Loading...
13 CHERRY STREET - COURT DOCUMENTS LA ROSA/TOLAND LAW OFFICES 2 MAIN S'1R1 1 1' /SUI1T 325 Sl'ONEHAM, MASSACHUSE I"I'S 02180 FAX:(781)933-0145 LTLawOfce@ aol.com PETER T. TOLAND, ESQ. Direct Line:(781)933-1726 January 14, 2026 Inspector Janice Orta, c/o Salem Board of Health 98 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Kristin Rydgren v. Gregory Curtin Civil # 2136 CV 348 (Salem District Court) Dear Inspector Orta: The above-named matter will be coming up for Trial on February 12, 2026 at 9AM, at the Salem District Court, Civil Session, at 56 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970. A copy of the re- scheduled Trial notice is enclosed with a copy of the original Subpoena for your attendance,served on you in April,2024. This letter will serve to confirm our reminder to your office that the subpoena for your testimony at Trial in the above-referenced matter is still in effect. We will notify you if the new Trial date is rescheduled or if your testimony is not required on the first day of the Trial. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, 15efer `oland PTT/tp Encl. As noted Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested cc: James F. Wellock, Esq., Assistant City Solicitor RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2026 CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH DOCKET NUMBER Trial Court of Massachusetts Jury Trial (CV) Order 2136CV000348 Department CASE NAME Kristin Rydgren v. Gregory Curtin ATTORNEY(OR PRO SE PARTY)TO WHOM THIS COPY OF TRIAL ORDER IS ISSUED COURT NAME&ADDRESS Peter T Toland, Esq. Salem District Court LaRosa/Toland Law Offices 56 Federal Street 2 Main St Salem, MA 01970 SUITE 325 STONEHAM, MA 02180 DATE&TIME JURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED JUDGE ISSUING ORDER Jury Trial (CV) COURT CONTACT PERSON 02/12/2026 at 09:00 AM Civil Session COURT CONTACT PERSON PHONE NUMBER After pre-trial conference/conciliation and upon scheduling of this matter for(Jury Trial (CV))at the above named court on the date and time indicated above, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Witness Lists: Counsel for each party shall submit a list of witnesses expected to testify at trial, containing the name and address of each prospective witness, to the trial judge at the beginning of the trial. Persons not included in such lists may be precluded from testifying, in the discretion of the trial judge. 2. Agreed Exhibits: Counsel for each party shall confer in advance of the trial for the purpose of agreeing to exhibits for trial. All agreed exhibits shall be pre-marked by counsel with exhibit labels bearing numerical designations(i.e. Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, etc.). Counsel shall submit a list of Agreed Exhibits, containing the exhibit numbers and summary description of the exhibits, to the trial judge at the beginning of the trial. 3. Proposed Exhibits: All proposed exhibits on which counsel do not agree shall be pre-marked by counsel for the offering party with exhibit labels bearing alphabetical designations for identification (i.e. Plaintiffs Exhibit A for ID, etc.). Each counsel shall submit a list of proposed exhibits, containing the exhibit letters and summary descriptions of the exhibits,to the trial judge at the beginning of the trial. Any exhibit offered at trial which is neither agreed to nor identified on the proposed exhibits list may be precluded, in the discretion of the trial judge. 4. Stipulations: Counsel for each party shall confer in advance of the trial for the purpose of stipulating to all material facts which are not in dispute. Counsel shall submit a list of any stipulations to the trial judge at the beginning of the trial. 5. Audio-Visual Expert Witness Depositions for Trial: To reduce the expense of litigation and to avaoid delay of trial because of unavailability of expert witnesses, leave is hereby granted for any party, upon notice to opposing counsel and in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 30A(m), to conduct audio-visual depositions of their treating physician or other expert witnesses in lieu of oral testimony at trial. Notwithstanding Mass. R. Civ. P. 30A(m)(2)& (4), notice of the audio-visual deposition may be served simultaneously with service of the witness'curriculum vitae and written report, and evidentiary objections shall be filed with the trial judge at the beginning of the trial. Any objections to this procedure shall be filed and heard as discovery motions in advance of the trial date. 6. Summaries of Voluminous Exhibits: Counsel are encouraged to prepare summaries of voluminous exhibits, such as medical records and bills, to assist the trial judge's review of the facts. See Proposed Mass. R. Evid. 1006 (1980). 7. Non-Massachusetts Authorities: Counsel who submit any requested rulings of law,jury instructions or memoranda of law which cite federal or other non-Massachusetts cases and statutes are requested to append copies of such cases or statutes for the convenience of the trial judge. 