:20 36:25 37:15 six(2) 28:20 30:24 65:16 37:20 43:9 47:13 52:2 sentences(5) 2:4 11:17 sjc(3) 43:16 55:23 55:24 55:4 56:25 57:6 57:19 11:17 23:19 24:2 skepticism(1) 31:11 57:20 61:16 63:14 63:15 skip(1) 48:2 65:3 65:8 65:10 66:1 separated(2) 6:10 73:3 sliding(1) 26:6 66:8 66:25 67:2 67:11 september(1) 1:11 slipping(1) 11:6 68:4 sergeant(2) 6:13 10:3 sliver(1) 54:7 shackles(1) 6:12 series(2) 30:15 36:7 small(2) 6:11 69:3 shall(1) 2:19 serious(1) 68:7 smu(13) 5:13 6:4 6:8 7:7 shape(1) 55:8 seriously(1) 52:10 8:14 11:2 23:12 39:5 shes (8) 17:3 17:23 17:24 42:19 50:17 66:5 66:7 served(7) 49:23 49:25 67:16 73:23 76:21 76:22 19:19 19:20 20:1 21:9 67:23 38:17 77:23 sneaking(14) 11:19 17:3 short(1) 59:17 services(1) 1:44 18:13 18:17 18:22 19:4 shortly(1) 6:12 session(7) 69:15 69:20 19:18 19:21 28:11 37:16 should(8) 6:20 33:16 48:9 37:21 58:21 66:3 68:6 70:3 70:4 70:5 72:21 49:4 55:21 68:13 77:3 79:12 78:1 set(10) 4:9 37:18 39:24 snuck(7) 13:12 26:1 55:2 shouldnt(2) 45:23 75:22 55:3 58:23 63:12 66:12 51:5 62:12 63:2 64:14 showed(4) 6:9 24:21 36:4 65:3 68:18 73:21 36:5 so-called(1) 63:24 setting(1) 21:19 social(2) 10:11 32:7 shown(2) 2:11 61:1 setup(1) 33:7 solely(1) 18:11 shows(2) 5:14 43:18 seven(1) 70:4 some(38) 5:22 6:17 6:25 sic(1) 65:2 several(6) 5:1 11:10 14:6 8:13 9:7 12:14 13:5 sick(1) 30:24 14:7 14:20 16:24 15:13 16:8 16:11 16:16 side(9) 2:10 16:3 18:3 18:4 21:19 30:19 31:2 sex(13) 24:12 26:14 26:16 30:4 31:23 53:25 71:9 31:13 31:13 35:18 42:15 73:5 73:8 26:19 26:20 26:22 27:1 42:22 43:16 54:4 54:7 27:6 27:13 29:3 54:11 55:4 55:10 55:15 59:22 sidebar(1) 2:11 59:9 61:22 60:7 60:22 63:3 65:17 sides(2) 40:1 62:23 65:21 67:24 68:14 69:20 signed(3) 8:23 9:25 25:15 71:2 71:5 77:13 significance(1) 14:15 significant(1) 65:9 somebody(2) 45:17 45:18 similar(3) 39:12 50:19 somehow(1) 54:6 56:14 similarly(1) 43:23 simple(1) 25:3
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin someone(13) 16:18 19:16 specifically(3) 14:24 42:9 22:6 22:11 24:5 24:6 47:11 35:23 36:10 44:12 47:24 47:25 57:16 58:15 specification(1) 57:6 specifics(1) 15:6 someones (2) 22:7 35:21 speech(5) 2:4 2:6 53:8 something(19) 12:20 62:17 76:16 21:19 26:9 26:15 29:1 31:5 32:19 40:19 43:21 spent(1) 12:4 45:2 46:8 53:11 54:3 spoke(1) 10:23 56:12 61:16 61:16 61:20 spoken(2) 2:15 2:19 61:20 73:17 staff(4) 7:13 8:8 8:25 9:1 sometimes(2) 17:21 45:17 stand(1) 56:10 someway(1) 54:7 standard(6) 13:6 16:20 somewhat(4) 6:11 33:24 18:15 19:17 19:17 41:12 37:7 41:4 start(1) 16:18 soon(3) 39:3 52:13 71:20 started(2) 54:24 54:25 sorry(3) 49:7 56:13 56:24 starters(1) 47:5 sort(15) 8:13 16:11 20:3 starts(1) 54:25 21:8 21:15 21:19 25:4 state(15) 1:24 5:6 5:18 28:14 30:6 35:18 39:25 11:18 11:19 11:21 13:12 51:3 59:22 69:20 71:17 16:10 17:3 18:21 30:7 32:11 49:23 63:11 67:12 sorted(1) 59:3 sound(3) 1:39 74:10 74:11 stated(4) 24:11 64:19 sounds(1) 2:15 67:4 67:13 source(16) 40:25 44:10 44:16 45:6 48:18 48:19 statement(40) 11:23 12:3 48:21 49:5 50:1 52:25 13:7 13:7 13:8 18:11 53:10 53:11 53:13 53:24 18:13 19:4 19:12 19:15 53:25 54:6 23:2 25:7 29:2 32:20 37:11 37:13 37:25 40:3 sources(15) 10:24 10:24 40:10 40:16 40:22 43:13 11:8 38:10 41:20 42:22 44:24 45:8 45:9 45:12 46:6 46:12 53:20 68:21 45:20 45:22 49:18 59:15 69:1 69:4 69:24 70:2 63:25 63:25 64:1 65:21 71:17 65:21 65:24 67:19 68:1 sox(4) 27:25 28:2 28:5 68:2 68:6 28:6 space(1) 52:11 speak(3) 9:22 31:8 52:2 speaker(1) 2:18 speaking(2) 7:5 67:18 special(1) 5:11 specific(2) 44:19 62:18
Page : 17

