Document 107 - Larson v. Perry (Dorland) ("Bad Art Friend")

Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 107 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SONYA LARSON,
Plaintiff
v. C. A. No.: 1:19-CV-10203-IT
DAWN DORLAND PERRY,

COHEN BUSINESS LAW GROUP, PC and
JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQUIRE,
Defendants.
AND
DAWN DORLAND PERRY
Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim
v.
SONYA LARSON
Defendant-in-Counterclaim
DAWN DORLAND PERRY’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER

MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY SONYA LARSON
Submitted By:
Suzanne M. Elovecky, Esq. (BBO #670047)

Partridge Snow & Hahn, LLP
30 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
selovecky@psh.com
(617) 292-7900
(617) 292-7910 FAX
I. Introduction
Defendant and Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim Dawn Dorland Perry (“Ms. Dorland”) brings
this motion to compel the production of documents from Plaintiff and Defendant-in-
Counterclaim, Sonya Larson (“Ms. Larson”). Following multiple attempts at resolving the
matter through patience, discussion, and a prolonged conference pursuant to Local Rules 7.1 and
37.1, Ms. Dorland finds herself hamstrung between Ms. Larson’s continued flouting of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an imminent discovery deadline. The parties have yet to
take depositions in this matter, due to the outstanding documents and dispute.
The discovery dispute is one not only over specific requests, although that of course is
part of the necessary analysis, but also Ms. Larson’s counsel’s approach to the document
collection and review. Counsel has repeatedly stated that he simply forwarded document requests
and subsequent email communications to his client and left her to her own devices to determine
what was relevant and responsive, and therefore what would be produced. When pressed on the
significant concerns, outlined below, counsel’s repeated refrain is that Ms. Dorland’s claims are
unlikely to yield significant damages, implying in some fashion that as a result, Ms. Dorland is
not entitled to the protections and requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the most remarkable exchange, Ms. Larson’s counsel inexplicably waved off requests
for documents related to Ms. Larson’s claims for intentional interference and defamation – both
of which are asserted against Ms. Dorland – claiming “the burden to prove my defamation and
intentional interference claims is on me.” See February 9, 2021 email, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, at p. 2. Of course, Ms. Larson is required to produce all requested documents
concerning her tort claims, regardless of counsel’s arguments to the contrary.
1
As Ms. Dorland sets out fully below, the documents produced to date reflect that the
document collection was incomplete. Yet, counsel has steadfastly refused to engage and to make
a meaningful subsequent production. Therefore, Ms. Dorland seeks an order compelling Ms.
Larson to conduct a search of all files within her possession, custody and control, and to produce
responsive documents that are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses in this litigation.
II. Ms. Dorland’s Requests for Production and Ms. Larson’s Responses;
Documents To Be Produced.
This case concerns a copyright dispute between Ms. Larson and Ms. Dorland. As the
pleadings reflect, Ms. Larson initiated this lawsuit following Ms. Dorland’s exposure of Ms.
Larson’s use of Ms. Dorland’s writings in the short story titled “The Kindest”. In Ms. Larson’s
view, as expressed in the operative complaint, Ms. Dorland’s exposure of Ms. Larson’s
wrongdoing somehow entitles Ms. Larson to a declaration that she had not copied Ms. Dorland’s
work, as well as damages for defamation and intentional interference. However, the version of
the story that Ms. Larson has submitted to the Court, and the manner in which she frames her
case, completely ignores prior published versions of the story, versions that Ms. Dorland reacted
to during the relevant time period, which contain much closer copies of Ms. Dorland’s work than
the current version.
Through her tort claims, Ms. Larson claims damages resulting from Ms. Dorland’s
communications with publishers and others about Ms. Larson’s use of Ms. Dorland’s letter,
claiming that Ms. Dorland’s communications defamed Ms. Larson, and that they resulted in
losses to Ms. Larson’s relationships with two entities: Boston Book Festival (“BBF”) and
American Short Fiction (“ASF”).
Ms. Dorland responded with counterclaims for infringement of her copyright, a request
for a declaration concerning her copyright, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2
Following motion practice, this Court dismissed Ms. Dorland’s claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Ms. Dorland is not seeking documents related to that claim (although some
of her requests, which were served several months before the Court’s decision on that motion
was issued, had related to that claim; those requests are not implicated herein).
As a defense to the claim for copyright infringement, Ms. Larson has claimed that her
copying of Ms. Dorland’s letter is protected by the Fair Use doctrine. As this Court explained in
its decision on Ms. Larson’s motion to dismiss Ms. Dorland’s counterclaim, the analysis of the
fair use defense requires a factual examination of “the purpose of Larson’s use,” and the “nature
of Larson’s work”, among other factors. See ECF No. 99, p. 8-9.
The Document Requests and Responses
On July 30, 2020, Ms. Dorland served Ms. Larson with a Request for Production
pursuant to Rule 34 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. Following multiple requests
for extensions, 1 Ms. Dorland did not receive a response to her request, or any documents, until
January 12, 2021. Upon review of the documents produced, it was readily apparent that the
production was woefully insufficient. Therefore, Ms. Dorland promptly sought a conference
pursuant to Local Rules 7.1 and 37.1, and that conference took place on January 15, 2021. Due
to the sheer number of issues with Ms. Larson’s production, Ms. Dorland conducted the request-
by-request portion of the discussion take place via email, and Ms. Larson’s counsel agreed.
Thereafter, following a detailed review of the production, Ms. Dorland’s counsel sent a
comprehensive email outlining the discovery concerns. That January 25, 2021 email is attached
1
Ms. Larson’s requests for extensions were explained as necessary due to (a) the birth of Ms. Larson’s daughter in
September of 2020 and unforeseen complications suffered by both mother and child, and (b) Ms. Larson’s counsel’s
representations that he was dealing with medical issues for a close family member, requiring his full attention. Ms.
Dorland was respectful of these significant matters, and afforded extensions during and through the fall of 2020.
However, as the months progressed and the response was still not forthcoming, Ms. Dorland increased her requests
for the production, seeking a conference pursuant to Local Rule 7.1. Ms. Dorland did not engage in motion practice
concerning these delays, once again, out of respect and concern for the medical issues cited, in conjunction with a
realistic view of the discovery deadlines.
3
hereto as Exhibit B. Through the 7.1 conference, both via telephone and email, Ms. Dorland
raised the following significant and pervasive concerns:
1) In the context of “general objections” stated in Ms. Larson’s response to Ms.
Dorland’s request for production, 2 Ms. Larson refused to produce electronically stored
information in electronic format, claiming that she “objects to producing electronic copies of
documents in the formats requested in that they are not required by the Federal Rules. Plaintiff
will produce paper copies of all relevant, material and non-objectionable documents”. See Ms.
Larson’s Response to Ms. Dorland’s Request for Production of Documents, attached hereto as
Exhibit C, on Page 1. See also, Ms. Dorland’s Request for Production of documents at
Instruction Nos. 6-8, specifying the requested (standard) electronic format for Electronically
Stored Information (“ESI”), attached hereto as Exhibit D. Ms. Larson’s counsel explained this
objection during the parties’ conference to state that he only works with paper and does not have
the capacity to collect or produce in electronic format. Of course, Rule 34 does, in fact,
contemplate the production of electronically-stored documents in electronic format, and sets
forth a process when that format is disputed. Ms. Larson did not engage in that process and did
not respond in any manner to Ms. Dorland’s request for the issue to be resolved through
conference. 3
2
Of course, it is well settled that “general objections” are not acceptable since the 2015 amendment to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Pursuant to the comments to Rule 34, “In the written response to the production request that Rule 34 requires, the
responding party must state the form it intends to use for producing electronically stored information if the
requesting party does not specify a form or if the responding party objects to a form that the requesting party
specifies. Starting the intended form before the production occurs permit the parties to identify and seek to resolve
disputes before the expense and work of the production occurs. A party that responds to a discovery request by
simply producing electronically stored information in a form of its choice, without identifying that form in advance
of the production in the response required by Rule 34(b), runs a risk that the requesting party can show that the
produced form is not reasonably usable and that it is entitled to production of some or all of the information in an
additional form.” See Committee Notes on Rules – 2006 Amendment.
4
2) Ms. Dorland did not object to the paper production as a mere technicality and
made that clear to Ms. Larson through the conference. First, as Ms. Dorland explained, the
production served on January 12, 2021 contained a black line across the top of each page, which
in several instances obscured one more lines of text. See, e.g., “P80” of the Larson production,
attached hereto as Exhibit E, reflecting a black line obscuring the second line of text on the
page. (Ms. Larson subsequently replaced the paper production with a new version that lost the
black line; Ms. Dorland isn’t seeking a third production of these same pages, but instead uses this
as an illustration of why the paper production was not adequate.) Second, as Ms. Dorland further
explained, none of the emails produced in paper format contained their attachments, whether
indicated in the “top” email or earlier in an email chain. Third, a paper production does not
permit any assurance that all metadata fields have been disclosed, such as cc’s or bcc’s, and the
document’s “created” date or “modified” date. These points of information are particularly
important in a case like this one, where various revisions, versions, and drafts are relevant.
3) In each of Plaintiff’s objections, she limited her production to documents relevant
to the “Amended Complaint,” omitting the counterclaim from her objection language. When
asked if documents related to the counterclaim were withheld, counsel stated that he did not
know because he provided the document request to his client, and she had sole input on the
document collection. Counsel stated he did not know what his client did, but that she knew that
a motion to dismiss was pending, so she may have withheld documents on that basis.
Notwithstanding Ms. Dorland’s engagement in the conference process, Ms. Larson did not
respond to Ms. Dorland’s concerns or arguments on this issue laid out both in a phone call and in
Ms. Dorland’s counsel’s January 25, 2021 email. This is a violation of Rule 34(b)(2)(C) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5
4) Ms. Dorland raised the concern that there were no text messages included in the
production, despite the fact that emails produced reflected that the parties had communicated via
text. Ms. Larson did not respond to this concern and refused to produce additional documents.
5) Ms. Larson’s response frequently stated that Ms. Larson would produce
“documents that she has been able to locate,” without clarifying that she was producing all
document in her possession, custody or control. While this may in some instances appear a
technicality, where counsel admits that he had no involvement in the collection process, and it
appears he gave his client little to no instruction concerning her obligations or the scope of
discovery, this difference becomes meaningful. This issue was raised in the course of the
parties’ conference, and Ms. Larson did not respond to these concerns in any fashion. Further,
there was no representation or confirmation that Ms. Larson engaged in a diligent search or that
she reached out to any third parties over which she may have control for responsive documents,
as required.
6) Ms. Larson frequently stated she would produce documents which were “relevant
and material,” which implies that Ms. Larson was making materiality determinations during her
unsupervised collection. This is not permissible under the Rules. To the extent Ms. Larson was
making materiality determinations, Ms. Dorland seeks an order compelling the production of all
responsive documents, and not just those that Ms. Larson, a layperson, deems “material.”
7) Ms. Dorland further raised the following issues concerning specific requests, none
of which were answered by Ms. Larson:
a. Request No. 8: Documents reflecting, referencing and/or concerning your
membership in the Facebook group referenced in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. In response to
this request, Ms. Larson objected, claiming that the request was “vague and ambiguous in that
6
Plaintiff did not ask to be a ‘member’ of the group. While some documents that are being
produced happen to mention the Facebook group, Plaintiff does not believe that she has any
document that are relevant and material to this request as it is worded.” This objection is
improper and disingenuous. Request No. 8 specifically refers to the terms as they are used in
Ms. Larson’s own complaint, which she presumably understands without difficulty. There can
be no ambiguity when read in conjunction with the complaint. Further, the objection lays bare
the deficiencies with Ms. Larson’s approach to this production. It is not sufficient to state what
Ms. Larson “believes” that she has in her possession, custody and control. She is required to
conduct a diligent search, and to produce the responsive documents. The “Facebook group”
takes center stage in Ms. Larson’s own complaint, and it implicates Ms. Larson’s access to Ms.
Dorland’s original writings, which were posted within that group. Further, documents related to
Ms. Larson’s access to and membership in the group are relevant to this matter where Ms.
Larson’s understanding of the size of the group and the nature of the group are intertwined with
Ms. Larson’s defenses, including her fair use defenses. Ms. Larson has stated in her pleadings
and during motion practice that Ms. Dorland’s letter constituted a “Facebook post”, rather than
original writing, and has further suggested that Ms. Dorland’s posting of the letter on her private,
secret Facebook page is relevant, although Ms. Dorland’s assumptions concerning the number of
members in the group is wholly incorrect, as she has suggested there were several hundred
members in the group, when in fact, the number is much smaller. Further, Ms. Larson herself
has recently served a second request for production of documents on Ms. Dorland, which include
four (4) separate requests seeking documents related to the Facebook group. These document
requests were served after the Court’s decision on Ms. Larson’s motion to dismiss. Therefore,
7
any suggestion that documents related to Ms. Dorland’s Facebook group are irrelevant is simply
not credible.
b. In Request No. 9, Ms. Dorland requested “communications referencing or
concerning the Facebook group referred to in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint”. Ms. Larson
responded to state: “Plaintiff will produce documents she has been able to locate to date that are
relevant and material to the 2015 Factual Letter that Ms. Dorland posted on her Facebook site.”
See Ms. Larson’s response to Ms. Dorland’s request for production, at p. 4-5. Once again, this
response, and objection, is insufficient. Ms. Dorland raised this issue with Ms. Larson, and a
response was refused. Ms. Dorland refers to subsection (a) above concerning the relevance of
these documents, and Ms. Larson’s mirrored requests.
c. In request No. 16, Ms. Dorland requested “All documents reflecting edits
to “The Kindest” during the period of 2014 through the present.” Ms. Larson objected, stating
the request is overbroad, and referring Ms. Dorland to other documents produced. Once again,
this is insufficient. As Ms. Dorland pointed out during the 7.1 conference, this request goes to
the heart of this matter, and is particularly relevant given the multiple published versions of the
story. Further, as Ms. Dorland pointed out in her January 25, 2021 email, there are specific
reasons for this request, including but not limited to an email that Ms. Larson produced in
conjunction with her initial disclosures which makes clear that, after submitting an earlier
version of “The Kindest” to Plympton, she sought a re-recording of the story, as follows: “I do
have one major question, however: one of my stories (“The Kindest”) contains a letter sent from
one character to another, which includes a couple sentences that I’d excerpted from a real-life
letter. I’m now realizing that for ethical reasons I am uncomfortable keeping those lines in, and
would very much like to revise them. I know that the story has already been recorded, but is
8
there any way that those few lines might be re-recorded with the new lines? I understand that
this may be a HUGE pain. But I feel quite strongly about this and want to see if such a change is
possible.” See P82 of Larson production, attached hereto at Exhibit F. Subsequently, according
to the documents produced, Ms. Larson sent a redlined excerpt of the sections she wanted re-
recorded, but she did not produce that attachment. This attachment, and any other edits to “The
Kindest,” are clearly relevant to the core issues in this case.
These edits are further relevant inasmuch as they go to the “nature of Ms.
Larson’s use” of Ms. Dorland’s writings. As reflected in the documents produced, Ms. Larson
originally drafted “The Kindest,” and the kidney-donor character, with the name “Dawn” rather
than “Rose.” See Exhibit G (excerpt from early draft of “The Kindest”, as produced). As a
member of Ms. Larson’s writing group stated, “[t]he first draft of the story really *was* a take-
down of Dawn, wasn’t it? The character had Dawn’s name, and everybody in that workshop
immediately recognized Dawn Dorland in the story …”. See P79 of Larson’s Production,
attached hereto as Exhibit H. This clearly goes to the “nature of the use,” as well as Ms.
Larson’s state of mind in utilizing Ms. Dorland’s works within her short story.
d. In Request No. 20, Ms. Dorland requested “All documents concerning the
June 22, 2016 reading of “The Kindest” referenced in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.” Ms.
Larson did not object to this request on any grounds, but instead merely stated that “Plaintiff will
produce the portion of “The Kindest” that she read on June 22, 2016.” That is not what was
requested and given the absence of any timely objections (no objections to date), Ms. Dorland is
entitled to all of the requested documents. Further, where the June 22, 2016 reading is raised in
Ms. Larson’s operative complaint as a relevant event, this request is proper, and is not overly
broad or unduly burdensome. Finally, where the June 22, 2016 reading was the event that
9
informed Ms. Dorland that Ms. Larson had written a story related to a kidney donation, and
documents reflect that Ms. Larson was very concerned about Ms. Dorland’s reaction to the story,
any communications concerning the reading were likely to touch on matters that are relevant to
all of the parties’ claims, including but not limited to further admissions by Ms. Larson that she
did, in fact, copy Ms. Dorland’s letter. See, e.g., Exhibit J.
e. In Request No. 43, Ms. Dorland requested all communications between
Ms. Larson and her writing group concerning “The Kindest” regardless of whether the story had
been assigned that title at the time of the communication. In Request No. 44, Ms. Dorland
requested communications between Ms. Larson and her writing group concerning Ms. Dorland
and the Dorland letter. In Request No. 45, Ms. Dorland sought communications between Ms.
Larson and her writing group concerning the BBF and the One City One Story contest. In
Request No. 46, Ms. Dorland requested communications between the writing group that Ms.
Larson had been copied on, even if not an author. To each of these requests, while Ms. Larson
objected and limited her response to non-privileged emails (which was not a limitation present in
the vast majority of responses), she agreed to produce all such documents. See Exhibit B.
However, a review of the production makes clear that all such documents were not produced.
First, while the email transmitting an early draft of “The Kindest” to Ms. Larson’s writing group
was produced (and, subsequently, the attachment was also produced), there are no emails or
other communications (as defined by the Local Rules) that indicate the writing group’s receipt of
that email, their comments on the draft, or discussions that were later referred to in subsequent
emails (i.e., as referenced above, the discussion of how everyone in the group who read the story
immediately recognized that the “Dawn” in the early draft of the story was, in fact, “Dawn
Dorland”). Second, the production contains several emails between Ms. Larson and her writing
10
group concerning the issues raised by Ms. Dorland over Ms. Larson’s use of Ms. Dorland’s letter
in “The Kindest,” but only for the time period of July 18, 2016 through August 9, 2018. The
emails reflect that the writing group spoke extensively of Dawn Dorland, assigning her the
nickname “DFD” (which is identified as meaning “Dawn F*cking Dorland”), mocking her
clothing, her manner of speaking, her care of her pet, and her reactions to having her work
appropriated by someone she had – correctly or incorrectly – deemed a friend. See, e.g., p. 208-
214, 220-225 of Larson’s Production, attached hereto as Exhibit K. However, all of these
discussions stop on the eve of what was arguably the most crucial event in this case: the BBF’s
decision to cancel the One City, One Story program, and therefore the publication of “The
Kindest”. This decision by the BBF implicates each and every issue in this case, including Ms.
Larson’s copying of Ms. Dorland’s work, Ms. Larson’s tortious interference claim concerning
the BBF and Ms. Larson’s defamation claim. The final email produced by Ms. Larson between
herself and her writing group took place before the Boston Globe published its second article.
Based on prior email exchanges, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Larson did not discuss the
cancellation (and any damages she may have suffered or not suffered) and the second newspaper
article with her writing group. See, e.g., Exhibit K.
Put simply, it is not credible that Ms. Larson and her writing group ceased
all communications concerning Ms. Dorland, Ms. Dorland’s letter, “The Kindest”, the BBF, and
the One City One Story program on the eve of the second Globe article, and never spoke of them
again. It is also not credible that these communications are privileged. 4 Where Ms. Larson
agreed to produce these documents, further productions are required. In this instance, where
4
Some of the emails reflect that one of the members of the writing group, Celeste Ng, is married to an attorney who
wrote to the group concerning his view of the dispute. However, those communications were produced, which is
appropriate, where even if Ms. Larson had engaged this attorney, any privilege that would have otherwise existed
was waived when the discussions took place in an email chain with all of the members of the writing group.
11
Ms. Larson’s counsel admitted no knowledge as to the document collection process or the
decision-making concerning what was produced and what was withheld, Ms. Dorland has no
confidence that that search and production was sufficient, particularly given the clear omissions
identified herein.
f. In Request No. 50, Ms. Dorland requested “All communications between
your friends and the BBF, as referenced in P’s Initial Disc. 131, to the extent you were copied
and/or have a copy in your possession, custody and control.” In the referenced document, the
BBF wrote to Ms. Larson and stated: “Sonya, Please ask your friends to stop writing to us on
your behalf. Our decision is final. Just in case no one has said this to you, you should never have
submitted a story to us that had a plagiarism claim against it and then continued to withhold that
information from us when we picked the story. It seems to me that we have grounds to sue you
for reimbursement of the $10,000 we have sunk into printing “The Kindest” plus legal fees.
Kindly ask your friends not to write to us. We have spent enough time on this already.” See P
269 of the Larson production, attached hereto as Exhibit L. In response to a subpoena served on
the BBF by Ms. Dorland, the BBF produced several emails between it and Ms. Larson’s writing
group members, wherein those writing group members wrote to the BBF expressing dismay at
the cancellation of the One City One Story program. See, e.g., BBF02606-7 (wherein Ms. De
Leon, of Ms. Larson’s writing group, wrote to the BBF expressing her “sincere shock (and
disappointment and sadness and frankly, anger) in your decision to cancel One City One Story
this year”; in response, the BBF responded to Ms. De Leon, asking “what gives you the right to
be angry about our decision?” and stating, “[t]hat story should never have been submitted to us
in the first place as it carried a threat of lawsuit from the get-go and about which we knew
nothing. Sonya Larson withheld this information from us. If we had known, we would not have
12
chosen her story.”), attached hereto as Exhibit M. Once again, given the prolific nature of the
emails between Ms. Larson and her writing group up to August 9, 2018, it is simply not credible
that the emails sent by the writing group members to the BBF, as well as the BBF’s responses,
were not forwarded to Ms. Larson, with commentary. Each of those emails would be responsive
to multiple requests which Ms. Larson agreed to produce. It also cannot be seriously questioned
that these emails speak to the causation between Ms. Dorland’s statements concerning Ms.
Larson’s use of her letter in “The Kindest” and any damages that Ms. Larson may have suffered
during 2018. Ms. Larson’s decision (unsupervised by her attorney) not to produce
communications between herself and no less than three (3) members of her writing group
concerning these emails is improper, and does not evidence compliance with Rule 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5
g. In Requests 58 and 59, Ms. Dorland sought all communications between
Ms. Larson and any other person concerning Ms. Dorland’s allegations of both plagiarism and
copyright violations. In response to Request No. 58, seeking documents concerning Ms.
Dorland’s allegations of plagiarism, Ms. Larson objected on the grounds that the request was
“confusing”, “unduly vague” and “burdensome” (not “overly burdensome”). While it may be
true that it is “burdensome” to engage in discovery, Ms. Larson is the plaintiff in this case, and
she initiated this litigation. The request, which goes to the heart of the claims and defenses of
both parties to this action, is not “overly burdensome,” and it demands a full response. While
Ms. Larson failed to indicate whether documents were being withheld, she stated that “subject to
5
Both Ms. Dorland and her counsel understand that not every discussion between parties took place in writing, and
that it is possible that the imagined documents do not exist. However, where no confirmation has been forthcoming
concerning the question of whether documents have been withheld, and where Plaintiff’s counsel has made clear
that he had little to no oversight over the collection of documents and the decision concerning what was “material”
or “relevant”, Ms. Dorland seeks this order requiring counsel’s involvement and a thorough search and production
of all responsive documents.
13
and without waiving the General objections and these specific objections, relevant and material
non-privileged emails and text messages that are in Plaintiff’s possession will be produced.” In
response to Request No. 59, seeking communications between Ms. Larson and any other person
concerning Ms. Dorland’s copyright infringement allegations, Ms. Larson objected stating,
“Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it implies that Ms. Dorland owns the
copyright to the Dorland letter,” and then proceeded to agree to produce “relevant and material
non-privileged emails and text messages that are in Plaintiff’s possession.” See Exhibit B at p.
16. As is uniformly the case throughout Ms. Larson’s responses, the responses to Request Nos.
58 and 59 are insufficient, and do not comply with the Rules. There can be no real good faith
believe that Request No. 58 is confusing, unduly vague or ambiguous, as it is a simple and
straight forward request which speaks to the heart of Ms. Larson’s tort claims against Ms.
Dorland. Further, Ms. Larson’s response to Request No. 59 is disingenuous, as whether or not
Ms. Dorland “owns the copyright to the Dorland letter” has no bearing on Ms. Dorland’s
“allegation” that Ms. Larson infringed that copyright.
Further, Ms. Larson agreed to produce emails, text messages and
other communications, but she produced not a single text message in the entirety of her
production.
Finally, what is particularly troubling concerning these requests is
that Ms. Larson identified several individuals in her initial disclosures who have knowledge
concerning this matter, and yet produced no documents or communications with these
individuals. See, e.g., Ms. Larson’s Initial Disclosures, attached hereto as Exhibit N, at p. 1-5.
One named individual in particular, Sari Boren, was identified as a “friend
and fellow writer” in Ms. Larson’s initial disclosures, stating that Ms. Boren has knowledge
14
concerning Ms. Larson’s claims. It is therefore conspicuous that none of the documents
produced reflect communications with Ms. Boren. This is particularly conspicuous where Ms.
Boren is referenced by Ms. Larson references in emails that were produced (see P222 of the
Larson Production, Ex. K), stating that she had worked with Ms. Boren (“Sari”) in developing a
statement to the Globe. Similarly, no documents were produced reflecting communications with
Lisa Borders, a known close friend of Ms. Larson’s, also identified in her initial disclosures.
These inconsistencies reflect a serious and tangible concern that Ms.
Larson’s production, as well as her production process, was wholly insufficient and was not in
compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
h. In response to Request No. 68, which sought “all documents and
communications evidencing Ms. Dorland’s contacts with ‘various writing communities in the
United States’ concerning her claims of plagiarism, as referenced in Paragraph 45 of the
Complaint”, Ms. Larson responded that “many of the requested documents were produced by
Dorland or her legal counsel and will not be duplicated.” See Exhibit C. Once again, this
response is impermissible under the Rules. Ms. Dorland is entitled to know what
communications were provided to Ms. Larson, what is within Ms. Larson’s possession, custody
and control, and how those communications came to be in Ms. Larson’s possession, custody and
control, to the extent that can be determined through the documents. Alternatively, upon a
complete production, Ms. Dorland can explore this area through deposition testimony once Ms.
Dorland is provided through these requests with all of the documents in Ms. Larson’s possession,
custody and control. However, it is clear from the objection that Ms. Larson has within her
possession, custody and control concerning these matters, but has refused to produce them.
15
These communications are key to Ms. Larson’s claims for defamation and intentional
interference, and it is not permissible for her to refuse to produce these documents.
i. Ms. Dorland raised the following additional issues in the course of the
conferences between counsel:
• Email threads were produced in one installment (i.e., rather than
individual sent and received emails being produced). While the undersigned understands the
temptation to reduce the duplication created by producing multiple emails in the same chain,
each of those emails is responsive, and must be produced. Here, where Ms. Larson failed to do
so, two issues (at least) arose: (1) email chains reflected that various branches broke off, and not
all relevant messages were captured through the single chain production (see Exhibit A at first
bullet point); (2) attachments to the various emails within the chain were omitted. 6
• In at least one instance, a “Slack” message that was produced reflects that
Ms. Larson produced only her own message and withheld what is indicated as “15 replies”. See
P227 of the Larson Production, attached hereto as Exhibit O.
• In August of 2018, Ms. Larson indicated that she located the “old” version
of “The Kindest” on line in July of 2018 and communicated with Audible at that time to have it
removed. See P. 244-247, attached hereto as Exhibit P. Despite this reference, no
communications or documents were produced concerning this July 2018 exchange, despite the
clear relevance of any attempt by Ms. Larson to remove an infringing (or allegedly infringing)
version of “The Kindest” from circulation.
• Ms. Larson failed to produce any documents in the form of Facebook or
other social media postings, despite the fact that the documents that were produced indicate that
6
As a practical matter, all email attachments were omitted throughout the production, regardless of whether they
were attached to an embedded email within the chain, the top email in a chain, or a stand alone email that was not
part of the chain.
16
there was activity concerning “The Kindest” and Ms. Larson’s dispute with Ms. Dorland on at
least Facebook, if not also Twitter. In particular, Ms. Larson’s production reflected that she
intended to post about her story (and potentially also Ms. Dorland) on a Grub Street Writers of
Color group. See, e.g., P137-138 of the Larson Production, attached hereto as Exhibit Q. This
was but one example, which represents yet another failing of the search and collection process
undertaken by Ms. Larson in this matter.
Plaintiff’s Response to Ms. Dorland’s Concerns
During the parties’ January 15, 2021 telephone discussion concerning these issues,
Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would review Ms. Dorland’s concerns with his client and
supplement the production as necessary. Following Ms. Dorland’s January 25, 2021 email
delineating her concerns, counsel had no response. The next email received from Plaintiff’s
counsel was an email seeking counsel’s agreement to a potential joint motion to extend discovery
deadlines. Subsequently, on January 29, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel served, via email, notices of
deposition concerning Ms. Dorland’s co-defendants.
Previously, in January of 2021, shortly after receiving Ms. Larson’s first production, Ms.
Dorland had noticed Ms. Larson’s deposition, aspirationally, for February 5, 2021.
On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defendants’ counsel seeking to
“reschedule” Ms. Larson’s deposition from February 5, 2021 (despite the fact that Ms. Dorland
made clear she would not be taking said deposition until documents were produced). In
response, Ms. Dorland’s counsel reminded Ms. Larson’s counsel of the outstanding discovery
disputes, asking for the status on the further document production. That email exchange is
attached hereto as Exhibit R. Following Ms. Dorland’s inquiry, Ms. Larson’s counsel,
surprisingly, responded to state “I thought you were going to get me a summary of exactly what
17
you are looking for. I will make better copies of what I sent previously and send them to you
ASAP.” See Exhibit R. When the undersigned responded that said summary was transmitted
over a week prior, Ms. Larson’s counsel stated he could not find it, although later responded that
he located the email. Id.
On February 8, 2021, Ms. Larson’s counsel represented that he “mailed to each of you a
thumb drive containing the additional electronic documents that Suzanne requested at our recent
7.1 conference.” However, that thumb drive contained merely 73 documents, which consisted of
(a) reproduction of a few emails in PDF format (not the requested electronic format), and (b)
what is assumed to be certain attachments, which were not clearly associated with a particular
email in any reasonable fashion, which were almost without exception versions of “The
Kindest.” See Exhibit S. Ms. Larson’s counsel’s explanation of this supplemental production
stated as follows:
I sent your email to my client and asked that she put everything you requested on
a smart drive. There are many documents on the drive most of which are copies
of the short story.
Thousands of pages of documents have been provided to you through document

