Not only communications, but Sayre net worth at issue in motions hearing

From any angle in any season, spring here it would appear, the Warren County Courthouse presents a picturesque, not to mention busy, legal symbol for this community. Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

Attorneys in the Jennifer McDonald defamation suit against Tom Sayre argued a variety of issues during the June 19 Discovery Motions hearing in Warren County Circuit Court. At issue was the scope Discovery materials Sayre is compelled by the court to produce in response to plaintiff motions, including a reply to what the Shenandoah District County Supervisors’ net worth is.

On that latter issue Sayre attorney Margaret Fonshell Ward argued that while such information may eventually be relevant in such a civil damages case, it is not subject to a Discovery Motion by the plaintiff at this point in the pre-trial proceedings.

“Right now is not the time – it can be addressed later,” Ward told the court of establishing her client’s net worth.

McDonald attorney Lee Berlik countered, citing a Fairfax case he is handling involving an airline, in which such Discovery was allowed.

“I agree it is the defendant’s burden of proof (in establishing their net worth) but the plaintiff has the option of seeking the information,” Berlik argued, observing, “If it turns out Mr. Sayre is a billionaire … he may not want the jury to know that it wouldn’t be a burden for him to pay” the damages being sought.

Those damages in McDonald’s February-filed counter suit to Sayre’s $25,000 defamation suit filed in September 2018, total $600,000, including $350,000 in punitive damages.

Am I worth more or less than Donald Trump, Tom Sayre may have been daydreaming during a past county board work session. We could find out if McDonald doesn’t agree to seal a Discovery response from Sayre about his net worth AND Trump ever releases his tax returns – no, we’ll NEVER find out.

Both McDonald and Sayre’s defamation suits revolve around the infamous “conspiracy to terrorize McDonald” note discovered at the scene of a stone-throwing vandalism at her property McDonald reported to law enforcement the evening of June 15, 2017.

As observed in yesterday’s lead hearing story, while dismissing the false police report charge against McDonald on Halloween the judge observed that something was “horribly wrong” about the note.** And Berlik himself observed during Wednesday’s hearing, “The note remains a mystery.”

Judge allows Shaw-Sayre communications Discovery, but not third-party

But back to the net worth question attached to McDonald’s defamation suit against Sayre, Athey agreed with the plaintiff and granted its Discovery Motion for Sayre’s net worth.

Sayre attorney Ward asked that the information “not be disclosed beyond Mr. Berlik”.

“Do you have a problem with that?” Athey asked Berlik.

Berlik replied that he would like to check with his client before definitively answering that question.

“Okay, the two parties will know each other’s net worth – but perhaps not the public,” Judge Athey observed of the status of that Discovery Motion.

Should we go Dutch? – I don’t know, what are you worth; I don’t know, what are you worth?? Maybe this couple should just flip a coin.

As for plaintiff Discovery Motions for Sayre electronic or other communications, Athey ruled the defendant must provide a log of his phone records for 21 days surrounding the June 15, 2017 vandalism report, including the evening it occurred. Berlik argued that since the note included an instruction to call the numbers in the note “when anything has happened” what numbers Sayre may have received calls from in the aftermath of the reported vandalism incident are relevant.

The judge agreed; and Sayre’s attorney did not object to a focused request for phone records.

Athey also agreed that specific defendant communications in 2018 could also be relevant, and ordered them produced as well as relevant materials sought from 2017.

As for three months of Facebook communications or messaging, Berlik cited vagueness in the defendant response, “We don’t believe they’re there.”

The response to the plaintiff’s additional query, “Did you look?” was silence, Berlik told the court. The judge told defense counsel that a more appropriate response would be, “They may be there – I’ve looked, I didn’t find them.”

McDonald’s attorney also cited a lack of response to his request that the defendant provide any evidence that McDonald did fabricate the note or stage the rock-throwing incident. Athey observed that his experience of such cases was that there was no such evidence to produce.

However, the judge did not address how the 2900 pages, or even the 100-page summary thereof, of the Cherry Bekaert financial fraud investigation he ordered produced in the EDA civil case might impact such a related defamation case Discovery request, at least on the circumstantial side of the equation as to possible motive.

Cherry Bekaert investigative report appears in EDA civil suit files

Of course, Cherry Bekaert devotes an entire 18 bullet point sub-section titled “Scope Limitations” describing limits placed on its inquiry “by the EDA BOD (Board of Directors) and County Board of Supervisors” that set fact-finding limitations to its EDA inquiry. See more on that in a forthcoming Royal Examiner story and in this linked story.

Limitations, assertions in EDA investigative report present a mixed bag

** Footnote: The note pointed out to investigators responding to her report of the June 15, 2017 rock throwing vandalism details instructions and information tied to what appears to be a conspiracy to terrorize McDonald for some unstated purpose: “She either does this the easy way with us or we make her life hell. No one should get hurt in this, but scared absolutely,” paragraph three of the note reads in part.

The concluding of four paragraphs of instructional text in the typed or computer-printout note upon which no fingerprints were apparently found included the admonishments, “Do not take this sheet with you (reporter’s note: OOPS), but make sure to keep it in your car with our numbers. Do not call Tom during business hours cannot have anyone hearing the conversation, so call me first,” followed by a 202 number that evidence at McDonald’s October 31, 2018 false police report misdemeanor trial indicated was former Town Manager Michael Graham’s, followed by Sayre’s local legal office number.

On October 31, 2018, Graham testified he knew nothing of the note; and Sayre is alleged to have publicly asserted he believes McDonald fabricated the note and incident in order to discredit him professionally and politically – leading to the dueling McDonald-Sayre defamation lawsuits.