Last week, the public was been told that Karen Read's attorneys simply failed to show up for Colin Albert's deposition. That claim was repeated by commentators, amplified across social media, and reinforced by Attorney Diller proceeding with his own deposition of Colin Albert. The clear implication was that Read's team was playing games, stalling, or avoiding testimony.
What was largely left out of that narrative was the discovery dispute sitting underneath it.
According to a filing by Read attorney Aaron Rosenberg, Colin Albert had not produced subpoenaed documents that Read's team had requested before the deposition. Rosenberg alleges that Colin's counsel refused to produce documents, delayed discussions regarding the scope of the subpoena, failed to provide additional dates after the deposition was postponed, and ultimately informed Read's team that Colin would only be available for a limited period before becoming unavailable indefinitely.
This is not a minor procedural disagreement because discovery exists so attorneys can review evidence before questioning a witness under oath. The purpose of a deposition is not simply to get a witness talking. The purpose is to confront a witness with documents, communications, records, and other evidence that may confirm, contradict, or clarify testimony.
An example of this could be cell phone documentation. For Colin specifically, they could ask for communications with Allie McCabe for a 1/28/22 - 1/31/22 time frame as she was his alibi for the evening of John O'Keefe's murder.
If an attorney believes relevant documents are being withheld, proceeding with a deposition means questioning a witness without knowing what evidence may still be sitting behind the curtain. That is why the missing discovery matters.
The question that should have been asked from the beginning is not why Read's team did not proceed with the deposition on the scheduled date. The question is why Colin Albert had not turned over the documents that were being demanded through subpoena in the first place.
What makes the situation even more noteworthy is that while this dispute was ongoing, Attorney Diller served his own subpoena and moved forward with Colin Albert's deposition anyway. As Rosenberg now lays out, Read's position is that the deposition issue cannot be separated from the discovery issue because the two are directly connected.
Viewed through that lens, the public narrative starts to look very different. What was portrayed as a simple "no-show" may actually have been a fight over obtaining evidence before conducting testimony.
Whether one agrees with Read's team or not, the filings show there was far more happening behind the scenes than the public was led to believe. The fact that the discovery dispute was rarely mentioned while the "they didn't show up" narrative was repeated over and over again should raise some serious questions about how accurately this issue was being presented to the public.