production and subpoenas. I am not going to ask my client to search for any
more documents other than the ones I produced previously and the ones I just
mailed to you and Matthew. A search for more documents, even if they exist will
take an unreasonable amount of time and money to fulfill.
See Exhibit A (emphasis supplied). In response, the undersigned reminded Ms. Larson’s counsel
that Ms. Larson (under his signature) brought other claims which are subject to discovery. Ms.
Larson’s counsel, incredulously, responded, “The burden to prove my defamation and
intentional interference claims is on me.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Of course, it is not counsel’s
prerogative to withhold documents relevant to any claim on the grounds that only the plaintiff
has the right to said documents.
18
Since the thumb drive was produced, containing only copies of the short stories and
duplicative emails, no further documents have been produced following Ms. Larson’s refusal to
engage further in the conference, and her stated refusal to search for or produce additional
documents.
However, on the eve of filing this motion, knowing that the motion was to be filed on
Monday, March 15, 2021, Ms. Larson’s counsel emailed to defendants’ counsel stating:
I just heard from my client, and she tells me that she found at least a few
additional documents we need to produce. She needs a few days to see if there
are any more. If you send me your motion without filing it in court, I will again
go through it with Ms. Larson to see if there are even more documents to which
you are entitled. If there are documents to which you are entitled, I will send
them to you with or without your motion. If you do not file your motion, we can
avoid the pressure of a motion and response hanging over our heads, and at the
same time, not have to involve the court.
See March 12, 2021 (6:33 p.m.) email from D. Epstein to S. Elovecky and M. Greene, attached
hereto as Exhibit T. The undersigned cannot delay this motion any further, as the discovery
period closes within the month, and depositions need to be scheduled. This is particularly the
case where Ms. Larson’s counsel only transmits documents via U.S. Mail, claiming lack of
facilities in his home office, and the U.S. Mail has caused multiple delays in prior productions.
Further, the delays and obfuscation that took place between January 25, 2021 and March 12,
2021 resulted in motion practice (which was already drafted and being compiled for filing as of
the evening of March 12, 2021), and therefore significant expense, both in the conference
process and the motion practice.
In light of the bad faith conduct outlined above, Ms. Dorland seeks sanctions in the form
of attorney’s fees for the time required to attempt to resolve these issues for nearly two months,
on the heels of seeking any production at all for the period of July 30, 2020 (when the document
requests were served) and January 13, 2021, when an insufficient production was finally made.
19
III. Ms. Dorland’s Request for Sanctions
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth parties’ obligations and the
process for the production of documents in litigation. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure set forth the process by which to address disputes. That Rule clearly states that if a
motion to compel is granted or if the requested discovery is provided after the motion is filed, the
court to pay reasonable expenses in bringing a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(a)(4)(A).
Here, Ms. Dorland made every effort to resolve this dispute pursuant to Local Rules 7.1 and
37.1, conducting telephone conferences and follow-up email summaries. At no point did Ms.
Larson engage in a meaningful discussion about the concerns raised, instead stating no further
searches would be conducted, based on counsel’s perceived devaluation of Ms. Dorland’s claim,
with no acknowledgment of Ms. Dorland’s defenses. At no point did Ms. Larson claim that the
documents being sought were not relevant, but only that she shouldn’t have to put the time and
energy into searching her files. When an incomplete supplemental production was made, it was
done without organization, without tying attachments to emails in any discernable fashion, and
without addressing approximately 98% of the issues raised during the counsel conferences. See
Exhibit S, menu page from thumb drive.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Ms. Dorland respectfully requests an order as follows: (a)
requiring Ms. Larson to conduct a search of her files and to produce all responsive documents as
identified in this memorandum; (b) for sanctions as a result of the interim refusal to even engage
with the discovery issues; and (c) for leave for Ms. Dorland to either take or complete Ms.
Larson’s deposition outside the discovery period to take testimony on any late (or later) produced
documents.
20
Respectfully,
DAWN DORLAND PERRY,
By her attorneys,
/s/ Suzanne Elovecky_________________