statements(33) 12:8 12:10 12:11 13:4 13:20 16:22 19:14 23:22 24:2 30:11 33:3 33:11 35:9 41:1 41:5 41:9 42:8 43:3 44:9 44:12 45:5 47:10 48:12 49:24 62:18 63:9 64:1 64:4 64:11 64:22 65:16 66:14 67:3 states(1) 66:25 stay(3) 10:9 25:5 66:4 step(2) 40:18 50:5 steps(1) 36:7 steven(1) 6:2 stewart(2) 1:35 3:17 still(3) 51:1 56:7 56:9 sting(4) 16:9 34:2 34:13 50:18

sufficient(1) 40:2 suffolk(2) 1:6 80:10 suggest(14) 14:17 24:11 24:13 26:9 31:1 36:8 37:13 38:24 48:5 48:9 52:1 62:14 65:25 66:23 suggested(2) 22:25 60:19 suggesting(2) 24:5 72:18 suggestion(1) 48:10 suggests(5) 16:11 41:16 58:23 63:20 68:3 suing(4) 17:23 17:24 18:2 18:12

sullivan(1) 41:12 summarized(1) 68:12 summary(32) 4:11 12:6 12:15 12:16 39:24 41:23 story(1) 17:2 53:22 53:23 56:3 56:8 straightforward(1 76:18 56:9 56:11 63:1 63:4 63:21 64:2 65:23 67:21 strained(1) 35:10 street(3) 1:24 1:45 80:40 68:2 68:11 68:18 69:5 72:9 73:18 74:14 74:14 stretch(1) 62:9 75:18 75:19 76:19 77:10 strictly(1) 7:5 78:2 78:16 strike(3) 25:21 25:22 strikes(1) 29:16 superintendant(20 6:2 strong(2) 30:5 68:7 6:4 6:14 6:16 6:19 7:7 subject(1) 18:14 8:12 8:15 8:17 9:2 9:3 subjects(1) 40:10 9:10 9:15 10:1 10:6 submit(3) 35:10 46:17 10:16 39:3 42:10 43:4 57:22 51:14 superintendent(4) 58:24 substance(2) 32:1 50:7 substantial(5) 31:20 32:4 67:7 67:8 67:9 33:7 46:9 68:8 superintendent's(1 67:9 superior(5) 1:6 8:15 substantially(10) 31:20 50:12 54:19 80:10 32:17 33:4 33:9 41:2 64:9 65:23 66:3 66:19 supposed(1) 39:1 67:8 supreme(1) 32:20 substantiates(1) 54:7 such(9) 5:23 10:24 30:2 sur-reply (2) 17:23 59:20 32:10 41:6 57:14 64:17 sure(13) 16:5 25:2 32:3 43:14 48:16 62:21 70:13 65:11 66:21 71:21 74:9 74:10 75:10 78:17 79:11 sucv2010-01316(1 1:7
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin surrounding(1) 24:2 terrific(1) 79:2 suspended(1) 58:19 territory(1) 48:23 tackle(1) 79:13 test(2) 33:7 62:14 take(17) 12:19 13:1 13:18 testified(7) 26:5 28:18 19:13 23:12 23:22 28:8 51:11 58:16 59:1 59:2 30:25 31:8 31:10 45:25 59:18 46:4 55:21 57:16 58:9 testify(1) 27:3 61:13 76:22 testimony(6) 34:19 50:11 51:13 