HEARING DATE: April 13, 2016 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT JOHANNA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. PC-2015-3821 JEFFREY DANA, in his capacity as City Solicitor of the City of Providence; JORGE O. ELORZA, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Providence; SAMUEL D. ZURIER, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Claims and Pending Suits, Providence City Council; and JAMES J. LOMBARDI III, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Providence, Defendants. PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEPOSITION OF MARIO MARTONE 1. Plaintiff hereby moves for sanctions against Defendants counsel for deliberately obstructing the deposition of Mr. Mario Martone. Plaintiff further seeks a protective order barring Defendants counsel from instructing Mr. Martone and other witnesses in depositions not to answer on the entirely false premise that the witness is being harassed. Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Mr. Martone to appear at a continuation of his deposition to answer questions about the Providence City Solicitor s handling of cases before the Board of Licenses in which Attorney Peter Petrarca represented clients. 2. Defendants have already agreed that this Court shall enter an order stating, in relevant part, Plaintiff is permitted to inquire into facts that establish her claim for indemnification, including but not limited to facts relevant to Defendants motives for denying her claim for indemnification.
3. Plaintiff has a right to show that one of Defendants motives for refusing to indemnify her legal expenses was their systematic favoritism toward Attorney Peter Petrarca. As a Commissioner of the Board of Licenses carrying out her legally prescribed duties, Plaintiff Johanna Harris objected to such favoritism because it was improper. Defendants retaliated against Ms. Harris because she got in the way. 4. During the deposition of Assistant City Solicitor Martone, which took place on March 28, 2016, Ms. Harris asked numerous questions that addressed the Defendant s favorable treatment of Mr. Petrarca. Defendants counsel James D. Cullen repeatedly instructed the witness not to answer on the grounds that the questions were irrelevant and harassing. 5. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that a single question posed to the witness was harassing. The entire deposition lasted all of one hour and 15 minutes. At no time was the witness reluctant or hesitant about answering any question. Nor did he look uncomfortable at any time. 6. Mr. Cullen s underlying motive for ordering Mr. Martone not to respond was that his answers would be damaging. 7. What follows are excerpts from the deposition of Mr. Cullen s improper objections and improper instructions to the witness. Q. Now, Mr. Petrarca recently said to the Boston Business Journal that he believed he represented approximately 75 percent of the licensees who got in trouble before the License Board. Is that roughly your idea of his representation? Do you agree with that? MR. CULLEN: Objection. I'm going to instruct him not to answer. I don't believe that that question is in any way relevant to the case. MS. HARRIS: Well, you can object to relevance, but can't tell him not to answer. MR. CULLEN: I think it's harassing, and I m going to instruct him not to answer. Q. Has Mr. Petrarca represented Pasha Hookah Lounge? MR. CULLEN: Objection, go ahead. A. Yes. 2
Q. Has he represented, has Mr. Petrarca represented Rock & Rye? A. Yes. Q. Has Mr. Petrarca represented Ada's Creation? MR. CULLEN: Objection. I think it's getting harassing again. I don't think it's-- MS. HARRIS: Then you can instruct him not to answer. MR. CULLEN: I'm instructing him not to answer. That's the basis. Q. Did you ever complain to the Commissioner of Public Safety Steve Paré about certain aspects that, certain actions that Mr. Petrarca took during certain hearings? MR. CULLEN: Objection. I don't think he should be required to answer that. MS. HARRIS: On what basis? MR. CULLEN: On the basis that it's harassing. It's not relevant to this case. MS. HARRIS: Why is this harassing? MR. CULLEN: You're getting into huge amounts of information about Peter Petrarca's behavior before the Board of Licenses. MS. HARRIS: That's correct. And that is a key issue in this case. Q. Are you aware that business owners in Federal Hill have stated either to you or other people that they were afraid to testify at your hearings, your show-cause hearings because they're afraid of Mr. Petrarca's clients? MR. CULLEN: Objection. I'm instructing him not to answer that question. Q. Do you recall that the day that you announced that the City was dismissing the case, Mr. Petrarca got up from his chair, walked over to me, and tossed a piece of paper at me? MR. CULLEN: Objection. Go ahead. A. I don't remember what day it was, but I remember him doing that. Q. And did you say anything to him about that? A. No. Q. Was that proper protocol? 3
MR. CULLEN: Objection. You don't have to answer that. He doesn't have to comment on the protocol before the Board. That's totally irrelevant. Q. Are you aware of the fact that when licensees or their attorneys have documents, they're supposed to give them to the Chair, and the Chair is supposed to distribute them? MR. CULLEN: Objection. You don't have to answer that. MS. HARRIS: So you're instructing him to not comment on protocol when he's been at every hearing virtually almost for two years? He can't comment on the protocol? MR. CULLEN: I think you're getting way off what is appropriate questioning in this case. I want to make sure that my client is protected. I don't see how the protocol at the Board is relevant. I don't see how he should be required to answer it. And I'm going to instruct him not to answer it. Q. Now, are you aware that Mr. Petrarca represented Rock & Rye? MR. CULLEN. Objection. Asked and answered. Go ahead. A. Yes. Q. And was Mr. Petrarca representing Rock & Rye when they had a show-cause -- I'm sorry, an incident that resulted in a show-cause -- the incident was on November 8, 2015? MR. CULLEN: Objection. You don't need to answer this. Again, going into the same line of what I deem to be inappropriate questioning. I'm instructing him not to answer that. MS. HARRIS: So you're instructing the witness not answer whether Mr. Petrarca was representing the Rock & Rye on November 8, correct? MR. CULLEN: Yes. Q. At the February 11 show-cause hearing on Rock & Rye, did a video recorded on the premises show that the manager had taken off his shirt? MR. CULLEN: Objection. You don't have to answer that. Same Q. Did the manager testify that he took off his shirt because he was hot? MR. CULLEN: Objection. You don't have to answer that. Same Q. Do you believe that that was false testimony? 4
MR. CULLEN. Objection. You don't have to answer that. Same Q. Did you make any effort to challenge the fact that that was false testimony? MR. CULLEN. Objection. You don't have to answer that. Same Q. Did Mr. Petrarca represent the Steam Pub at a show-cause hearing before the Board on April 18, 2015? MR. CULLEN. Objection. Same You don't have to answer. Respectfully submitted, JOHANNA HARRIS 3/29/2016 PO Box 9483 Providence, Rhode Island 02940 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 29, 2016, I filed and served this document through the Superior Court s Odyssey File and Serve electronic filing system on Defendants Jeffrey Dana, Jorge O. Elorza, Samuel D. Zurier and James J. Lombardi III and their attorney Dennis E. Carley, Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce Inc., decarley@rcfp.com. PLAINTIFF, PRO SE, JOHANNA HARRIS PO Box 9483 Providence, Rhode Island 02940 6