Suzanne Elovecky, Esq. (BBO # 670047)
PARTRIDGE, SNOW & HAHN LLP
30 Federal Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 292-7900
selovecky@psh.com
Dated: March 15, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Suzanne Elovecky, hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I filed served a copy of the
foregoing on all parties of record via the Court’s ECF filing system.
__/s/ Suzanne Elovecky________

Suzanne Elovecky
21
Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 107-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT A
Elovecky, Suzanne M.
From: Elovecky, Suzanne M.

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:29 PM
To: Drew Epstein; mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition
Drew,
I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for
a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised
about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and
control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is
no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.
From: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>; mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition
Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and
the dates they were admitted to the group?
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
Barker, Epstein & Loscocco
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-4900
Cell: (617) 272-5700
-----Original Message-----
From: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>
To: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>; mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com <mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 10:54 am
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition
Drew,
I’m not coming to conclusions, I asked for a response to my email, which is the manner in which we agreed to continue
the 7.1 conference that we started via telephone.

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:51 AM
1
Why not review what I mailed yesterday before you come to conclusions. Many of the subpoenaed
documents are duplicative of what we produced. How many copies of the same short story do you
need? This case does not warrant the production of more documents even if they exist. We all have
1000's of pages to review. The burden to prove my defamation and intentional interference claims is on
me. Did you produce all the docs you have on the subject? Where is the list of people who were on
Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the
group?
I will check with Sonya Larson but I believe she is available on Friday, Feb. 19, with the Cohen Defendants
on Feb. 23 and Dorland on Feb. 25 or 26. According to my calendar, discovery ends on Feb. 28.
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-4900
Cell: (617) 272-5700
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2021 7:22 pm
Drew,
Your client has brought claims of defamation and intentional interference against my client, and those claims are subject
to discovery. The document requests go to those claims, and not only my client’s copyright claims. Not only was your
production deficient as to responding to each request, but as I set forth in my 1/25/2021 email, even the documents that
were produced were incomplete, where email chains were missing entries, attachments were missing, and more. The
deposition will not be going forward without a significant and meaningful supplemental.
Further, what was produced in response to subpoenas has no bearing on your client’s discovery obligations.
Please respond to my 1/25/2021 email, letting me know what you are agreeing to produce and what you are not so that I
can determine whether I need to take these issues to Judge Talwani. Only after we resolve these issues will we be able to
move on to depositions.
Get Outlook for iOS

Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:13:35 PM
<mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
2
I sent your email to my client and asked that she put everything you requested on a smart drive. There
are many documents on the drive most of which are copies of the short story.
Thousands of pages of documents have been provided to you through document production and
subpoenas. I am not going to ask my client to search for any more documents other than the ones I
produced previously and the ones I just mailed to you and Matthew. A search for more documents, even
if they exist will take an unreasonable amount of time and money to fulfill.
The reasonable needs of this case and your client’s claim that will amount to no more than minimal
damages, cannot possibly justify the search for or the production of any more documents. Dorland
simply did not register the copyright to her letter until well after my client is alleged to have infringed
it. Thus, under Section 412, she has no claim to statutory damages or attorney’s fees. Ms. Larson has
earned only a few hundred dollars in fees for every version of her story. The amount Ms. Larson has
earned would constitute the totality of damages Dorland could possibly claim if she can prove
infringement.
Drew Epstein
Cell: (617) 272-5700
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2021 6:45 pm
Drew,
Does the thumb drive include documents identified in my January 25, 2021 email?
Get Outlook for iOS
Suzanne M. Elovecky
Counsel
Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP
30 Federal St.
Boston, MA 02110
t: (857) 214-3097 ∙ f: (617) 292-7910
selovecky@psh.com
Learn more about our lawyers at psh.com

Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 6:44:08 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition
Dear Suzanne and Matt:
3
Today, I mailed to each of you a thumb drive containing the additional electronic documents that
Suzanne requested at our recent 7.1 conference.
I am also attaching a notice of deposition for Dawn Dorland Perry. I scheduled the deposition to start at
noon to accommodate the three hour time difference in California.
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 272-5700
---------------------------
This email message contains confidential and/or legally privileged information belonging to the sender and intended only for the review and use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, review or use of the information contained in this e-mail
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP at (401)
861-8200, and purge this e-mail message from your computer system immediately. Thank you.
4
EXHIBIT B

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:47 PM
To: Drew Epstein
Cc: mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com
Subject: Larson v. Dorland - Follow Up / Continuation of 7.1 Conference
Dear Drew:
This email is a continuation of the 7.1 conference that we started via telephone on January 15, 2021. I took the time to
carefully go through the production to date, so that everything can be addressed at once.
I will first summarize my overarching concerns, most of which I raised on our call:
 In your response to Ms. Dorland’s request for production, you asserted that you would not produce
electronically stored information in electronic format, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
require you to do so. However, Rule 34 of the Rules does, in fact, require you to produce electronically stored
information in electronic format, and specifically requires you to produce it in the format requested in the
request. My request included format requirements. The Rule therefore clearly and explicitly does require
electronic production, including metadata.
 As I mentioned on the phone, I am not pressing this issue for the sole reason of being difficult. The paper
production you provided has several issues that would not be present if electronically stored information was
produced as requested. First, there is a black line across the top of every single page of the production, and on
many pages, it completely obscures at least one line of text. You agreed to recopy the complete production,
explaining that it was a copying error. However, given the time that it took to compile, copy and send the
production the first time, this does not seem feasible. Second, none of the emails produced included their
attachments appended to the emails. The attachments would be included if the production were made
electronically.
 In several of your objections, you narrowed the scope of relevant documents to documents that relate to the
“Amended Complaint,” but not the Counterclaim. The Counterclaim is part of this case. While I acknowledge
that you filed a motion to dismiss, that motion has not been decided, and you did not seek to stay discovery
related to the Counterclaim. Absent an order staying discovery, you are obligated to produce documents
relevant to that pleading. In our discussion this morning, you stated that you, as counsel, did not withhold any
documents on the basis that they were relevant only to the counterclaim, but that you don’t know what your
client did during her collection of documents, because she “knows there’s a motion pending.” Please confirm
that your client did not limit her document search and collection to documents relevant to the Amended
Complaint, and that she also searched for and collected documents relevant to the Counterclaim. If she did not,
please instruct her to do so, consistent with your obligations under the Rules.
 It is perplexing to me that there were no text messages in your production. Text messages are defined as
“documents” and “communications” by both the applicable Rules and my document requests. Please confirm
that your client searched all text messages, including back ups.
 In response to multiple document requests, you responded that “Plaintiff will produce documents that she has
been able to locate.” This response does not reflect compliance with the Rule. Ms. Larson is required to
produce all documents within her possession, custody and control. She is also obligated to conduct a diligent
search. It is your obligation to instruct her accordingly, and to impress upon her the importance of compliance
1
with these Rules. I expect that you will confirm in writing, or through an amended response to my request for
production, that Ms. Larson conducted a diligent search and produced all documents in her possession, custody
and control, as that term is defined by law, for all requests that you agreed to produce documents. If she did
not do so, I expect that the production will be supplemented.
 In response to other documents, following an objection, you stated that you “refer” me to not only Ms. Larson’s
initial disclosures and interrogatory responses, but also “all documents being produced in response to this
document request.” However, in light of the objections preceding this response, I cannot tell if you have limited
your production or withheld documents, nor can I tell if Ms. Larson conducted a diligent search and collected all
of the documents in her possession, custody and control. You represented on the phone that you will confirm
with her that she did so. I look forward to that confirmation in writing, and if she did not do so, I expect that the
production will be supplemented.
 Your objections that state that “relevant and material” documents in your clients possession will be produced is
insufficient; it is not for you (or your client) to determine whether a responsive document is “material”. Please
confirm that you did not withhold documents based on a “materiality” determination.
It was clear from our call on Friday that you left the document collection, and the decisions as to what is relevant and
what is not, to your client. During our call, you cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the reason for this. As you know, I was
very accommodating as to deadlines for this production, not only because of Covid-19, but because of both your and
your client’s additional medical and personal issues. I served the document requests on July 30, 2020, and yet did not
receive your production until January 12, 2021. Further, the Court has put into place multiple accommodations,
beginning in March. These accommodations do not extend to attorneys’ obligations concerning discovery. There is no
justification for you to approach the document production in a hands-off manner. Your client does not have knowledge
of the Rules and what discovery requires. In order to avoid motion practice on these issues, I do hope you will take this
opportunity to ensure that the document collection is thorough and complete.
Here is my list of issues concerning the specific requests:
Request No. 1: A request for all drafts and versions of the short story “The Kindest” is not overbroad, vague, ambiguous
or burdensome. The Kindest is the centerpiece of your complaint, and is central to the counterclaim. The fact that
there are various versions and drafts is also crucial to this case, and the various versions that were highlighted in both
the complaint and the counterclaim show that the letter within The Kindest, which my client claims your client copied
from my client’s letter, has changed in meaningful ways that impact both parties’ claims. There is no credible argument
that all drafts and versions of The Kindest are not relevant to both parties claims, and therefore discoverable. Further, it
has now come to light, through the production made by your client, that the initial version of The Kindest included a
near verbatim version of my client’s letter, as well as verbatim quotes from my client’s facebook page, that the donor
character in the story was named “Dawn,” and that your client’s writing group viewed the story, in that form, a “take-
down piece” of my client. Therefore, I now know that these early drafts of The Kindest are highly relevant to my client’s
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim. Each and every draft must be produced. On our call this morning, you
stated that you do not know if they have been produced, and you do not know if your client maintained prior
drafts. However, if you review the emails that you did produce, you will see that your client’s writing group referenced
review of “several” drafts. Therefore, there are likely multiple emails sending those drafts to the writing group, at a bare
minimum.
Please supplement your production with every draft and version of The Kindest in your client’s possession, custody and
control.
Request No. 3: Please confirm that your client’s search for documents and communications was broad enough to
include documents relevant to the counterclaim in this matter, as well as all facts and allegations in both the amended
complaint and the counterclaim. Please further confirm that no such documents were withheld by you (as you stated on
2
our call), or your client. Please also explain your limiting term “material,” as it is subjective and raises concerns that your
client has made determinations concerning what is “material,” which is not appropriate in the discovery context.
Request No. 4: This request asks for communications with Ms. Dorland, but your response concerns communications
about Ms. Dorland. Please confirm your client has produced all communications between herself and Ms. Dorland,
including text messages, social media exchanges, emails, letters, and any other form of written communication, that is
relevant to the this matter, as requested in Request No. 4.
Request No. 5: Please confirm the scope of production pursuant to this request, in light of my overarching comments,
above. If further clarification is needed concerning the term “publication,” you can use the definition of “published by a
third party publishing or literary entity, regardless of whether said publication was in paper format, electronic format, or
audio format.”
above. If further clarification is needed concerning the term “publication,” you can use the definition of “published by a
third party publishing or literary entity, regardless of whether said publication was in paper format, electronic format, or
audio format.”
above. Please confirm that no transmittals of drafts of The Kindest have been withheld or omitted from your
production.
Request No. 8: This objection has no basis in the Rules or the law. Both you and your client are well aware that your
client was a member of the private facebook group, as it is referenced in the complaint filed by you in this matter. Her
“membership” is acknowledged, and is not contingent on her requesting it. Please confirm that a search was
undertaken for documents relevant to this request, and that no documents were withheld.
Request No. 9: I do not accept the limitation of the scope of this request to the Ms. Dorland’s letter, as the request
references the Facebook group in its entirety. The entire group is relevant both to the complaint and the
counterclaim. If you review your client’s “first draft” of the Kindest, you will see that she had inserted another direct
quote from Ms. Dorland’s Facebook group into the letter contained in that draft, further confirming the relevance of her
access to the group. Please confirm that you will produce all documents that are responsive to Request No. 9. This
request, and documents responsive thereto, are highly relevant to Ms. Dorland’s counterclaims, and a failure to produce
documents to the request as written will require that I move forward with a motion to compel.
above.
Request No. 16: As discussed above, edits to The Kindest, including but not limited to the letter contained within The
Kindest, are central to this dispute. For example, where are the edits sent to Brilliance/Audible/Plympton in 2016 when
Ms. Larson decided that, for “ethical reasons,” she needed to change the letter to remove my client’s language? This is
just one example of why the edits to the story – which your client is seeking confirmation of her copyright over – are
relevant and discoverable. Further, discussions concerning edits over time, such as those which were produced amongst
your client’s writing group, are relevant to this matter, as reflected in the limited set of emails produced to date. Please
confirm that all edits, and documents reflecting edits, will be produced.
Request No. 20: This request seeks all documents concerning the June 22, 2016 reading. This would include, for
example, any invitation from Trident, communications about a selection, emails following the reading, text messages
about the reading, discussions amongst Ms. Larson and her writing group or other friends concerning the reading. Not
simply the excerpt that was read. Please confirm that a complete search and production was made in response to
Request No. 20.
3
Request No. 37: Your response document omits an objection or response to this request, which I’m sure was an
oversight.
Request No. 43: Your objection references privilege, and I am quite perplexed as to what privilege could apply to a
writing group? Further, while I have received the email transmittal of an early draft of the Kindest, prior to it having that
title, to the writing group, you did not produce any of the writing group’s feed back or emails concerning the story. To
be certain, you produced several emails wherein the writing group discussed my client, the dispute between the two,
your client’s concern that my client would be upset once The Kindest was published, your client and her writing group’s
mockery of my client’s hat, and many other topics – yet very few actually addressed the story. Please complete the
production of documents in response to Request No. 43.
Request Nos. 44-49: Your response to this request suggests that all relevant emails were produced, but I have serious
concerns that they were, in fact, produced, as it is clear from the writing group emails that were produced that they
discuss many issues relevant to this dispute, particularly involving Ms. Dorland. Please provide me further information
concerning the search employed for this production, including search terms utilized, and date ranges applied.
Request No. 50: I have seen no emails responsive to this request, despite your agreement to do so. We know from the
production from the BBF that at least three of your client’s friends did, in fact, write to the BBF (Jenn de Leon, Chip
Cheek, Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich), yet I see no discussion about those letters (nor an indication that they were
forwarded to your client and/or the writing group), which would be surprising, if true, given the nature of the other
communications amongst this group. Please confirm that a diligent search was conducted and that no documents were
withheld; alternatively, if you are unable to do so, please produce the remaining responsive documents.
Request Nos. 58-59. There are some conspicuous omissions from your production, which casts doubt on the fullness of
the production in response to this request. For example, Ms. Larson listed several friends and fellow writers in her initial
disclosures, such as Sari Boren, Lisa Borders, Anya Weber, and several colleagues at Grub Street, and yet there are no
documents reflecting correspondence with these individuals. In one of the email chains that were produced, Ms. Larson
stated that she had been working with Sari Boren on the essay she forwarded to the Globe concerning the “white savior
narrative,” yet no emails were produced reflecting the draft being passed between Ms. Larson and Ms. Boren.
Request No. 68. Your response to this request states, “Many of the requested documents were produced by Dorland or
her legal counsel and will not be duplicated.” This is not consistent with the Rules. Ms. Larson is obligated to produce
documents within her possession, custody and control. I am not asking for her to produce Ms. Dorland’s own
production, but rather documents that came into her possession outside the discovery process, as she is obligated to do.
Request No. 82. The portions of the emails that were redacted are not privileged, as the privileged was destroyed when
the emails were forwarded to a third party. Please produce unredacted versions of the emails, as requested.
Following my review of the production I have identified the following additional issues with the document production:
 Several email threads in your client’s production branched into multiple paths, but only one was produced. An
example of this is reflected in the email chain at P204-207; Celeste Ng wrote an email to the group, to which
Calvin Hennick responded at 10:56 a.m. stating “Celeste’s last sentence is what my understanding of the law is
….” However, we do not have that email from Celeste Ng. As I said, this is but one example of where an email
chain is incomplete, as is the nature of email chains. Please produce each email – both sent and received –
regardless of the resulting duplication.
 Another issue with the email chains is that attachments are referenced in the middle of the chains, but they
were not produced. Each attachment to each email needs to be produced.
4
 The emails with Ms. Larson’s writing group do not appear to be complete. While the group was clearly quite
prolific in their emails, they completely dropped off after August 9, 2018. No emails were produced amongst
the writing group following the second Globe article or the cancellation of the One City, One Story program. If
those emails exist, they are responsive to multiple requests.
 Similarly, while an email was produced reflecting your client’s submission of The Kindest (prior to being assigned
the title) to the writing group, none of the group’s feedback was produced. If there was written feedback, it is
responsive, and should be produced.
 While Ms. Larson produced several letters confirming the submission of The Kindest, she did not produce the
submissions themselves, or the story. Those documents are responsive and relevant, and should be produced.
 The production does not include any text messages whatsoever. Why not?
 The production does not include any Facebook posts, and only one Facebook message. Did you client post about
The Kindest on Facebook? If so, those posts should be produced.
 In the August of 2018 emails between Ms. Larson and Audible, Ms. Larson indicates that she located the “old”
version of The Kindest on line in July of 2018, and reached out to her contact at Audible at that time to get it
removed. There were no documents produced concerning the July 2018 discovery or communications. Are
there any documents?
 At P227, in what appears to be a Slack message, Ms. Larson sends a link to the first Globe article. The screen
shot indicates that there were “15 replies” yet those replies are not reflected. Please produce those replies.
I am hopeful that we can resolve these issues without resorting to motion practice. As you know, I have noticed your
client’s deposition for February 9, 2021, and absent an extension to the discovery period, I have very little wiggle room
to extend that date. Therefore, I will need your supplemental production on or before February 5, 2021.
5
EXHIBIT C
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SONYA LARSON
Civil Action No.
Plaintiff,
V. l:19-cv-10203-IT
DAWN DORLAND PERRY,et al.
DefeDdants.
PLAINTIFF,SONYA LARSON^S OBJECTIONS AND-j^SFONSES-TOJpB FI^^^