60:9 61:2 61:12 taken(12) 22:19 41:5 43:8 51:17 52:15 58:20 text(2) 19:17 24:11 65:1 66:24 67:12 67:24 than(7) 26:10 38:25 68:7 80:26 61:20 65:13 68:8 79:1 taking(4) 22:2 24:1 32:11 79:1 64:14 thanks(2) 3:20 79:18 thats (30) 15:20 17:2 talk(6) 13:4 27:19 28:1 17:2 18:22 19:9 19:21 54:24 61:24 71:19 20:16 21:3 23:14 24:3 26:11 29:1 30:25 33:8 talked(2) 33:24 50:9 33:14 33:15 33:17 33:18 talking(3) 28:5 55:15 35:25 36:12 36:24 37:3 37:25 38:3 46:20 48:12 talks(1) 50:15 49:12 51:19 51:20 52:9 tape(1) 2:10 targeting(1) 5:2 theme(1) 16:25 team(1) 9:1 therefore (1) 46:7 technical(1) 67:24 therefrom (1) 27:15 technically(1) 7:5 theres (17) 21:2 21:5 telephone(1) 80:44 25:22 26:14 27:8 28:21 tell(4) 18:3 48:5 53:2 30:19 31:18 34:19 35:2 57:17 36:14 36:18 38:24 40:1 40:18 51:11 51:16 telling(1) 53:13 tells(5) 14:19 24:20 39:9 theyre(2) 18:2 29:18 45:6 53:11 theyve(1) 45:19 ten(4) 12:4 68:12 76:14 thick(1) 74:25 thigh(2) 8:7 34:7 76:23 thing(6) 27:23 47:4 61:20 61:24 62:11 70:25 tens(1) 30:16 term(8) 2:18 2:19 2:20 things(6) 14:20 22:19 14:15 20:3 21:10 22:5 27:24 69:11 71:8 71:16 22:24 terms(16) 13:24 15:10 16:13 21:24 23:17 26:17 30:9 33:24 35:2 37:12 37:24 38:1 47:24 48:8 49:20 64:22
Page : 18

think(80) 12:24 16:15 18:1 19:16 22:2 22:6 22:8 22:14 22:17 22:23 23:1 23:21 24:3 24:10 25:11 25:22 29:5 29:7 30:13 30:17 30:18 30:19 32:14 32:15 32:23 35:10 35:17 35:19 36:13 36:24 36:25 37:18 39:4 39:23 43:1 45:23 45:23 46:5 47:4 48:13 50:10 54:12 55:24 55:24 55:25 56:4 58:2 60:22 61:15 61:19 63:4 63:10 63:14 63:16 63:18 63:20 64:1 64:5 64:9 64:11 64:13 64:19 66:3 66:14 66:18 67:21 68:23 69:22 70:2 72:8 72:13 72:16 72:24 72:25 73:16 75:11 76:24 77:3 78:13 79:9 thinking(3) 31:12 74:9 74:11 third(6) 8:9 11:1 12:11 16:12 37:21 40:25 though(8) 38:5 40:22 42:15 43:7 44:10 45:2 46:19 50:5 thought(7) 27:1 31:14 32:2 34:20 55:14 61:18 61:20 thoughts(1) 16:6 thousands(1) 30:16 three(13) 7:11 7:14 7:17 10:24 11:13 11:16 11:17 12:7 28:3 37:20 69:11 77:5 77:7 through(5) 5:24 6:22 15:9 46:16 46:17 throwing(1) 74:22 thrown(4) 37:15 37:20 66:2 68:5 thus(1) 57:12