8. Proposed Jury Instructions: In cases to be tried to a jury, counsel are directed to file any requested jury instructions with the court before the trial begins, without prejudice to supplementation of such request at the close of the evidence. For the convenience of the trial judge, requested jury instructions shall be consecutively numbered with instructions concerning separate topics listed on separate pages. 9. Continuances: To expedite decision by the Justice assigned to the session, or, if that Justice is not available, by the First Justice, any motions for continuance of the trial date shall include affidavits of counsel in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P.40 and shall be sent directly to the attention of the court contact person named above. Trial dates may be continued for good cause only. 10.. Settlement: Counsel in cases which settle before the trial date shall notify the court contact person named above to permit the scheduling of other cases for trial. DATE ISSUED CLERK-MAGISTRATE 12/11/2025 C-M Brian J Costa 043:02/22/2021 www.mass.gov/courts Daterrime Printed: 12-11-2025 11:06:12 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX; ss. SAL.EM DISTRICT COURT CIVIL No. 2136 CV 348 KRISTIN RYDGREN, .Plaintiff V. GREGORY CURTIN, Defendant SUBPOENA FOR APPEARANCE AT TRIAL/ SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Inspector Janice Orta, c/o Salem Board of Health 98 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,to appear before the Salem District Court, held at 56 Federal Street, Salem Massachusetts, within and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on or before the 20"' day of May, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., and from day to day thereafter,until the action hereinafter named is heard by said court,to give evidence of what you know relating to a civil action then and there to be heard and tried between the above- named parties, and you are further required. to bring the item(s) listed in the accompanying "Attachment to Subpoena Duces Tectim" with you. HEREOF FAIL NOT,as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties of the law in that behalf made and provided. c.�c DATED AT Stoneham, Massachusetts, the b day of April, 2024. Litlian LaRosa,Notary Public My commission expires: 11/20/2026 PLEASE NOTE: ALL RECORDS REQUESTED HEREIN ARE TO .13E DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY PETER T. TOLAND, AT LA ROSA/TOLAND LAW OFFICES,2 MAIN STREET,SUITE 325,STONEHAM,1MA 02180 BEFORE TIIE ABOVE- NOTED TRIAL DATE. PLEASE CALL 781-933-1726 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SUBPOENA. 1 ATTACI-1<MENT TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM You are required to bring with you the following documents/certified, true and complete copies of the following documents at the time and place specified in the attached Subpoena: Certified, true and complete copies of all state Sanitary Code notices pertaining to the apartment at 13 Cherry Street fl, Salem, MA 01970, Inspection date: April 29, 2019 Conducted by Sanitarian Janice Orta and directed to the property owner, Gregory Curtin,of 36 Glendale Avenue, Marblehead,MA 01945. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Salem District Court Docket/Case I eSummons ID No: 2136CV348 I hereby certify and return that today,April 17, 2024, at 12:05 PM, I summoned the within named witness Janice Orta to appear and give testimony(or produce).as within directed, by delivering in hand to Maureen Davis, person authorized to accept on her behalf at the time of service, a true and attested copy of the within Subpoena,together with the sum of$7.00, (Seven Dollars and Zero Cents), being the fee for one day's attendance and travel Said service was effected at: City of Salem Health Inspector, 98 Washington Street,Salem, MA 01970. Signe ride the )aims and penalties of perjury today,April 17,2024. p Zhristopher P. Chigas, Constable & Disinterested Person over Age 18. 111f1if11 Capitol Constable Service,.LLC Service:$30,00 29 Lowell Street, Suite 3 Witness Fee:$7.00 Peabody, MA,01960 Total:$37.00 — 800-977-0427 978-977-0427 Business 978-977-0122 FAX http://constableserv,ice.com 2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SALEM DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2136-CV-0348 Kristin Rydgren Plaintiff, V. Gregory Curtin Defendant. MOTION OF NON-PARTIES, CITY OF SALEM EMPLOYEES, TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA FOR LIVE TESTIMONY Plaintiff has subpoenaed two City of Salem employees to appear and testify at the trial in this matter on February 12, 2026. They are "Keeper of Records" and Health Inspector Janice Orta. There is no need for lives testimony from City Health Inspectors who have provided their inspection reports and no good reason supports ordering that they appear to testify. City health inspectors are on the taxpayer's payroll to perform inspections and need to be spending that time on that task, not testifying in court about