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DEFENDANT.DAWN DORLAND PERRY
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to the definitions and instructions contained in the first request for
documents of Defendant, Dawn Dorland Perry("Ms. Dorland") on the grounds that they are
overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery set forth in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or give meaning to words different from their ordinary
English meanings or definitions including those set forth in applicable statutes or court rules. By
responding to said document requests. Plaintiff does not in any way adopt Defendant's purported
definitions contained in this discovery request to the extent they are inconsistent with the
ordinary and customary meanings of such words and phrases or the rules governing the
permissible scope of discovery.
Plaintiff also objects to producing electronic copies ofdocuments in the formats

requested in that they are not required by the Federal Rules. Plaintiff will produce paper copies
of all relevant, material and non-objectionable documents.
Plaintifffurther objects to producing any documents and things that are protected by the
attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and/or relate to communications with
her attomeys.
Subject to said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
1. Copies of all drafts and/or versions oV'The Kindesf\ regardless of whether or not said draft or
version was published, and regardless of whether the story had been assigned the title of The
Kindest at the time ofthe draft at issue.
Response: OBJECTION:Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly

broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the General
objections and these specific objectionSj Plaintiff states as follows:
Plaintiff, Sonya Larson refers Ms. Borland to Larson's Initial Disclosures that were
provided to all counsel by letter dated April 24,2020, and her answers and responses to all
interrogatories she has answered in this Action propounded by all ofthe Defendants,responses
to document requests made by all Defendants that have been or will be made, as well as all
exhibits that have been submitted to court as part of various pleadings in this Action, all of which
are incorporated herein by reference.

1
2. All documents reflecting your research related to The Kindest, including but not limited to
articles read, documents reviewed, websites visited, videos watched, or any other research
associated with your writing of The Kindest in whatever form.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Plaintiff also objects to the word,"research,"
which is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the General objections and these
specific objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her answer to Interrogatory 5 and the written
materials referenced in said answer, which are incorporated herein by reference.
3. All documents reflecting or concerning communications between you and any other person
that references or relates to Ms. Borland.
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
production of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to producing documents that reference
or relate to Ms. Dorland but do not reference or relate to the subject matter ofthe Amended
Complaint. Subject to said objections, Plaintiff will produce relevant and material emails and
messages.
4. All communications between you and Ms. Dorland,from January 1,2012 through the present.
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Plaintiff also objects to producing documents
that reference or relate to Ms. Dorland but do not reference or relate to the subject matter ofthe
Amended Complaint. Subject to said objections. Plaintiff will produce relevant and material
5. All communications concerning any publication of The Kindest^ regardless offormat.
production of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to the word "publication" which has
differing definitions depending on the context in which the word is used. Subject to said
objections. Plaintiff will produce relevant and material emails and messages that are in her
possession.
6. All documents concerning publication of The Kindest, including but not limited to contracts,
including but not limited to all drafts, versions and proposals.
production of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to the word "publication" which has
differing definitions depending on the context in which the word is used. Subject to said
objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her Initial Disclosures produced on or about April 24,
2020 ("Initial Disclosures"), as well as all memoranda and other pleadings, which contain copies
of said documents, and some additional documents that are being produced.
7. All communications evidencing transmittal of any draft, version, or iteration of The Kindest,
whether or not said draft, version or iteration had been assigned the title of'T/ie Kindesf at the
time of said communication or transmittal, including but not limited to transmittals of The
Kindest to publishers (including electronic, audio and/or web-based publishers), potential
publishers, readers, editors, agents, potential agents, writing group members, mentors,
professors, instructors, peers, family members,fnends, contests, conferences, or any other
entities.
brbad,ruhHul}^ vague,SibigubusT^d bihdehsbme^^d hoG^
production of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections, Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her
Initial Disclosures and her Answers to Interrogatories in this Action, which are incorporated
herein by reference, and some additional documents that are being produced.
8. Documents reflecting, referencing and/or concerning your membership in the Facebook group
referenced in Paragraph 11 ofthe Complaint.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly
vague and ambiguous in that Plaintiff did not ask to be a"member" ofthe group. While some
documents that are being produced happen to mention the Facebook group. Plaintiff does not
believe that she has any documents that are relevant and material tot his request as it is worded.
9. Communications referencing or conceming the Facebook group referred to in Paragraph 11 of

the Complaint.
Response: Plaintiff will produce documents she has been able to locate to date that are relevant
and material to the 2015 Factual Letter that Ms. Dorland posted on her Facebook site.
10. Copies of all notes taken by you concerning the Dorland Letter, as referenced in Paragraph
17 of the Complaint.
Response: Plaintiff believes that she copied and pasted her notes into her first draft ofthe story,
which is being produced.
11. All documents and communications regarding the Dorland Letter.
production ofadmissible evidence. Subject to said objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Dorland to her
Initial Disclosures, her Answers to Interrogatories in this Action, and all documents that are
being produced in response to this document request, all of which are incorporated herein by
reference.
12. All copies ofthe Dorland Letter in your possession, custody and control.
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to said objections. Plaintiff refers Ms.
Dorland to her Initial Disclosures as well as all memoranda and other pleadings in this Action,
and all documents that are being produced in response to this document request, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
13. Documents sufficient to show the date(s) that the Dorland Letter came into your possession,
custody and control.

broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome and unlimited in time. Subject to said
objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her answer to Interrogatory No. 4, which states that
Plaintiff received a copy ofthe letter on or about June 8,2018 from Rebecca Markovits of
American Short Fiction. A copy of relevant email exchanges with Ms. Markovits will be
produced.
14. Documents sufficient to show your research concerning the concept of a "paired exchange"
as that term relates to a kidney donation.
Response: Plaintiff does not believe that she has any documents that are relevant and material to
this request.
15. Documents sufficient to show when the term "paired exchange" first appeared in The
Kindest, regardless of whether the story had been assigned that title at the time.
Response: Plaintiff will produce the first draft of the story in question.
16. All documents reflecting edits to The Kindest during the period of2014 through the present.
objections and these specific objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to Larson's Initial
Disclosures, and her answers and responses to all interrogatories she has answered in this Action
propounded by all ofthe Defendants, responses to document requests made by all Defendants
that have been or will be made, as well as all exhibits that have been submitted to court as part of
various pleadings in this Action, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
17. Documents sufficient to show the date when you first conceived of the concept of The
Kindest.
Response; Plaintiff does not believe that she has any documents that are relevant and material to
this request. See,Plaintiffs answer to Ms. Borland's Interrogatory No. 10.
18. Copies of all sample letters written to or from kidney donation recipients reviewed,
researched by you as referenced in Paragraph 20 ofthe Complaint.
specific objections. Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her answer to Borland's Interrogatory 5 and
the written materials referenced in said answer, which are incorporated herein by reference.
19. All documents referencing or reflecting the source of all sample letters written to or from
rkidney.donatiomrecipients=reviewed.or:researched.by youas referenced.irLParagraplL20.ofthe.
Cdmplmht; "
specific objections, Plaintiff refers Ms. Borland to her answer to Interrogatory 5 and the written
materials referenced in said answer, which are incorporated herein by reference.

20. All documents concerning the June 22,2016 reading of The Kindest referenced in Paragraph
21 ofthe Complaint.
Response: Plaintiff will produce the portion of The Kindest that she read on June 22,2016.
21. All "emails and text messages"from Dorland in which she "hound[ed]" you concerning The
Kindest, as referenced in Paragraph 24 ofthe Complaint.
Response: All relevant and material emails and text messages that the Plaintiff has been able to
find to date will be produced.
(
22. All documents reflecting Dorland's alleged "insistence" on an apology from you, as
-referenced in Paragraph 25 ofthe Complaint. —
Response:-All relevant and material emails and text messages that Plaintiff has been able to find
to date will be produced.
23. All communications iBrom Plympton concerning Plympton's "scouting" you for new stories,
as referenced in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
Response: All relevant and material emails and text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession
will be produced.
24. A copy ofthe draft of The Kindest as provided to Plympton as referenced in Paragraph 27 of
the Complaint.
Response: A copy will be produced.
25. All documents and communications concerning, referencing or reflecting the sublicense
between Plympton and Audible as referenced in Paragraph 28 ofthe Complaint.
will be produced.
26. All documents and communications concerning all versions of The Kindest published by
Audible.
will be produced.
27. All documents and communications concerning all changes to The Kindest by Audible
requested by you, as referenced in Pziragraph 30 to the Complaint.
will be produced.
28. All communications between you and Audible concerning The Kindest, Ms. Borland,and the
_Dorland-Lêr.^^.,., -
will be produced.
29. All communications between you and Audible concerning press coverage of Ms.Borland's
allegation that you copied the Borland Letter.
will be produced.
30. All communications between you and ASF concerning the publication of The Kindest as
referenced in Paragraph 31 ofthe Complaint.
will be produced.
31. All documents related to the publication of The Kindest by ASF,including but not limited to
any all contracts, including drafts and proposals.
will be produced. The contract with ASF has already been produced in Plaintiffs Initial
Disclosures and Ms. Dorland is referred to said document which is incorporated herein by
reference.
32. All communications between you and ASF concerning The Kindest, Ms. Dorland and the
Dorland Letter.
will be produced. The contract with ASF has already been produced in Plaintiffs Initial
Disclosures and Ms. Dorland is referred to said document which is incorporated herein by
referencer - —
33. All communications between you and ASF concerning press coverage of Ms. Dorland's
allegation that you copied the Dorland Letter.
will be produced.
34. All communications between you and ASF regarding the BBF.
Response: All relevant and material non-privileged emails and text messages that are in
Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
35. All communications between ASF and BBF.
will be produced.
36. All communications between you and ASF concerning ASF's decision to remove The
Kindest from ASF's website.
will be produced.
37. All documents and communications regarding or concerning your submission of The Kindest
to BBF as referenced in Paragraph 32 ofthe Complaint.
38. All documents and communications concerning the BBF and The Kindest.
39. All documents and communicatipns concerning The Kindest and One City/One Story, as
referenced in Paragraph 35 ofthe Complaint, including but not limited to the version of The
rATzw^SsubfmftFdfdrOheCii^ZOhe StoryTan^ I"
40. All communications with the BBF concerning similarities between the Borland Letter and
the letter contained in The Kindest.
41. All communications with the BBF concerning changes to The Kindest.
42. All communications with the BBF concerning Ms. Borland and the Borland Letter.