tied(1) 12:22 time(15) 7:9 28:24 47:1 58:9 58:20 60:19 63:2 63:2 71:18 72:2 73:1 73:4 74:15 76:23 77:4 times(4) 14:6 14:7 41:12 41:25 tip(1) 10:22 today(8) 4:2 4:4 4:5 42:5 60:7 60:14 62:22 79:14 today's(1) 62:9 todays (3) 11:13 30:9 todd(2) 1:23 3:3 together(8) 4:22 10:19 15:1 38:21 61:17 72:2 77:2 79:3 told(12) 6:14 8:24 9:3 36:3 37:22 50:1 52:25 53:22 53:25 54:6 66:5 66:6 took(7) 6:25 23:13 34:3 34:14 52:10 70:10 75:22 tortured(2) 35:11 63:19 totality(1) 19:12 touching(6) 22:7 34:6 34:7 57:7 57:20 67:14 towards(2) 22:2 48:10 town(2) 52:2 61:24 trace(1) 36:6 tracking(1) 71:10 tracks(1) 47:13 transcribed(1) 68:13 transcriber(6) 1:40 1:43 2:9 2:11 2:14 80:4 transcript(3) 1:40 80:8 80:19 transcription(1) 1:44 transfer(1) 16:12 transmittal(1) 78:14
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:LinWord Page:Lin trial(8) 28:24 30:2 31:7 understanding(3) 4:3 33:15 42:4 48:1 48:2 27:6 56:18 80:19 trouble(2) 35:14 49:7 understood(5) 25:15 trout(3) 6:21 42:13 51:15 25:24 52:14 57:2 65:4 true(19) 21:24 25:7 26:12 31:20 32:17 33:4 33:9 undisclosed(1) 41:20 36:20 36:24 36:25 37:25 undisputed(2) 40:2 44:2 44:13 45:10 50:2 52:9 unfair(2) 53:21 67:3 64:9 65:23 66:4 80:6 unfairness(1) 55:11 unfinished(1) 2:4 trust(1) 13:9 uniform(1) 57:4 truth(8) 32:4 32:22 41:13 unit(12) 5:12 5:12 7:15 45:9 45:9 45:10 64:12 9:22 10:1 14:25 16:1 65:22 18:25 32:11 38:12 38:23 try(7) 13:3 25:2 26:8 38:25 73:14 73:15 76:17 79:4 unless(2) 25:21 32:21 unofficial(1) 48:18 trying(3) 24:3 25:4 42:3 unprivileged(1) 48:23 turn(4) 24:24 31:16 unreliable(1) 30:5 31:17 40:7 unsearched(1) 52:7 until(2) 10:15 78:4 turns(2) 44:13 45:9 unusual(2) 13:1 16:12 two(25) 1:36 2:5 2:7 3:19 upon(9) 18:13 26:7 46:7 5:9 6:10 7:12 10:24 59:19 59:24 61:18 64:17 15:22 16:23 23:19 24:2 64:23 65:11 28:3 29:13 35:9 37:20 38:10 43:11 46:6 58:5 upset(1) 37:4 62:2 62:4 73:15 76:23 urges(2) 29:22 30:1 77:3 use(4) 21:16 26:17 56:25 type(6) 12:25 16:7 38:3 57:4 63:4 72:15 75:25 used(5) 2:9 14:17 14:18 typed(2) 2:15 2:19 22:1 26:18 unable(3) 2:14 41:19 66:6 uncert(1) 38:9 uses(1) 2:18 under(9) 11:19 17:3 ushered(2) 38:8 38:9 18:21 18:23 18:23 19:19 using(1) 15:15 19:20 44:6 70:10 usually(1) 72:24 vague(2) 22:21 22:24 underlying(1) 48:20 valid(1) 29:22 undermines(1) 56:16 van(12) 3:10 4:11 10:20 understand(13) 21:17 11:12 26:4 42:7 42:17 23:6 23:20 38:19 39:10 46:5 46:13 56:12 58:15 39:17 39:23 40:5 40:9 64:5 42:17 49:14 61:8 77:15 verbal(2) 7:24 8:5 verbatim(1) 47:14
Page : 19

video(4) 4:16 4:18 4:23 5:3 view(6) 13:7 31:9 62:7 63:7 63:9 63:24 views(2) 56:3 56:5 vigilant(1) 11:24 violation(2) 7:22 16:13 virtually(1) 35:16 visit(16) 5:6 5:9 5:10 5:14 5:16 6:21 7:2 9:13 10:11 10:22 11:3 11:9 18:25 58:18 66:6 66:11 visited(3) 6:18 9:6 66:9 visiting(19) 7:18 7:23 8:22 10:12 13:16 15:14 20:25 24:12 27:2 32:13 33:22 34:14 34:21 35:12 38:17 50:20 58:12 63:16 66:7 visitor(6) 5:13 7:20 7:21 12:1 24:17 59:5 visitor's(2) 11:2 66:10 visitors(2) 16:14 52:12 visitors(10) 5:20 6:22 8:1 8:7 12:5 26:11 27:7 27:14 42:19 46:14 visitor(1) 9:9 visits(2) 23:11 23:12 voices(1) 4:16 volume(1) 1:1 waited(1) 6:23 waiting(1) 79:1 walking(1) 57:16 wall(1) 4:17 wanna(4) 30:14 33:5 35:15 39:13 wanted(4) 10:8 59:14 62:10 69:5

