Posted 2:05 p.m.
PROVIDENCE -- Testing of evidence collected from the charred ruins of The
Station nightclub is being delayed pending resolution of a dispute among
lawyers as to whether possible defendants will have to identify themselves
until they are sued by fire victims.
Superior Court Judge Alice B. Gibney had been expected to approve
evidence testing protocols today.
But when Mark Mandell, a lawyer for victims' families and survivors of
the Feb. 20 fire in West Warwick, argued that everyone who wants to
participate in the testing process identify themselves, lawyer James
Ruggieri, who represents as-yet-unnamed defendants, objected and asked
for time to rebut Mandell's legal arguments.
Gibney then postponed approving guidelines for testing the evidence
collected from the fire site, putting the matter over until July 11.
Mandell, a court-appointed interim lead lawyer for Station fire victims
and their families, argued that anyone who wants to test any of the 717
items collected by private investigators from the fire site should have
to identify themselves at this point.
``Take the veil of secrecy off,'' he said in an interview after the
hearing.
Mandell told Gibney it would not be fair or objective to allow unnamed
product manufacturers to participate in the testing of products of their
own making without first being identified. Manufacturers, he said, have
special knowledge about their products and could skew testing to ensure
that their product appears safe, he said.
But Ruggieri scoffed at this notion, saying in an interview after court:
``That wouldn't happen. We wouldn't even consider doing something like
that.''
He said his clients' anonymity would in no way compromise the testing of
any product. He said that any party who has not yet been sued should be
allowed to remain anonymous until they are named as defendants and are
officially required to answer a court complaint.
But Mandell told Gibney: ``There's an overwhelming dominant interest''
in having the potential defendants identify themselves in order to
participate in the testing of evidence. Courts have ruled that only in
``exceptional'' circumstances may a party to litigation remain
anonymous, he argued.
At this point, he said, ``we see no justification'' for unidentified
defendants to remain anonymous. The fact that they might suffer
financial harm is not good enough reason to allow them to continue to
remain unidentified, he said.
Gibney is considering a set of guidelines that would govern testing of
the evidence taken from the nightclub site, including requiring advance
notice if testing of evidence will be done elsewhere than the Cranston
warehouse which is serving as a repository for the materials, and how
the cost of the testing will be apportioned among various parties.
The lawyers indicated in court today that they agreed on most of the
proposed testing protocols.
But towards the end of the hearing, the dispute arose over whether
parties who want to participate in the testing would have to fully
disclose their identities.
Not all defendants and potential defendants agree with Ruggieri's
position that anonymity should remain until lawsuits are filed.
Marc DeSisto, a lawyer representing the town of West Warwick's insurer,
agreed with the position taken by Mandell regarding full disclosure.
The town and its fire inspector, Denis Larocque, have already been sued
by fire victims.
But most lawyers, including those represented by Mandell and others
lawyers who are part of a Rhode Island Trial Lawyers' Association
steering committee, have held off filing suit in connection with the
fire. They say they want to first determine, through testing of evidence
and other investigative avenues, who should be sued and who should not.
One hundred people were killed as a result of the fire -- the worst in
the state's history -- and about 200 were injured.