43. All communications between you and your writing group, as referenced in Paragraph 38 of
the Complaint,concerning The Kindest, regardless of whether or not the story had been assigned
that title at the time of the communication.
Response; OBJECTION:Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly

objections and these specific objections, all relevant and material non-privileged emails and text
messages that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
the Complaint, concerning Ms. Borland and/or the Borland Letter.
broad, unduly vague,"ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to andwithout waiving the General
objections and these specific objections, all relevant and material emails and text messages that
are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
45. AJl communications between you and your writing group, as referenced in Paragraph 38 of
the Complaint, concerning the BBF,including but not limited to the One City One Story contest,
as relates to The Kindest, the Borland Letter, or Ms. Borland.
46. All communications between members of your writing group and the BBF concerning The
Kindest, Ms. Borland or the Borland Letter, to the extent you were copied and/or have a copy in
your possession, custody or control.
Response: OBJECTION:Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is dverly

broad, unduly vague,ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the General
47 All communications between members of your writing group and any other entity concemmg
Ms. Dorland, The Kindest or the Dorland Letter, to the extent you were copied and/or have a
copy in your possession, custody or control.
broad, unduly vaguCj ambiguous and burdensome. _Subjectloand_vdthput w^m^:ê^neral—
nhjp.r.tinns and these specific objections, all relevant and mateM emails an^
related to The Kindest and the Dorland Letter that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
the Complaint, concerning the Dorland Letter.
objections and these specific objections, £ill relevant and material emails and text messages that
the Complaint, concerning kidney donations.

50. All communications between your friends and the BBF,as referenced in P's Initial Disc. 131.
to the extent you were copied and/or have a copy in your possession, custody or control.
broad,imduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the General
51. All documents referencing or reflecting demands or claims for legal fees made by the BBF
ûpon you related to f/zg Ms. Dorland ^ô^thÎ^rl^d Letter.
Response: Plaintiff refers to her Initial Disclosures, and her answers and responses to all
interrogatories she has answered in this Action propounded by dl\ ofthe Defendants,responses
to document requests made by all Defendants that have been or will be made,as well as all
exhibits that have been submitted to court as part of various pleadings in this Action, all of which
are incorporated herein by reference.

the Complaint,concerning Ms. Borland's allegations of plagiarism (also referenced in Paragraph
38 ofthe Complaint).
-the Complaintj-conceming articles-publisheduLtheJBostom.Globe.conceming-r/ze-A[îK6fejLand/ot
Ms. Borland and you.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly—
54. All documents and/or communications between you and the BBF (including but not limited
to the One City/One Story Board)concerning Ms. Borland and/or the Borland Letter and/or Ms.
Borland's plagiarism and/or copyright infidngement violation allegations.
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the Generd
55. All documents and/or communications between you and ASF concerning Ms. Borland.
Response: All relevant and material non-privileged emails and text messages related to The
Kindest and Ms. Borland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
56. All communications between you and ASF concerning the Dorland Letter.
Response; All relevant and material emails and text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession
will be produced.
57. All communications between you and ASF concerning Ms. Borland's plagiarism and/or
copyright infringement violation allegations against you.
Response: OBJECTION:Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the
General objections and these specific objections, relevant and material non-privileged emails and
text messages that are in Plsiintiffs possession will be produced. —
58. All communications between you and any other person concerning Ms. Borland's allegation
that you copied and/or plagiarized the Borland Letter.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
that you infringed her copyright in the Borland Letter.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it implies that
Ms. Borland owns the copjTight to the Borland Letter. Subject to and without waiving the
General objections and this specific objection, relevant and material non-privileged emails and

60. All documents and/or communications between yourself and GrubStreet concerning Ms.
Dorland.

general objections and these specific objections, relevant and material emails and text messages
relative to The Kindest, Ms. Dorland and GrubStreet that are in Plaintiffs possession will be
produced.
61. All communications between you and GrubStreet concermng the Dorland Letter.
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome.- Subject to and without waiving the— -- -
general objections and these specific objections, relevant and material non-privileged emails and
text messages relative to The Kindest that are in Plaintiff's possession will be produced.
62. All communications between you and GrubStreet concerning Ms. Dorland's plagiarism
and/or copyright infringement violation allegations.

text messages relative to The Kindest and Ms. Dorland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be
produced.
63. All documents and/or communications between yourself and Bread Loaf Writers'
Conference and/or representatives of Middlebury College concerning Ms. Borland.

relative to The Kindest and Ms. Borland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced,
64. All communications between yourself and Bread Loaf Writers' Conference and/or
representatives of Middlebury College concerning The Kindest.
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous and^burdensome. Si^ject to ^djwithout waiving the
text messages relative to The Kindest that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
representatives of Middlebury College conceming the Borland Letter.
representatives of Middlebury College conceming Ms. Borland's plagiarism and/or copyright
inJ&ingement violation allegations against you.
67. Your submission to Bread Loaf Writer's Conference and/or Middlebury College,including
all writing samples provided to thoSe entities in 2016,2017 or^018,including but not limited to
as support for any application for a tuition scholarship.
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome,irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
general objections and these specific objections. Plaintiff did not submit The Kindest in
connection with her application to Bread Loaf Writer's Conference and/or Middlebury College
in20i6r2017or2018.
68. All documents and communications evidencing Ms. Borland's contacts with "various writing
communities in the United States" concerning her claims of plagiarism, as referenced in
Paragraph 45 ofthe Complaint.
Response: Many ofthe requested documents were produced by Borland or her legal counsel and
will not be duplicated. However,to the extent there are other relevant and material emails and
text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession,they will be produced.
69. All communications between you and the Boston Globe, or any representative of the Boston
Globe,concerning Ms. Borland, The Kindest and/or the Borland Letter.
70. All communications between you and any other person concerning the Boston Globe article
titled "Inspiration or plagiarism? Writing hackles raised in Boston dispute" published on July 26,
2018.
Plaintiff's possession will be produced.
titled "Boston Book Festival cancels One City One Story event amid plagiarism flap" published
on August 13, 2018.
72. All documents and communications concerning all payments and/or receipts received by you
-related to 77zeJrz>2£/e.sr and/or-the^DorlandLetter,-inclu(Ung butnotlimited-to royaltiesJiicense.—
fees, contract payments,speaker fees, booking fees, reimbursements, sublicensing fees, and any
other income of any kind related to The j^/«<ig.yrand/orJhe Dorland Letter.
general objections and these specific objections. Plaintiff will produce documents that have a
direct connection to the short story called The Kindest. See my answer to Borland's
Interrogatory No. 16.
73. All documents evidencing Ms. Borland's permission and/or authorization for the inclusion of
the Borland Letter within The Kindest.
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving
these objections. Plaintiff states that she did not include the Borland Letter within The Kindest.
the Complaint,concerning Ms. Borland's allegations of plagiarism (also referenced in Paragraph
38 ofthe Complaint).
-the Complaintj-conceming articles-publisheduLtheJBostom.Globe.conceming-r/ze-A[îK6fejLand/ot
Ms. Borland and you.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly—
54. All documents and/or communications between you and the BBF (including but not limited
to the One City/One Story Board)concerning Ms. Borland and/or the Borland Letter and/or Ms.
Borland's plagiarism and/or copyright infidngement violation allegations.
broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the Generd
55. All documents and/or communications between you and ASF concerning Ms. Borland.
Response: All relevant and material non-privileged emails and text messages related to The
Kindest and Ms. Borland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced.
Response; All relevant and material emails and text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession
will be produced.
57. All communications between you and ASF concerning Ms. Borland's plagiarism and/or
copyright infringement violation allegations against you.
text messages that are in Plsiintiffs possession will be produced. —
that you copied and/or plagiarized the Borland Letter.
that you infringed her copyright in the Borland Letter.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it implies that
Ms. Borland owns the copjTight to the Borland Letter. Subject to and without waiving the
General objections and this specific objection, relevant and material non-privileged emails and

60. All documents and/or communications between yourself and GrubStreet concerning Ms.
Dorland.

relative to The Kindest, Ms. Dorland and GrubStreet that are in Plaintiffs possession will be
produced.
61. All communications between you and GrubStreet concermng the Dorland Letter.
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous and burdensome.- Subject to and without waiving the— -- -
text messages relative to The Kindest that are in Plaintiff's possession will be produced.
62. All communications between you and GrubStreet concerning Ms. Dorland's plagiarism
and/or copyright infringement violation allegations.

text messages relative to The Kindest and Ms. Dorland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be
produced.
63. All documents and/or communications between yourself and Bread Loaf Writers'
Conference and/or representatives of Middlebury College concerning Ms. Borland.

relative to The Kindest and Ms. Borland that are in Plaintiffs possession will be produced,
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous and^burdensome. Si^ject to ^djwithout waiving the
representatives of Middlebury College conceming the Borland Letter.
representatives of Middlebury College conceming Ms. Borland's plagiarism and/or copyright
inJ&ingement violation allegations against you.
67. Your submission to Bread Loaf Writer's Conference and/or Middlebury College,including
all writing samples provided to thoSe entities in 2016,2017 or^018,including but not limited to
as support for any application for a tuition scholarship.
general objections and these specific objections. Plaintiff did not submit The Kindest in
connection with her application to Bread Loaf Writer's Conference and/or Middlebury College
in20i6r2017or2018.
68. All documents and communications evidencing Ms. Borland's contacts with "various writing
communities in the United States" concerning her claims of plagiarism, as referenced in
Paragraph 45 ofthe Complaint.
Response: Many ofthe requested documents were produced by Borland or her legal counsel and
will not be duplicated. However,to the extent there are other relevant and material emails and
text messages that are in Plaintiffs possession,they will be produced.
69. All communications between you and the Boston Globe, or any representative of the Boston
Globe,concerning Ms. Borland, The Kindest and/or the Borland Letter.
titled "Inspiration or plagiarism? Writing hackles raised in Boston dispute" published on July 26,
2018.
titled "Boston Book Festival cancels One City One Story event amid plagiarism flap" published
on August 13, 2018.
72. All documents and communications concerning all payments and/or receipts received by you
-related to 77zeJrz>2£/e.sr and/or-the^DorlandLetter,-inclu(Ung butnotlimited-to royaltiesJiicense.—
fees, contract payments,speaker fees, booking fees, reimbursements, sublicensing fees, and any
other income of any kind related to The j^/«<ig.yrand/orJhe Dorland Letter.
general objections and these specific objections. Plaintiff will produce documents that have a
direct connection to the short story called The Kindest. See my answer to Borland's
Interrogatory No. 16.
73. All documents evidencing Ms. Borland's permission and/or authorization for the inclusion of
the Borland Letter within The Kindest.
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving
these objections. Plaintiff states that she did not include the Borland Letter within The Kindest.
74. All documents and correspondence evidencing that Ms. Dorland's claim of plagiarism was
"false," as referenced in Paragraph 52 ofthe Complaint.Any documents produced in response
to this request must be clearly marked as being responsive to this request
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects in that she will
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in responding to this request and not
otherwise. Subject to and without waiving these objections. Plaintiff states that the versions of
the Kindest that she has produced herewith and in various pleadings, and in her Initial
- Disclosures speak for themselves. -
VSTAlU documents and communications concerning the BBF's rescission of its selection of TTie
Kindest as the One City/One Story selection.
76. All communications and/or documents concerning any damages suffered by the BBF as a
result ofthe rescission ofthe BBF's selection of The Kindest as its 2018 One City / One Story
selection, as referenced in Paragraph 59 ofthe Complaint.
77. All documents and communications supporting your claim that "[t]he BBF's decision to pull
Larson's short story had nothing to do with the validity of Dorland's claim of plagiarism or
copyright infringement" as contained in Paragraph 59 ofthe Complaint.
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waivmg
these objections.Plaintiff states that all relevant and material non-privileged emails and text
78. All documents and/or communications referencing "white saviors" or white savior
narratives" as a "tone" you identified in the Dorland Letter," as referenced in the document
labeled "P's Initial Disc 88".

confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome,irrelevant, immaterial. A white savior
-narrative includes-a situation where-awhite^character_rescuesmn-whitech^c^r^fr^^
- unfortunate circumstances. Subject to_^d widiouLwaiying^^&^^^
the versions of The Kindest that she has produced in various pleadings and her Initial Disclosures
speak for themselves.
79. All documents and communications reflecting essays, stories or any other writings authored
by Ms. DorlEind read and/or reviewed by you,including but not limited to copies ofsaid writings.
confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence.
80. All drafts ofthe story authored by you currently titled "At the Bottom ofNew Lake",
regardless of whether or not it had been assigned said title at the time ofthe drafts.
conftising, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence.
81. All attachments referenced in the documents produced as your Initial Disclosures, and which
were not produced.
Response; OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the groimds that it is unduly
vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff will produce any non-privileged documents that are relevant and
material to this Action upon specific request of said documents by Ms. Dorland.
82. A complete copy ofthe document reflected at P's Initial Disc. 132, without redactions. If said
document is claimed as privileged, then a privilege log consistent with the Instructions contained
herein.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but
she objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the communication that was redacted is
privileged under the attorney/client privilege.
83. All documents and communications concerning or referencing the Escrow Agreement
produced at Ps Initial Disc 149, et seq.
84. All correspondence between you and the U.S. Copyright Office concerning all versions of
The Kindest.
The application for registration was filed electronically by counsel for Plaintiff. Without
waiving the attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege, documents with the
Copyright Office will be produced.
85. All documents evidencing any and all copyrights you own concerning all versions of The
Kindest.
Response: Plaintiff has already produced a copy of the Certificate of Registration for The
Kindest. See, Amended Complaint.

86. All documents provided to any expert in this matter.
Response; OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the reference
to an "expert" it is unduly vague and ambiguous and may be irrelevant and immaterial to the
allegations in the Complaint, and may be protected as attorney work-product.
87. All documents concerning reports Ms. Larson has received from experts, consultants, or
other professionals, concerning any ofthe allegations, claims, or defenses at issue in this action.
Response: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the reference
-to—experts,-consultants-onother.professionals"_Ltis_unduly_ vague and.amhiguous,.mayJbe
irrelevant and immaterial to the allegations in the Complaint, and may be protected asjftomey
work-product.
88. All documents you intend to rely upon at the trial ofthis matter.
Response: Plaintiff has not yet determined which documents she will rely on at trial and she will
supplement this response as required by Judge Talwani.
89. All documents received pursuant to subpoenas issued to third parties in connection with this
matter.
None.
90. The curriculum vitae of each expert whom you expect to call at trial in this case.
Response: Plaintiff has not yet determined who,if anyone,she will call to testify at trial as an
expert witness, and she will supplement this response as required by Judge Talwani.
91. Any and all documents relied upon by any expert whom you intend to call at trial in this case.
Response: Plaintiff has not yet determined who,if anyone, she will call to testify at trial as an
expert witness, and she will supplement this response as required by Judge Talwani.
92. Any and all statements of persons having any knowledge relevant to this action by whatever
means preserved or recorded.

confusing, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably
--calculatecLto-lead-to-the.productioDLOf_admissible_evidence,
SONYA LARSON,-
By her attorney,
/s Andrew D. Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein, Esquire(BBO #155140)

176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel:(617)482-4900
Direct Line:(617)272-5700
Fax:(617)426-5251
Photolaw@aol.com
Certificate of Service
I certify that Plaintiffs Objections and Responses to Defendant, Dawn Dorland Perry's
Request for Documents were sent on the date ihdicated below by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Suzanne M. Elovecky, Esq. and Matthew H. Greene, Esq.