wasnt(12) 17:13 28:13 28:14 39:1 45:18 51:12 52:14 53:17 53:18 56:23 57:19 58:25 way(9) 14:18 25:12 31:8 33:10 41:6 54:9 55:8 56:1 75:7 ways(1) 55:10 week(4) 8:5 73:17 79:4 79:10 weeks(5) 75:6 76:23 77:3 77:6 77:7 weight(1) 48:9 weld(2) 1:23 3:3 werent(3) 43:21 45:21 49:19 well(1) 35:5 were(4) 28:4 47:1 51:1 51:2 weve(6) 18:12 26:23 47:14 50:9 50:11 51:13 whatever(2) 28:7 78:12 whdh(1) 1:33 whether(33) 4:20 6:18 12:20 13:4 18:9 18:13 25:7 27:4 29:16 30:10 32:4 32:20 32:23 33:25 37:12 37:23 39:5 40:18 41:1 41:2 41:3 43:2 44:7 45:10 45:10 49:25 52:15 55:7 56:3 64:21 65:20 69:25 75:21 while(5) 4:17 7:18 25:7 37:10 68:20 whole(5) 14:24 23:25 24:1 27:14 48:1

wants(1) 69:25 warning(3) 7:24 8:5 14:10whom(3) 36:17 47:12 54:20 warrants(1) 63:21
10/05/11 12:54:02

MARINOVA V. BOSTON HERALD 9.22.11.DOC


Word Page:LinWord Page:Lin whose(1) 4:15 why(19) 13:11 13:17 15:10 23:14 33:21 36:2 49:21 51:19 57:25 61:21 62:17 74:1 74:4 74:18 76:18 76:22 77:9 77:18 77:24 will(30) 5:15 13:10 13:23 17:7 21:16 30:13 30:19 33:17 41:15 43:12 46:2 47:1 48:20 48:22 52:22 56:11 58:7 68:16 68:25 70:2 70:14 71:19 72:13 72:22 76:24 77:10 77:17 79:3 79:7 79:12 written(20) 11:25 21:7 21:10 21:12 21:17 24:16 28:14 28:21 32:25 43:2 49:16 56:23 56:24 62:24 63:9 63:25 64:5 64:24 65:16 67:11 wrong(3) 45:16 54:2 wrongful(1) 33:2 wrote(7) 27:9 28:18 29:2 30:6 31:12 42:17 55:16

yep(3) 29:14 34:12 35:5 yet(2) 15:25 73:22 york(3) 1:43 41:12 41:25 yorker(1) 32:19 willingness(1) 72:15 youd(1) 21:22 window(1) 6:11 youll(2) 13:9 44:17 wish(2) 4:18 10:8 youre(10) 4:3 19:13 20:6 within(6) 11:7 21:3 36:3 25:21 28:13 37:6 37:10 42:23 59:3 71:11 39:19 39:25 49:23 without(6) 5:23 10:14 10:17 30:12 41:9 41:23 youve(3) 19:11 50:23 50:23

witnessed(1) 61:5 aide(1) 11:25 witnesses(1) 31:7 dismissed(1) 8:10 woman(6) 8:23 9:2 11:24 excessive(1) 9:9 11:25 24:15 47:12 official(1) 46:8 phonetic(1) 2:16 wont(1) 73:14 sexual(2) 11:20 12:1 wont(1) 48:21 sic(1) 2:20 work(6) 4:14 16:19 40:9 54:9 75:7 79:7 worked(1) 4:22 working(1) 4:13 worried(1) 17:7 worst(1) 30:20 wouldnt(7) 13:17 16:15 20:18 21:21 23:20 27:14 38:22 wrinkles(1) 74:22 write(6) 17:19 17:19 17:20 21:16 27:24 27:25 writers(1) 30:7 writing(2) 21:23 42:12
Page : 20 10/05/11 12:54:02