STUART — A judge Tuesday ruled that women in court papers known as “Jane Does” who have accused famed attorney Willie Gary of sexual misconduct will be allowed to be deposed as part of the sexual battery lawsuit filed against him by a former secretary.
Attorneys representing Jillian Nedd, 28, a former employee of Gary’s law firm who in her lawsuit accuses him of raping her at a Stuart hotel in 2007, claimed that years before that incident other women were similar victims of Gary’s sexual conduct, with some signing confidential settlement agreements.
That’s the case with Jane Doe No. 5, argued Nedd’s Stuart attorneys Linda Capobianco and Jerome Stone, who said she entered into a confidential agreement with Gary about 11 years ago.
Capobianco in court said they tried to depose Jane Doe No. 5, but when they inquired into the basis of her settlement, she refused to comply, citing a confidential agreement she entered into with Gary and his firm under the direction of Gary’s law partner, Lorenzo Williams.
“It’s our understanding she had an incident similar to the plaintiff’s incident,” Capobianco said.
She said they want to depose Jane Doe No. 5, and several other Jane Does and one John Doe “to be able to establish that … the firm had knowledge of the prior instances.”
“And as to the defendant Gary,” Capobianco said, “to establish his modus operandi (and) common plan or scheme.”
Attorney Craig Hudson, who represents Gary’s firm — Gary, Williams, Finney, Lewis, Watson and Speranado — strongly objected to the move.
He argued the events involving Jane Doe No. 5 occurred 11 years ago, making her information too “remote” to be relevant.
“The purpose is to show propensity and to show bad acts, which is specifically excluded under the law,” Hudson argued.
“They want this because they figure this will make Mr. Gary look bad and make the firm look bad,” he continued, “so because there is a confidential settlement agreement, I think the court should take a step back and say ‘wait a second, let’s take a hard look at the admissibility issue before we violate a confidential settlement.’”
Martin Circuit Judge Elizabeth Metzger, though, said based on her review of Jane Doe No. 5’s confidential settlement, she determined Nedd’s lawyers could depose the women and others like her, but she forbid any inquiry into specific terms of any agreements, including any cash amounts paid by Gary or the firm.
“But other than that,” Metzger ruled, “I do find that the testimony sought from Jane Doe No. 5 is potentially relevant; it’s reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case, so I am going to allow it.”