Partridge Snow & Hahn Boyle Shaughnessy Law,PC
30 Federal Street 695 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02111
/s/Andrew D. Epstein
January 7,2021 Andrew D.-Epstein-

EXHIBIT D

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SONYA LARSON,
Plaintiff
v. C. A. No.: 1:19-CV-10203-IT
DAWN DORLAND PERRY,

COHEN BUSINESS LAW GROUP, PC and
JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQUIRE,
Defendants.
AND
DAWN DORLAND PERRY
Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim
v.
SONYA LARSON
Defendant-in-Counterclaim
DAWN DORLAND PERRY’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS TO SONYA LARSON
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant and
Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim Dawn Dorland Perry (“Ms. Dorland”) requests that Plaintiff and
Defendant-in-Counterclaim Sonya Larson (“Ms. Larson”) produce for inspection and copying all
documents and things listed below at the offices of Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP, 30 Federal
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, within thirty (30) days of service of these requests.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Instructions
1. Incorporated herein by reference are the definitions contained Rule 26.5 of the
Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
2. You are requested to state separately for each of the following numbered requests
for production which documents will be produced for inspection and copying.
3. The following instructions and definitions apply to each document request and are
incorporated by reference into each request. The document requests must be read in light of
these instructions and definitions, and your answers must be responsive to the requests as so
defined.
4. You shall produce all documents within your custody, possession or control,
including documents in the possession of your attorneys, agents, employees, companies, trusts,
representatives, servants, consultants, accountants, partners, trustees, advisors or investigators,
regardless of the location of such document.
5. Time Period: if any request contained herein does not contain a date range, the
date range shall be January 1, 2010 through the present.
6. All documents should be produced in multi-page tiff format, with corresponding
document level text files containing the OCR or extracted text. The filename of both the text and
image files should correspond to the Bates number of the document. In addition, a Concordance
Delimited File and an Opticon Image Cross Reference File should be provided. The delimiters
should be Tilde (~) as the field separator and Caret (^) as the field qualifier.
7. For documents maintained electronically, the following fields should be included,
at a minimum: Bates Begin, Bates End; Bates Begin Attach; Bates End Attach;
2
Custodian/Source; To; From; CC; BCC; Subject/Title; Author; Date Created; Date Last
Modified; Date Sent; Time Sent; Original Filename; Original File Path; Hash Value; Link to
Text File; Link to Native File.
8. For any electronically stored comment that cannot be interpreted in TIFF format
(including, but not limited to, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, logs, video and audio files),
you should produce a Bates numbered TIFF placeholder and a native version of that file, with the
native version named by its Bates numbers.
9. If you object to any document request, you shall so state, including your basis for
the objection, in answer to the specific question you found objectionable. If only part of any
document request is objectionable, you will answer the document request as fully as possible in
addition to stating the objection, and its basis, to any remaining part.
10. Rules of Construction:
a. The singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the
singular;
b. A masculine, feminine, or neutral pronoun shall be construed to refer to all

other gender pronouns;
c. “And” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively and disjunctively so as to

bring within the scope of these document requests any documents that
might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope;
d. “Any” shall be understood to include and encompass one or more and

“all”;
e. The present tense shall include the past tense, for example “are” shall
include “were”; and
f. Unless otherwise stated, the relevant time period for these document
requests is January 1, 2002, through the date of your response.
11. The term "correspondence," as used herein, shall include, but shall not be limited
to any letter, telegram, telex, FAX, e-mail, text message, SMS message, instant message, notice,
3
message, memorandum or other written communication or transcription or notes of a
communication.
12. The term correspondence shall also include posts, private messages, comments
and uploads from all social media sites including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter and YouTube.
13. With respect to any document responsive to any of these requests that is withheld
from production on the grounds that the document or any of its contents is privileged or
otherwise not subject to production, Defendants request that you produce within thirty (30) days
of service of these document requests a list:
a. Identifying each particular document request to which you object and each
specific ground upon which such objection is based; and
b. Specifying each withheld document or thing or portion thereof as follows:
(i) its date;
(ii) the general nature of the document or thing (e.g., whether it is a

letter, chart, pamphlet, memorandum, etc.);
(iii) a summary of the contents or the general subject matter of the

document or thing;
(iv) the identity of each other document or other thing transmitted with
or attached to that allegedly privileged or discovery-immune
document or thing;
(v) its present location and the identity of its current custodian;
(vi) the identity of each person who authored, prepared, or signed the
document or thing;
(vii) a list identifying each person, including, but not limited to,
addressees and designated copy recipients, to whom either the
original or a copy of the document or thing has been disclosed,
including the date and means of such disclosure;
4
(viii) the nature of the privilege, immunity, or other rule of law relied
upon to withhold the information, document, or thing and the facts
supporting your asserted reliance; and
(ix) any purportedly privileged or discovery-immune information or

document that contains matter that is not privileged or immune
from discovery must be produced with the purportedly privileged
or discovery-immune portion excised.
14. Qualification of Answers. If your answer is in any way qualified, please state the
exact nature and extent of the qualification.
15. Defendants specifically request that you supplement your responses to these
Requests as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
16. Unavailability of Document: To the extent that any documents falling within the
requests below have been destroyed, lost, or misplaced, please identify those documents by type,
author, date, number of pages and the date and manner in which the document was destroyed,
lost, or misplaced.
17. If no documents exist which are responsive to a request, please state that no
documents exist.
5
Definitions
Plaintiff expressly incorporates herein the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and
Local Rules 26.5. In addition, the words and phrases set out below shall have the following
meanings:
1. The term, “you”, “your”, “Plaintiff”, “Defendant-in-Counterclaim” or “Ms.
Larson” means Sonya Larson, and any and all employees, agents, attorneys, representatives or
others working on her behalf.
2. “Ms. Dorland”, “Defendant Dorland” or “Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim” shall mean
Dawn Dorland Perry and any and all employees, agents, representatives or others working on her
behalf.
3. "Complaint" shall mean the Amended Complaint filed in this Action by You.
4. The term "Counterclaim" shall mean the Answer and Counterclaim filed by Ms.
Dorland in this Action.
5. “Dorland Letter” shall the mean the letter Ms. Dorland wrote and sent to the final
recipient in the kidney donation chain in which Ms. Dorland participated, and subsequently
posted on her Facebook Group on or around July 7, 2015.
6. “ASF” shall refer to American Short Fiction, which is a literary magazine based
in Austin Texas.
7. “BBF” shall mean the Boston Book Festival, including but not limited to the One
City One Story program sponsored by the Boston Book Festival. See, e.g.,
https://bostonbookfest.org/one-city-one-story/#1c1s
8. “Brilliance Audio” shall mean Brilliance Audio and Audible Books, both of
which are owned or controlled by Amazon. See, https://www.audible.com.
6
9. Whenever an individual or entity is referenced, it shall include all agents,
employees, attorneys, officers, directors, trustee and other representatives of that individual or
entity.
10. “Amazon” refers to Amazon, a large multinational conglomerate with its
headquarters in Seattle, Washington. See, https://www.amazon.com.
11. “Plympton” refers to a literary studio principally located in New York City. See,
https://www.plympton.com/
12. “BreadLoaf” refers to the Bread Loaf Writer’s Conference and Bread Loaf
Conference which are either part of or affiliated with Middlebury College in Vermont. See,
http://www.middlebury.edu/bread-loaf-conferences.
13. The term “GrubStreet” refers to a not-for-profit organization located at 162
Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts. See, https://www.GrubStreet.org.
14. References to the singular include the plural and vice versa, references to the past
tense include the present tense and vice versa, disjunctive terms or phrases should be read to
include the conjunctive and vice versa, references to "each" or "any" shall include "all" and vice
versa, and the word "including" should be construed without limitation, so as not to exclude any
document within the scope of or responsive to these requests.
7
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1. Copies of all drafts and/or versions of “The Kindest”, regardless of whether or not
said draft or version was published, and regardless of whether the story had been assigned the
title of “The Kindest” at the time of the draft at issue.
2. All documents reflecting your research related to The Kindest, including but not
limited to articles read, documents reviewed, websites visited, videos watched, or any other
research associated with your writing of The Kindest in whatever form.
3. All documents reflecting or concerning communications between you and any
other person that references or relates to Ms. Dorland.
4. All communications between you and Ms. Dorland, from January 1, 2012 through
the present.
5. All communications concerning any publication of The Kindest, regardless of
format.
6. All documents concerning publication of The Kindest, including but not limited to
contracts, including but not limited to all drafts, versions and proposals.
7. All communications evidencing transmittal of any draft, version, or iteration of
The Kindest, whether or not said draft, version or iteration had been assigned the title of “The
Kindest” at the time of said communication or transmittal, including but not limited to
transmittals of The Kindest to publishers (including electronic, audio and/or web-based
publishers), potential publishers, readers, editors, agents, potential agents, writing group
members, mentors, professors, instructors, peers, family members, friends, contests, conferences,
or any other entities.
8
8. Documents reflecting, referencing and/or concerning your membership in the
Facebook group referenced in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
9. Communications referencing or concerning the Facebook group referred to in
Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
10. Copies of all notes taken by you concerning the Dorland Letter, as referenced in
11. All documents and communications regarding the Dorland Letter.
12. All copies of the Dorland Letter in your possession, custody and control.
13. Documents sufficient to show the date(s) that the Dorland Letter came into your
possession, custody and control.
14. Documents sufficient to show your research concerning the concept of a “paired
exchange” as that term relates to a kidney donation.
15. Documents sufficient to show when the term “paired exchange” first appeared in
The Kindest, regardless of whether the story had been assigned that title at the time.
16. All documents reflecting edits to The Kindest during the period of 2014 through
the present.
17. Documents sufficient to show the date when you first conceived of the concept of
The Kindest.
18. Copies of all sample letters written to or from kidney donation recipients
reviewed, researched by you as referenced in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
19. All documents referencing or reflecting the source of all sample letters written to
or from kidney donation recipients reviewed or researched by you as referenced in Paragraph 20
of the Complaint.
9
20. All documents concerning the June 22, 2016 reading of The Kindest referenced in
21. All “emails and text messages” from Dorland in which she “hound[ed]” you
concerning The Kindest, as referenced in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
22. All documents reflecting Dorland’s alleged “insistence” on an apology from you,
as referenced in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
23. All communications from Plympton concerning Plympton’s “scouting” you for
new stories, as referenced in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
24. A copy of the draft of The Kindest as provided to Plympton as referenced in
25. All documents and communications concerning, referencing or reflecting the
sublicense between Plympton and Audible as referenced in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
26. All documents and communications concerning all versions of The Kindest
published by Audible.
27. All documents and communications concerning all changes to The Kindest by
Audible requested by you, as referenced in Paragraph 30 to the Complaint.
28. All communications between you and Audible concerning The Kindest, Ms.
Dorland, and the Dorland Letter.
29. All communications between you and Audible concerning press coverage of Ms.
Dorland’s allegation that you copied the Dorland Letter.
30. All communications between you and ASF concerning the publication of The
Kindest as referenced in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
10
31. All documents related to the publication of The Kindest by ASF, including but not
limited to any all contracts, including drafts and proposals.
32. All communications between you and ASF concerning The Kindest, Ms. Dorland
and the Dorland Letter.
33. All communications between you and ASF concerning press coverage of Ms.
Dorland’s allegation that you copied the Dorland Letter.
34. All communications between you and ASF regarding the BBF.
35. All communications between ASF and BBF.
36. All communications between you and ASF concerning ASF’s decision to remove
The Kindest from ASF’s website.
37. All documents and communications regarding or concerning your submission of
The Kindest to BBF as referenced in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
38. All documents and communications concerning the BBF and The Kindest.
39. All documents and communications concerning The Kindest and One City/One
Story, as referenced in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, including but not limited to the version of
The Kindest submitted to One City/One Story and/or BBF.
40. All communications with the BBF concerning similarities between the Dorland
Letter and the letter contained in The Kindest.
41. All communications with the BBF concerning changes to The Kindest.
42. All communications with the BBF concerning Ms. Dorland and the Dorland
Letter.
11
43. All communications between you and your writing group, as referenced in
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning The Kindest, regardless of whether or not the story
had been assigned that title at the time of the communication.
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning Ms. Dorland and/or the Dorland Letter.
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning the BBF, including but not limited to the One City
One Story contest, as relates to The Kindest, the Dorland Letter, or Ms. Dorland.
46. All communications between members of your writing group and the BBF
concerning The Kindest, Ms. Dorland or the Dorland Letter, to the extent you were copied and/or
have a copy in your possession, custody or control.
47. All communications between members of your writing group and any other entity
concerning Ms. Dorland, The Kindest or the Dorland Letter, to the extent you were copied and/or
have a copy in your possession, custody or control.
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning the Dorland Letter.
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning kidney donations.
50. All communications between your friends and the BBF, as referenced in P’s
Initial Disc. 131, to the extent you were copied and/or have a copy in your possession, custody or
control.
51. All documents referencing or reflecting demands or claims for legal fees made by
the BBF upon you related to The Kindest, Ms. Dorland and/or the Dorland Letter.
12
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning Ms. Dorland’s allegations of plagiarism (also
referenced in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint).
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, concerning articles published in the Boston Globe concerning
The Kindest and/or Ms. Dorland and you.
54. All documents and/or communications between you and the BBF (including but
not limited to the One City/One Story Board) concerning Ms. Dorland and/or the Dorland Letter
and/or Ms. Dorland’s plagiarism and/or copyright infringement violation allegations.
55. All documents and/or communications between you and ASF concerning Ms.
Dorland.
57. All communications between you and ASF concerning Ms. Dorland’s plagiarism
and/or copyright infringement violation allegations against you.
58. All communications between you and any other person concerning Ms. Dorland’s
allegation that you copied and/or plagiarized the Dorland Letter.
59. All communications between you and any other person concerning Ms. Dorland’s
allegation that you infringed her copyright in the Dorland Letter.
60. All documents and/or communications between yourself and GrubStreet
concerning Ms. Dorland.
61. All communications between you and GrubStreet concerning the Dorland Letter.
62. All communications between you and GrubStreet concerning Ms. Dorland’s
plagiarism and/or copyright infringement violation allegations.
13
63. All documents and/or communications between yourself and Bread Loaf Writers’
Conference and/or representatives of Middlebury College concerning Ms. Dorland.
64. All communications between yourself and Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference and/or
representatives of Middlebury College concerning the Dorland Letter.
representatives of Middlebury College concerning Ms. Dorland’s plagiarism and/or copyright
infringement violation allegations against you.
67. Your submission to Bread Loaf Writer’s Conference and/or Middlebury College,
including all writing samples provided to those entities in 2016, 2017 or 2018, including but not
limited to as support for any application for a tuition scholarship.
68. All documents and communications evidencing Ms. Dorland’s contacts with
“various writing communities in the United States” concerning her claims of plagiarism, as
referenced in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
69. All communications between you and the Boston Globe, or any representative of
the Boston Globe, concerning Ms. Dorland, The Kindest and/or the Dorland Letter.
70. All communications between you and any other person concerning the Boston
Globe article titled “Inspiration or plagiarism? Writing hackles raised in Boston dispute”
published on July 26, 2018.
71. All communications between you and any other person concerning the Boston
Globe article titled “Boston Book Festival cancels One City One Story event amid plagiarism
flap” published on August 13, 2018.
14
72. All documents and communications concerning all payments and/or receipts
received by you related to The Kindest and/or the Dorland Letter, including but not limited to
royalties, license fees, contract payments, speaker fees, booking fees, reimbursements,
sublicensing fees, and any other income of any kind related to The Kindest and/or the Dorland
Letter.
73. All documents evidencing Ms. Dorland’s permission and / or authorization for the
inclusion of the Dorland Letter within The Kindest.
74. All documents and correspondence evidencing that Ms. Dorland’s claim of
plagiarism was “false,” as referenced in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. Any documents
produced in response to this request must be clearly marked as being responsive to this
request.
75. All documents and communications concerning the BBF’s rescission of its
selection of The Kindest as the One City / One Story selection.
76. All communications and/or documents concerning any damages suffered by the
BBF as a result of the rescission of the BBF’s selection of The Kindest as its 2018 One City /
One Story selection, as referenced in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
77. All documents and communications supporting your claim that “[t]he BBF’s
decision to pull Larson’s short story had nothing to do with the [] validity of Dorland’s claim of
plagiarism or copyright infringement” as contained in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
78. All documents and/or communications referencing “white saviors” or “white
savior narratives” as a “tone” you identified in the Dorland Letter,” as referenced in the
document labeled “P’s Initial Disc 88”.
15
79. All documents and communications reflecting essays, stories or any other
writings authored by Ms. Dorland read and/or reviewed by you, including but not limited to
copies of said writings.
80. All drafts of the story authored by you currently titled “At the Bottom of New
Lake”, regardless of whether or not it had been assigned said title at the time of the drafts.
81. All attachments referenced in the documents produced as your Initial Disclosures,
and which were not produced.
82. A complete copy of the document reflected at P’s Initial Disc. 132, without
redactions. If said document is claimed as privileged, then a privilege log consistent with the
Instructions contained herein.
83. All documents and communications concerning or referencing the Escrow
Agreement produced at Ps Initial Disc 149, et seq.
84. All correspondence between you and the U.S. Copyright Office concerning all
versions of The Kindest.
85. All documents evidencing any and all copyrights you own concerning all versions
of The Kindest.
86. All documents provided to any expert in this matter.
87. All documents concerning reports Ms. Larson has received from experts,
consultants, or other professionals, concerning any of the allegations, claims, or defenses at issue
in this action.
88. All documents you intend to rely upon at the trial of this matter.
89. All documents received pursuant to subpoenas issued to third parties in
connection with this matter.
16
90. The curriculum vitae of each expert whom you expect to call at trial in this case.
91. Any and all documents relied upon by any expert whom you intend to call at trial
in this case.
92. Any and all statements of persons having any knowledge relevant to this action by
whatever means preserved or recorded.
Respectfully,
DAWN DORLAND PERRY,
By her attorneys,
/s/ Suzanne Elovecky_________________