private disputes. This matter involves a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the condition of rental property and an injury that Plaintiff allegedly suffered before the inspection. The City's health inspector inspected the property at issue in this matter AFTER the alleged injury occurred, and their observations are reflected in the report documents created at the time of inspection. These documents are public records and business records of the City, and have been provided to all parties to this action. Whether they are relevant is a question for the court, and it.does not require testimony from the city employees. Undersigned counsel has spoken with counsel for each of the parties in this matter and there is no dis.pute about the authenticity of these documents. Undersigned counsel represents that the City employees have no recollection of this inspection independent from what is in their reports, having performed many, many inspections each year and this one taking place quite some time ago (2019). It is against public policy for public employees to have to testify about matters that are clearly documented in public records. The Plaintiff has articulated no other legitimate reason to require the live testimony of these witnesses. The City employees hereby move that the Court quash the trial subpoenas that have been issued to them in this matter. As reason for this motion, they state the following and argument. FACTS i. Plaintiffs attorney has issued trial subpoenas to Keeper of Records at Salem Board of Health and Janice Orta, Health Inspector. 2. The City has discussed the need for live testimony and has objected to the subpoenas for live testimony. 3. The Plaintiff has indicated that, at this point,the only reason for calling the City Employees as live witnesses is personal preference. Even if the parties cannot agree, as an evidentiary matter, on the admissibility of some of the statements contained in City records, that is not a justification for live testimony. 4. In addition to calling for live testimony, the trial subpoenas demand: "Certified, true and complete copies of all state sanitary code inspection reports pertaining to the property at 13 Cherry St. #1 Salem MA o1970, inspection date April 29 2019 conducted by sanitarian Janice Orta and directed to the property owner, Gregory Curtin, of 36 Glendale Ave.Marblehead MA o1945" - 2 - 5. Employees provided all responsive materials. Employees have raised no objections to the request for documents and have not withheld any responsive documents. 6. The documents provided are business records of the City of Salem and public records. 7. No party disputes the authenticity of these records. 8. The observations, opinions, and/or decisions of city employees are reflected in these records, which include documents created by the city employees at the time of inspection of the property at issue. g. Employees have confirmed that they have no independent recollection of the condition of the property at issue in 20ig,beyond what is reflected in the documents, and that the best record of what they observed is contained in the documents. 1o.Counsel for the City has communicated all of this information to the Plaintiff s attorney,who responded that the Plaintiff nevertheless insists that Employees appear to testify. 11. This is not a proper purpose for subpoenaing municipal officials. ARGUMENT There is no good reason why the City of Salem should bear the burden of paying City employees to be available to testify at trial in private matters when the only issue in dispute is the admissibility of certain statements contained in documents whose authenticity is not in question. The inspector visited the property ten days after the alleged injury and can offer no testimony about the condition of the property before that time. A question of relevance is a question of law and it does not require live testimony - 3 - to resolve. There is also no other proper purpose for the live testimony sought by this subpoena.An Inspectors'reasoning and mental impressions is protected information under the deliberative process privilege. Second,treating a city employee like a free expert witness should not be allowed. Third, the employee subpoenaed has no independent recollection(beyond the content of the report) of the condition of the property they inspected in 20i9. Fourth,there is no dispute about the authenticity of the inspection report and documents produced. Finally,fifith, where public policy favors granting this motion as city employees should not be hauled into court and away from their duties for significant periods of time to offer testimony of comparably little value, there is no legitimate basis for ordering the city inspector to testify. The subpoena should be quashed. I. Live Testimony Is Not Required To Resolve The Evidentiary Disputes At Issue Here. The evidentiary disputes at issue here are disputes concerning whether or not certain statements contained in the City's business records are admissible into evidence