Suzanne Elovecky, Esq. (BBO # 670047)
PARTRIDGE, SNOW & HAHN LLP
30 Federal Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 292-7900
selovecky@psh.com
Dated: July 3, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Suzanne Elovecky, hereby certify that on July 30, 2020, I served a copy of the
foregoing by email on all parties of record.
__/s/ Suzanne Elovecky________

Suzanne Elovecky
17
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXCERPTED Sonya Larson 1
The Kindest Person on the Planet
When we were dying, everybody was nicer to us. Nurses washed our hair. Old
teachers and old roommates and total randoms came to see us, kissing our
bandaged hands. Me and Sandra: like two queens! Bao brought me underwear and
slept between us on a chair. Mom flew from Philly, Dad from ND, and Sui from
Xian, all the way across the planet. The flowers! The questions! Are you in pain?
How much? If only you weren’t so rare. We were scared and they wanted to hear
all about it. They didn’t say How? or Why? or How could you? They didn’t roll
their eyes or say Well I’d better get going. They didn’t let us smoke, but we saw
them mull it over, as if to say Well it isn’t going to kill her. They were riveted.
They leaned forward. They were hungry and we were their food.
Birth must be like that, if you could remember. But you can’t.
Then along came my Angel. A real one, too: no accident of her own, no
sudden onset anything. She wasn’t dead, and she wasn’t even doing a chain thing,
aimed ultimately to save her husband or her sister or her very best bud.
It was just that she had two kidneys and she only needed one. And on top
of that, grinned the surgeon: we matched.
That night a thin tube was dripping dreams into my elbow. I was
somewhere else. Bao squeezed down by where my fingers were. He lifted the
cross from his neck and kissed it. Bao said, “It’s happening.” My husband’s gaze
flapped through my eyelashes, stammering like a face in a flipbook, miming love.

Sonya Larson 4
curved down the arms. I don’t believe that dead people watch us but I whispered
Sorry to grandmah just the same. Bao folded the wheelchair. To the curb went the
crutches, the walker, both canes. We could have recycled them or given them
away, but we enjoyed watching garbage men hurl them into the truck, the grimy
walls descending to crush them in its mouth.
Right about then is when the letter shows up.
Bao was at work. It was a sunny, ignorant day.
It came in the mailbox: real envelope and paper and gold sticker sealing
the flap. It was wrapped in a second letter from the surgeon himself. His boxy
handwriting was rushed with loops of fervor; so awestruck was he by the
selflessness that he just had to chaperone the missive himself. I looked at his letter.
I thought that doctors couldn’t write at all, not even their own names.
Then came hers. She had used a notepad shaped like a daisy. Blue gel pen.
Dear Recipient: My name is Dawn Rothario. I’m a thirty-six-year-old
white female, and I live in Greater Boston.
In 2014 I read my first article about living kidney donation, and in the
years since I’ve been reminded constantly of the dire need for kidneys in our
country. Armed with this knowledge, I knew that I could make a maximum impact
on another’s life with only minimal risk to myself.
I dropped open the letter. Six whole pages. Details about her surgery, the
preparation, the PT. It went on.
I’m so grateful to the entire Transplant Team at MGH, who gave such
attentive care throughout the eight months from my first test to the date of our
Sonya Larson 5
paired exchange. My own childhood was marked by trauma and abuse; I didn't
have the opportunity to form secure attachments with my family of origin. But a
positive outcome of my early life is empathy. Others might be motivated to donate
to a friend or family member, but to me, the suffering of strangers is just as real.
A few things about me: I like sailing, camping, jewelry, and cats.
Throughout my preparation, I was most excited that the deserving
recipient would come off of the list of Deceased Donors. I focused my mental
energy on imagining and celebrating YOU.
I stared at the YOU, underlined three times.
My gift, which begat yours, trails no strings. You are deserving of an
extended and healthy life simply for existing.
That said, I would love to know more about you. Perhaps we could meet.
But I accept any level of involvement, even if it is none.
Kindly,
Dawn M. Rothario
There was a photograph. She was tall, slender, a long ponytail curled in tendrils.
The photo had been cut with scissors near her shoulder, as if to remove a person
who’d been standing beside her. I lifted it to my nose but it just smelled like a
photograph: gluey with faint paper fibers, no hint of a particular person. Her
creased smile said she was about my age. She was at some sort of county fair. She
was standing in front of a Tilt-A-Whirl, surrounded by blurry feet, holding a
rainbow-swirled lollipop in her fist.
So her name was Dawn.

EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
Intentionally omitted.
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT N

176 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617)482-4900
FAX:(617)426-5251
Andrew D Epstein
i'hotolnw'rtiaol.com
April 24,2020
Suzanne M. Elovecky, Esq. and Matthew H. Greene, Esq.

Partridge Snow & Hahn Boyle Shaughnessy Law,PC
30 Federal Street 695 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02110 Boston. MA 02111
Re: Larson v. Dorland et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Docket Number: 1:19-cv-10203-lT
Dear Suzanne and Matthew:
This letter together with the enclosures, constitutes Sonya Larson's Initial Disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(1).
Rule 26(a)(l)(A)(i) The name and, ifknown, the address and telephone number ofeach
individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects ofthat information—
that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely
for impeachment:
In addition to the Plaintill and all Defendants in this Action, the following individuals
may have discoverable information.
1. Graham Ambrose,former co.rrespondent for the Boston Globe; 847-714-2211; Subject:

Interference by Cohen Law and Attorney Cohen with Larson's BBF contract;
commission by Cohen Law and .Aliomey Cohen of violations of MGL. C. 93A;
defamation by Dorland.
Suzanne M.Elovecky, Esq. and

Matthew H. Greene, Esq.
April 24,2020
Page 2.
2. Norah Piehl, Director of the Boston Book Festival, 32R Essex Street, Cambridge,
MA 02139, 857-706-1101; Subject: Interference by Cohen Law and Attorney Cohen
with Larson's BBF contract; commission by Cohen Law and Attorney Cohen of
violations of MGL.C.93A; defamation by Dorland; damages related to lost
opportunities resulting from the cancellation of the One City/One Story project featuring
The Kindest.
3. Deborah Porter, Founder and Former Director of the Boston Book Festival, 32R Essex
Street, Ctimbridge, MA 02139, 857-706-1101; Subject: Interference by Cohen Law and
Attorney Cohen with Larson's BBF contract; commission by Cohen Law and Attorney
Cohen of violations of MGL. C. 93A; defamation by Dorland; damages related to lost
opportunities resulting from the cancellation ofthe One City/One Story project featuring
The Kindest.
4. Jermifer Grotz, Director of the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference; 204 College
Street, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753; 802-443-5286; Subject: Defamation
by Dorland.
5. Noreen Cargill, Administrative Director of the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference; 204
College Street, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753; 802-443-5286; Subject:
Defamation by Dorland.
6. Lauren Francis-Sharma, Assistant Director of the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference; 204
College Street, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753; 802-443-5286; Subject:
7. Jason Lamb,Coordinator of the Bread Loaf Writers'

Conferences,jlamb@middlebury.edu; 204 College Street, Middlebury
College, Middlebury, VT 05753; 802-443-5286; Subject: Defamation by Dorland.
8. Michael Collier, Former Director ofthe Bread Loaf Writers' Conference and Professor at
the University of Maryland; Department of English, 2119 Tawes Hall, College Park, MD
20742; Subject: Defamation by Dorland.
9. Rebecca Markovits, editor of American Short Fiction, P.O. Box 4152; Austin, TX 78765;
as well as other staff and board members of ASF yet to be identified; Subject:

April 24,2020
Page 3.
10. Eve Bridburg, Founder and Executive Director of GrubStreet, 162 Boylston Street,
Boston, MA 02116,617-695-0075; Subject: Defamation by Dorland.
11. Ian Jude Chio, Chief Financial Officer of GrubStreet, 162 Boylston Street, Boston,
MA 02116,617-695-0075; Subject: Defamation by Dorland.
12. Kathy Sherbrooke, Chair ofthe Board of Directors of GrubStreet, 162 Boylston Street,
Boston, MA 02116,617-695-0075; Subject: Defamation by Dorland.
13. Christopher Castellani, Artistic Director of GrubStreet, 162 Boylston Street, Boston,
MA 02116,617-695-0075; Subject: Defamation by Dorland; Damages related to lost
productivity and emotional distress.
14. Adam Stumacher, writer and member of Larson's writing group, 2 Autumn Hill Ln,
Southborough, MA 01772,617-642-2220; Subject: Defamation by Dorland; Damages
related to lost productivity and emotional distress.
15. Jennifer De Leon, writer and member of Larson's writing group; 2 Autumn Hill Ln,
Southborough, MA 01772,508-505-1082; Subject: Defamation by Dorland; Damages
related to lost productivity and emotional distress; lost opportunities when the BBF
cancelled The Kindest as the One Story/One City winner.
16. Chip Cheek, writer and member of Larson's writing group; 2012 Carnegie Lane B,
Redondo Beach, CA 90278; 917-586-0463; Subject: Defamation by Dorland; Damages
related to emotional distress;
17. Daphne Kalotay, writer and previous winner of One City/One Story competition of the
BBF;245 Beacon Street #8, Somerville, MA 02143, 857-225-2604; Subject: Damages
related to lost opportunities when the BBF cancelled the One City/One Story program
featuring The Kindest.
18. Eson Kim,colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-695-
0075; Subject: Damages related to lost productivity and emotional distress.
19. Dariel Suarez, colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-695-
Suzanne M. Elovecky, Esq. and

April 24,2020
Page 4.
20. Sean van Deuren, colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-
695-0075; Subject: Damages related to lost productivity and emotional distress.
21. Hanna Katz, colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-695-
22. Erin Cohen,colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-695-
23. Lauren Rheaume,colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-
695-0075; Subject: Damages related to lost productivity and emotional distress.
24. Alysia Abbott, colleague; Grub Street, 162 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116,617-695-
25. Celeste Ng,friend and fellow writer; 42 Steams Street, Cambridge, MA 02138,617-347-
7409; Subject: Damages related to emotional distress.
26. Whitney Scharer, friend and fellow writer; 20 Jason Street, Arlington, MA 02476,617-
308-6816; Subject: Damages related to emotional distress.
27. Grace Talusan, friend and fellow writer; 67 Frederick Ave., Medford MA 02155,617-
28. Calvin Hennick, friend and fellow writer; 31 Parkway Crescent, Milton, MA 02186,917-
569-2992; Subject: Deimages related to emotional distress.
29. Alex Marzano-Lesnevich, friend and fellow writer; 201-280-7884; Subject: Damages
related to emotional distress.
30. Becky Tuch,friend and fellow writer; 5506 5th Avenue,#216B,Pittsburgh, PA

15232, 617-331-9109; Subject: Damages related to emotional distress.
31. Lisa Borders, friend and fellow writer; 1917 Commonwealth Avenue, Auburndale, MA
02466,617-513-6988; Subject: Damages related to emotional distress.
32. Anya Weber, friend and fellow writer; anya.r.weber@gmail.com,617-314-3248; Subject:

Damages related to emotional distress.

April 24,2020
Page 5.
33. Sari Boren,friend and fellow writer; 189 Walden Street #2, Cambridge, MA 02140,617-
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) A copy—or a description by category and location—ofall documents,

electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its
possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use
would be solelyfor impeachment;
Plaintiff is producing the following documents and things.
• The Kindest- Five variations including the Brilliance Variant; the Audible Variant; the
ASF Variant; the Variant submitted to the BBF for the One City/One Story competition;
and the Final BBF Variant.
Escrow Agreement by and between Larson and the BBF and Gregorio, PLLC.
Charles Schwab Domestic Wire Transfer Request for $10,000, dated August 6,2018,
from the account of Sonya Clare Larson to First Bank in Greensboro, NC.(Redacted)
Email correspondence by and between Graham Ambrose of the Boston Globe and
Larson,from June through August 2018.
Email correspondence by and between Graham Ambrose of the Boston Globe and Eve
Bridburg of GrubStreet, Inc., dated July 23,2018.
Letter sent by Larson to Ambrose of the Boston Globe.
Email from Deborah Porter to Larson dated August 13, 2018.
Email correspondence by and between Jeffrey Cohen and Epstein regarding U.S. Express
Mail letter sent in October 2018, and direct communication from Dorland to Epstein.
Email chains by and between Larson and Norah Piehl of the BBF in June and July 2018.
Two email chains by and between Larson and Rebecca Markovits of American Short
Fiction in June 2018.

April 24,2020
Page 6.
Various emails in July 2015, and June and July 2016, by and between Dorland and
Larson.
• Emails by and between Adam Stumacher and Dorland dated July 27-28,2018.
• Emails between Jennifer Grotz and Larson including emails from Dorland and Jason
Lamb, Coordinator, Bread Loaf Writer's Conferences, Middlebury College. And Noreen
Cargill, Middlebury College, in June and August, 2018.
• Emails by and between Larson and Jennifer Lee and Chaz Curet at Plympton between
July and October 2016.
Exhibits A through P, which are attached to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, and Exhibits
A through F which are attached to Plaintiffs Opposition to one or more of Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss are not being produced with this Initial Disclosure since they are already part ofthe
record. Copies will be produced on request. Omitted from this production are communications
that may be subject to Ms. Larson's attorney/client privilege.
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(Hi)A computation ofeach category ofdamages claimed by the

disclosing party—who must also make availablefor inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the
documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protectedfrom disclosure, on
which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of
injuries suffered.
Damages
Lost Opportunities in an amount to be determined:
• Distribution in print of 30,000 copies of The Kindest in English and Spanish, distributed
to every branch ofthe Boston Public Library, the MBTA,and more than 40 bookstores,
literary centers and shops, as well as online distribution in English and Spanish.
• Translation of the story into Mandarin. Russian, Portuguese. Spanish, Haitian-Creole and
French, to be posted online for free downloading.
• Likely interviews and features on WBUR,the Boston Globe, the Somerville Times, and
other media outlets that have typically featured the winning One City/One Story authors
and stories in years past.
• Two to three appearances and live discussions at the Boston Book Festival.
• Likely 5-15 discussions about the work at Boston-area schools, colleges, library
branches, community centers, and classrooms.