as part of a public record/business record or whether they should be excluded as hearsay or based on other evidentiary objections. There is nothing about resolving these evidentiary disputes that requires the live testimony of the City employees. There is no dispute about the authenticity of the documents or about their status as business/public records of the City. There is no credibility determination to be undertaken in order to decide whether or not the disputed materials are admissible. The evidentiary issues presented are questions of law. -4 - The parties have articulated no legitimate reason to require the live testimony of the City Employees in order to resolve these evidentiary issues, and so the subpoena requiring an inspector's presence in court for live testimony should be quashed. H. Deliberative Process Privilege. To the extent testimony is sought about the inspector's decision making, any omissions, steps taken in the inspection, reasoning and process of the inspector, those matters are protected by the deliberative process privilege and that testimony should not be allowed. "The deliberative process privilege protects the internal deliberations of an agency in order to prevent 'injury to the quality of agency decisions."Natal-Lugo v. City of Fall River, Civil Action No. 20-11979-GAO, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198899, at *8 (D. Mass. Nov. 1, 2024) (quashing a subpoena for testimony of the district attorney on the decision making behind a nolle prosequi). The privilege is not absolute,but qualified. "[C]ourts are obliged to balance conflicting interests on a case-by-case basis."Id. citing Gomez v. City of Nashua, 126 F.R.D. 432, 434-5 (D.N.H. 1989). Interests in favor of disclosure are strongest when the information in question is "highly relevant,helpful, and unavailable from other sources."Stamps v. Town ofFramingham, 38 F.SupP.3d 134, 140 (D. Mass. 2014) (citing Assn for Reduction of Violence v. Hall, 734 F.2d 63, 66 (1st Cir. 1984)). On the other hand, interests in favor of non-disclosure are strongest when the information in question "falls squarely within the definition of privilege, and its disclosure would undermine the public interest . . ."Id. In this instance, the inspection took place ten days after the alleged injury occurred, and, according to Defendant, after Plaintiff's boyfriend vandalized the - 5 - property, placing in dispute the relevance of the report and observations of the inspector. See Defendant's Motion in Limine filed May 15, 2024. For that same reason, the expected testimony of the health inspector is neither highly relevant nor expected to be helpful. There is no question in this matter about the veracity or good faith with which the report was created—that is not an issue before the court in this matter.And, what's more, the health inspector represents the content of the report is the bounds of her recollection of an inspection that took place in 2019, so no additional information would be available. As no testimony is expected to be highly relevant, nor helpful, and would not extend beyond the content of the inspection report, the authenticity of which is not in dispute, no live witness testimony should be required or allowed. III. Local Inspectors Are Not Free Expert Witnesses. To the extent that the parties seek to call city inspectors to ask their professional opinions regarding the condition of the property, such testimony is expert testimony and is not permitted. A city health inspector is a municipal employee who was at the property as part of their municipal duties ONLY,for the purpose of determining whether or not there were any violations of the State Sanitary Code, the State Fire Code, or any local regulations or bylaws. Here, she inspected the space and made determinations about code compliance that were put in a report. They were not at the property for any other purpose. A party may not designate municipal officials as witnesses for the purpose of questioning them regarding their deliberative process. The courts have held that inquiry into the mental processes of administrative decision makers is to be avoided, - 6 - especially where there are administrative findings that were made at the same time as the decision. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park,Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402,420 (1971) (abrogated on other grounds), citing United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409,422 (1941). In this case, the inspectors created written records of their observations. Those records are the best evidence of what they observed. They used those records to determine whether or not there was a code violation. This is a protected deliberative process. In order for an inquiry into the mental processes of administrators to be justified,there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park,Inc., 401 U.S. at 420. No such showing is provided here, and alleged bad faith is not an issue in this case. The parties are therefore barred