April 24,2020
Page 7.
• Untold other opportunities brought about by new readership, including possible book
deals and sale of film rights.
• Promotion of The Kindest via the Boston Book Festival's press releases and social media
feeds including to the BBF Twitter followers.
• Appearances at numerous events including but not necessarily limited to Books on the T.
• Special celebration in Cambridge
• Satellite festival in East Boston as well as in Copley Square.
Lost Money: damages to be determined.
• Total legal fees and related expenses.
Lost Productivity: damages to be determined.
• At Work: Plaintiff was interrupted at doing her job, especially as Ms. Dorland continued
to make legal threats to her and the Boston Book Festival. Plaintiff missed many
meetings and had to delay several projects.
• Prior to June 7^, Plaintiff was writing on a four-week fellowship. After June 7**^, her
writing virtually stopped as a result ofthe accusations of Ms. Dorland.
• Plaintiff had to rescind or delay reprints of"The Kindest" with four anthologies that
wanted to include it in an anthology.
• Canceled and delayed manuscript consultations with writers which resulted in the loss of
income and opportunities.
• Plaintiff had to cancel scheduled trip to Montreal from July 19-23'^'', due to need to
respond to accusations of Ms. Dorland and Cohen Law resulting in a loss of income.
Evidence of Emotional Distress: damages to be determined.
• Extreme anxiety. Frequently sought advice and assurance from professionals,family and
friends.
• Plaintiff felt she was being stalked by Dorland and she investigated the process ofa
obtaining a restraining order against Dorland after Dorland contacted her workplace.
• Difficulty sleeping—^took sleeping pills nights nightly for weeks in order to aid in
sleeping.
• Difficulty eating and keeping food down which resulted in loss of weight.
• Extreme anxiety in trying to cope with the events perpetrated by Dorland and Cohen
Law.

April 24,2020
Page 8.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement these initial disclosures as additional witnesses
and documents are discovered. Also, I was hampered in preparing these disclosures as a result of
the inability to meet in person with Ms. Larson to review all ofthe documents and disclosures.
V ry truly )|ours.
. Epstein
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT P
EXHIBIT Q
EXHIBIT R

To: Drew Epstein
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Sonyas deposition
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 5:05:00 PM
Drew, I just re-sent it to you half an hour ago. I sent it the first time on January 25, 2021, and it is in
my sent mail.

Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:28 PM
To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Sonyas deposition

I search for an email from you but did not find one. All I found were many hundreds of docs
from the subpoenas to ASF and the BBF.
Drew Epstein

Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-4900
Cell: (617) 272-5700

To: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 4:26 pm
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Sonyas deposition
Drew, I sent you the summary over a week ago.

Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>

I thought you were going to get me a summary of exactly what you are looking for. I will
make better copies of what I sent previously and send them to you ASAP.
Drew Epstein

Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-4900
Cell: (617) 272-5700

To: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>; mgreene@boyleshaughnessy.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 4:11 pm
Drew,

Will you be producing documents before the 12th?

Get Outlook for iOS
Suzanne M. Elovecky
Counsel
30 Federal St.
Boston, MA 02110
t: (857) 214-3097 ∙ f: (617) 292-7910
selovecky@psh.com


Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:10:25 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sonyas deposition

Suzanne and Matt:

I just heard from Sonya Larson. Can we reschedule her deposition to Friday, February 12.
Fridays are the better days for her to juggle her newborn and childcare. Thanks. Drew
Drew Epstein

Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Cell: (617) 272-5700
---------------------------
This email message contains confidential and/or legally privileged information belonging to the sender and intended only for the review
and use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, review or use
of the information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail
message in error, please notify Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP at (401) 861-8200, and purge this e-mail message from your computer
system immediately. Thank you.
EXHIBIT S
EXHIBIT T

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 6:33 PM
To: Elovecky, Suzanne M.
Cc: MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed
deposition notices
I just heard from my client, and she tells me that she found at least a few additional documents we need to
produce. She needs a few days to see if there are any more. If you send me your motion without filing it in
court, I will again go through it with Ms. Larson to see if there are even more documents to which you are
entitled. If there are documents to which you are entitled, I will send them to you with or without your
motion. If you do not file your motion, we can avoid the pressure of a motion and response hanging over our
heads, and at the same time, not have to involve the court.
Drew
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Direct Line: (617) 272-5700
To: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>
Cc: Greene, Matthew <MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 12, 2021 3:50 pm
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
Drew,
The proposal I made was that we start your client’s deposition with what we have now but with an agreement that if my
motion is successful, you will make your client available for further deposition on later-produced documents. I am not
asking to debate the merits of the case. My motion will be filed either today or on Monday, as I said previously. It
appears from your final paragraph that you are willing to make that agreement. Please confirm that, in the event your
client is ordered to produce further documents, you will not object to a continued deposition to address those documents.
I will re-send you my productions before Monday.

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:25 PM
To: MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com; Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
Matt and Suzanne:
1
Suzanne until you either send me a copy of the motion or file it, there is nothing to which I can respond. I
have produced volumes of documents. I sent Suzanne’s requests for documents to Ms. Larson and she
provided me with what I produced to you.
I am willing to look at your motion, before or after you file it. Once I see the motion, I will talk with my
client again to see if there are any other documents that are relevant and material to what you have
requested. I am hampered by Covid in that I cannot sit down with my client in person to look through
documents on her computer.
As I see things, there are four counts against Ms. Dorland.
In Count I, Larson is claiming that Dorland intentionally interfered with Larson’s advantageous business
relationship with ASF. In Count II, Larson is claiming that Dorland intentionally interfered with Larson’s
advantageous business relationship with the BBF. If anyone has documents to substantiate Ms. Dorland’s
interference with ASF and the BBF, it is Dorland and not Larson. The same is true for Count VII, which is
a claim against Dorland for Defamation. Dorland knows what she said about Larson and has the
documents to substantiate this.
If any additional documents exist that are relevant to these fairly narrow issues, it would likely take an
unreasonable amount of time and money to fulfill the requests in relation to the reasonable needs of the
case, especially in light of the basic fact that Larson has to prove her claims of interference and
defamation. Again, if Dorland interfered with Larson’s business relationships with ASF or the BBF,
Dorland has control over the relevant documents not my client.
Count VIII is a claim for Declaratory Judgment in which Larson is seeking a declaration from the Court
that The Kindest does not infringe on Dorland’s 2015 letter, and that Dorland is not entitled to actual or
profit damages, or statutory damages and attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act. The relief sought by
Larson in this Count is clearly covered by Dorland’s Counterclaim for infringement. In this regard,
Dorland already has Larson’s original draft of The Kindest as well as all published variants. Either these
different versions of the Story establish infringement, or they do not. I cannot imagine what else would
be more relevant to Dorland’s copyright infringement claim than the different versions of The Kindest.
In order to move forward, I will not object to letting you depose Ms, Larson based on the documents that
you have to date. You can always resume the deposition at a later date after further documents, if any,
are produced. However, in exchange, I reiterate my request made by email on February 16, 2021, asking
for you to send me the responses to Larson’s Requests 19, 21, 23, 26, 28 through 31, 32, 38 and 39. Your
document production was sent via Minecast in three separate batches on different days, but the access
key has long since expired. I simply cannot find these responses anywhere and I renew my request for
you to resend these responses. Also, I my willingness to move forward is conditioned on your supplying
complete answers and responses to my latest discovery requests by no later than March 29.
Drew
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Direct Line: (617) 272-5700
2
From: Greene, Matthew <MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
To: 'Drew Epstein' <photolaw@aol.com>; selovecky@psh.com <selovecky@psh.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 12, 2021 10:42 am
Subject: RE: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
Below is the text of her email, from yesterday afternoon. Please respond:
I will be filing my motion tomorrow or Monday, depending on client sign off. I would be willing to schedule the
plaintiff’s deposition on the documents that we have to date, with an agreement that following any order for the
production of further documents resulting from my motion to compel, Drew will not protest a continued
deposition of his clients for purposes of questioning on those documents. This would allow us to proceed with
depositions in the order noticed. If Drew does not agree, it will need to be up to the court.
Matthew H. Greene
BOYLE | SHAUGHNESSY LAW PC
695 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02111
T 617.451.2000 | F 617.451.5775
Massachusetts - Connecticut - New Hampshire - Rhode Island - Maine - Vermont - New York
From: Drew Epstein [mailto:photolaw@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Greene, Matthew <MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>; selovecky@psh.com
Subject: Re: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
Matt: I cannot open your attachment. I had the same problem yesterday.
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Direct Line: (617) 272-5700
To: 'Drew Epstein' <photolaw@aol.com>; selovecky@psh.com <selovecky@psh.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 12, 2021 10:36 am
Subject: RE: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
Drew,
Please respond to Suzanne’s proposal, (attached), and confirm that your client will be deposed on a date prior
to the depositions you have noticed. Otherwise, please contact me to discuss pursuant to LR 7.1.
Matthew H. Greene
695 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02111
T 617.451.2000 | F 617.451.5775
3

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:32 AM
To: selovecky@psh.com; Greene, Matthew <MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
Subject: Larson v Dorland - US District Court 1:19-cv-10203 - Renewed deposition notices
In the above Action, I am once again enclosing depositions notices on the Defendants as follows:
1) Plaintiff’s Notice of taking Deposition of Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim, Dawn Dorland Perry.
2) Plaintiff’s Notice of taking Deposition of Defendant, Cohen Business Law Group, PC under Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6); and
3) Plaintiff’s Notice of taking Deposition of Defendant, Jeffrey A. Cohen.
The 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, Cohen Business Law Group, PC is scheduled for April 8, 2021 at 1 P.M.
Eastern Daylight Savings Time, and Mr. Cohen’s deposition is scheduled at 4:00 P.M., Eastern Daylight Savings
Time. Procedurally, I expect that the depositions will take place concurrently with Mr. Cohen testifying both individually
and on behalf of Cohen Business Law Group, PC. Please let me know if I am mistaken that Mr. Cohen will be testifying
on behalf of Cohen Business Law Group, PC, so I can alert the stenographer to plan accordingly especially with respect
to the West Coast to East Coast time difference. Also, I can be flexible on the dates and times if necessary, as long as all
depositions take place prior to the end of fact discovery on April 14, 2021.
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Direct Line: (617) 272-5700
I will be filing my motion tomorrow or Monday, depending on client sign off. I would be willing to schedule the
plaintiff’s deposition on the documents that we have to date, with an agreement that following any order for the
production of further documents resulting from my motion to compel, Drew will not protest a continued
deposition of his clients for purposes of questioning on those documents. This would allow us to proceed with
depositions in the order noticed. If Drew does not agree, it will need to be up to the court.
Thanks.
Suzanne M. Elovecky
Counsel
30 Federal St.
Boston, MA 02110
t: (857) 214-3097 ∙ f: (617) 292-7910
selovecky@psh.com
4

Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:24 PM
To: 'Drew Epstein' <photolaw@aol.com>; Elovecky, Suzanne M. <selovecky@psh.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Larson v Dorland et al.
All,
I have asked repeatedly to either schedule the deposition of the plaintiff or that you two engage in any
necessary motion practice. Attached is my most recent request to that effect. Before my clients’ depositions
are scheduled I want this issue addressed.
Matthew H. Greene
695 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02111
T 617.451.2000 | F 617.451.5775

Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:50 AM
To: selovecky@psh.com; Greene, Matthew <MGreene@boyleshaughnessy.com>
Subject: Larson v Dorland et al.
Fact discovery in Larson v. Dorland et al. ends on April 14. I need to reschedule depositions for Dorland,
Cohen Business Law Group and Jeffrey Cohen before this time. Rather than sending out notices with dates that
might not work for you and your clients, would you please let me know what dates from April 1 through 13
work best for everyone. I would like to schedule the depositions as soon as possible so that we do not run too
close to the end of discovery.
Suzanne: On February 16, 2021, I sent you the following email request.
I sent you the following email on Feb. 16, 2021:
In reviewing your responses to my requests for documents, I cannot find responses to Requests 19, 21,
23, 26, 28 through 31, 32, 38 and 39. My practice is to print out all documents that are produced. I
checked my emails and you may have sent these documents, but I simply cannot find them. Your
document production was sent via Minecast in three separate batches on different days, but the access
key has long since expired. Could I impose on you to resend these responses?
I don’t know whether they were lost, misplaced or misfiled when I moved from my Boston office to my
home, but I looked twice and I cannot find them.
5
At your earliest convenience, would you please resend your responses to these requests. Thanks.
Drew
Drew Epstein
Andrew D. Epstein
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Direct Line: (617) 272-5700
---------------------------
This email message contains confidential and/or legally privileged information belonging to the sender and intended only for the review and use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, review or use of the information contained in this e-mail
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP at (401)
861-8200, and purge this e-mail message from your computer system immediately. Thank you.

Document 107 - Larson v. Perry (Dorland) ("Bad Art Friend")

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Document 107 - Larson v. Perry (Dorland) ("Bad Art Friend")

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT Document 107 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DAWN DORLAND PERRY,

DAWN DORLAND PERRY

DAWN DORLAND PERRY’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER

Suzanne M. Elovecky, Esq. (BBO #670047)

Defendant and Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim Dawn Dorland Perry (“Ms. Dorland”) brings

Exhibit A, at p. 2. Of course, Ms. Larson is required to produce all requested documents

concerning her tort claims, regardless of counsel’s arguments to the contrary.

the current version.

American Short Fiction (“ASF”).

The Document Requests and Responses

raised the following significant and pervasive concerns:

1) In the context of “general objections” stated in Ms. Larson’s response to Ms.

contemplate the production of electronically-stored documents in electronic format, and sets

3) In each of Plaintiff’s objections, she limited her production to documents relevant

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

of which were answered by Ms. Larson:

a. Request No. 8: Documents reflecting, referencing and/or concerning your

membership in the Facebook group referenced in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. In response to

b. In Request No. 9, Ms. Dorland requested “communications referencing or

these documents, and Ms. Larson’s mirrored requests.

Kindest,” are clearly relevant to the core issues in this case.

did, in fact, copy Ms. Dorland’s letter. See, e.g., Exhibit J.

e. In Request No. 43, Ms. Dorland requested all communications between

article with her writing group. See, e.g., Exhibit K.

f. In Request No. 50, Ms. Dorland requested “All communications between

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5

g. In Requests 58 and 59, Ms. Dorland sought all communications between

“allegation” that Ms. Larson infringed that copyright.

Further, Ms. Larson agreed to produce emails, text messages and

Finally, what is particularly troubling concerning these requests is

One named individual in particular, Sari Boren, was identified as a “friend

These inconsistencies reflect a serious and tangible concern that Ms.

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

h. In response to Request No. 68, which sought “all documents and

United States’ concerning her claims of plagiarism, as referenced in Paragraph 45 of the

conferences between counsel:

• Email threads were produced in one installment (i.e., rather than

P227 of the Larson Production, attached hereto as Exhibit O.

removed. See P. 244-247, attached hereto as Exhibit P. Despite this reference, no

version of “The Kindest” from circulation.

• Ms. Larson failed to produce any documents in the form of Facebook or

undertaken by Ms. Larson in this matter.

Plaintiff’s Response to Ms. Dorland’s Concerns

deposition concerning Ms. Dorland’s co-defendants.

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defendants’ counsel seeking to

he located the email. Id.

Thousands of pages of documents have been provided to you through document

Larson’s counsel, incredulously, responded, “The burden to prove my defamation and

has the right to said documents.

process and the motion practice.

III. Ms. Dorland’s Request for Sanctions

Exhibit S, menu page from thumb drive.

DAWN DORLAND PERRY,

/s/ Suzanne Elovecky_________________

__/s/ Suzanne Elovecky________

From: Elovecky, Suzanne M.

From: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>

From: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Drew Epstein <photolaw@aol.com>

Dear Suzanne and Matt:

From: Elovecky, Suzanne M.

/s/ Suzanne Elovecky______