from questioning the Employees regarding their decision-making process concerning whether or not the property was in compliance with state and local requirements. Since Employees' only interaction with this property in 2019 was in their capacity as inspectors, all of the information-that they have about the property relates to their administrative functions, information which the parties are prohibited from probing. There is therefore no legitimate purpose for calling these witnesses to testify regarding the property at issues in this matter. Private parties are not permitted to designate City employees as their own expert witnesses, and no party may designate an expert witness without first retaining them as an expert. The parties have not retained any employee of the City of Salem as an expert witness, and the courts have held that"a party may not by summons compel the involuntary testimony of an expert witness solely for the expertise he may,bring to the trial, and in the absence of any personal knowledge on his part related to the issues before the judge and the jury." Com. v. Vitello, 367 Mass. 224, 235 (1975)• While it is - 7 - true that an expert witness can be required"to give an opinion already formed" without compensation, an expert can only be compelled to develop a new opinion and provide testimony without compensation at the discretion of the court, and that power will only be exercised "for the purposes of justice." Ramacorti v.Boston Redevelopment Authority, 341 Mass. 377, 379 (196o). Those purposes are not present here. In this case,to the extent that the City employees have already formed expert opinions,those opinions are either reflected in the documents or are protected by the deliberative process privilege. The private parties may not call City employees regarding those opinions. To the extent that the parties seek to have the City employees develop new expert testimony, the parties may not require such testimony without retaining and compensating the City employees.The City of Salem will not consent to such retention, and the designation of City employees as experts is improper. Such retention would also be a violation of the state ethics act, and is not permitted. No testimony of a local inspector's expert opinion should be allowed whatsoever. IV. The Written Documentation Is the Best Evidence. In any case, only the "best evidence"will be permitted to be submitted in court. See Inhabitants of South Scituate v.Inhabitants of Scituate, 155 Mass. 428, 430 (1892). ("Where it is incumbent on a plaintiff to prove a fact, and he refuses to prove it by the best evidence which is open to him, all other evidence may properly be excluded, and the plaintiffs case will fail for want of evidence."). The observations and"opinions already formed"by the designated municipal officials are documented in the administrative record, making those documents the best evidence as to those officials' observations and discretionary opinions on the condition of the property. Courts will not permit parties to compel municipal officials to provide testimony, especially expert - 8 - testimony without compensation, where documentary evidence is available to perform the same function. Particularly where public.policy favors avoidance of wasting municipal resources, reliance on the administrative record for municipal officials' decisions is the proper approach. Bringing municipal officials into court to testify as to a subject matter that is adequately contained in the administrative record is a waste of the officials'time and the municipal taxpayers'money. Testimony from the designated City employees is not the best evidence available for the information sought, and compelling that testimony in this instance would be against public policy. The designations of City employees to provide information by live testimony that is documented in an administrative record compiled in the ordinary course of municipal operations, are therefore improper. CONCLUSION The witness has no independent recollection of this 2019 inspection of a property; the best evidence of that inspection is the report; whether that report is relevant is a question for the court; no opinion testimony of the inspector should be allowed whatsoever, and any mental impressions or conclusions of the inspector are privileged. For these reasons,NON-PARTY City of Salem Employees respectfully request.for the reasons set forth above, that the subpoenas for testimony be quashed. DATE: January 20, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,NON-PARTY City of Salem employees,by and through their attorney, City of Salem, By its Attorney, s James F. Wellock - 9 - James F. Wellock,Assistant City Solicitor BBO# 686926 City of Salem Legal Dept 93 Washington Street Salem, MA oig7o Tel: 978-619-5634 jwellock@salem.com - 10 - Certificate of Service I certify that today the above document was sent by email to all counsel of record in the above captioned matter. Js/James F. Wellock James F. Wellock,Assistant City Solicitor - 11 -