COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT I 88? CIVIL ACTION NO. - JOHN DOE, Plaintiff COMPLAINT AND i JURY TRIAL DEW BRYON HEFNER, a/k/a BRYON ROSENBERG, and STANLEY ROSENBERG, a/k/a STANLEY C. ROSENBERG, a/k/a STAN ROSENBERG, Defendants A. PARTIES l. The Plaintiff, John Doe, is an individual who lives in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. 2. Defendant Bryon He?ier, a/k/a Bryon Rosenberg (hereina?er referred to as ?Defendant Hefner?) is an individual with a residential address at 33 Street, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant Stanley Rosenberg, a/lc/a Stanley C. Rosenberg, a/k/a Stan Rosenberg (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendant Rosenberg?) is an individual with a residential address at 33 MyItle Street, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. B. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. From approximately 1991 to approximately 2018, Defendant Rosenberg was a state Senator in the Massachusetts Senate. On or about January 7, 2015, Defendant Rosenberg began serving as President of the Massachusetts Senate. In approximately December 2017, Defendant Rosenberg took a leave of absence from his position as President of the Massachusetts Senate. On or about May 4, 2018, Defendant Rosenberg resigned from the Massachusetts Senate. In approximately the summer of 2008, Defendant Hefner worked as an intern in 5. Defendant Rosenberg?s Massachusetts Senate of?ce. 6. In approximately 2008, Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner began a romantic relationship with each other. 7 . Beginning in approximately 2009, Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner began living together. 8. Beginning in approximately 2009, Defendant Hefner became involved in Defendant Rosenberg?s political campaign. Among other things, from approximately February 2010 to approximately July 2013, Defendant Hefner served as Chairman of the Rosenberg Committee, in which position Defendant Hefner reportedly had duties that included planning campaign events for Defendant Rosenberg?s political campaigns, fundraising for Defendant Rosenberg?s political campaigns, and operating social media accounts for .t'fltetbndant Rosenberg?s political campaigns. 9. From approximately May 2013 to approximately December 2013, Defendant Hefner worked for the Robert F. Kennedy Children?s Action Corps. While Defendant Hefner was working for the Robert . Kennedy Children?s Action ?Corps., Defendant Hefner continued to contact members of efendant Rosenberg?s staff directly Via email and text messages to make suggestions for social media postings on behalf of Defendant Rosenberg. 10. Prior to Defendant Rosenberg becoming Massachusetts Senate President, Defendant He?ier routinely contacted members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff regarding Defendant Rosenberg?s public relations matters in support of Defendant Rosenberg?s work or service as a Senator in the Massachusetts Senate. 11. After Defendant Rosenberg became Massachusetts Senate President, Defendant Hefner continued to contact members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff in support of Defendant Rosenberg?s work or service as President of the Massachusetts Senate. 12. On at least one occasion, Defendant Hefner had some involvement in recruiting staff for Defendant Rosenberg?s Massachusetts State Senate of?ce. 13. On at least one occasion, Defendant Hefner emailed Defendant Rosenberg and members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff to criticize Defendant Rosenberg?s staff members? job performance in support of Defendant Rosenberg?s of?ce. 14. On numerous occasions, Defendant Hefner emailed Defendant Rosenberg an article or publication of interest with suggestions for its application, which Defendant Rosenberg then forwarded to members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff with some direction. Defendant Rosenberg sometimes forwarded Defendant Hefner?s emails to other state senators. 15. From approximately 2009 to approximateiy February 2017, Defendant Rosenberg provided Defendant Hefner with Defendant Rosenberg?s con?dential password to Defendant Rosenberg?s Massachusetts Senate email and calendar account, so that Defendant Hefner had access to Defendant Rosenberg?s email as if Defendant He?ier were himself Defendant Rosenberg. 16. While Defendant Rosenberg was President of the Massachusetts Senate, Defendant Rosenberg instructed members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff to ensure that Defendant He?ier had continuous access to Defendant Rosenberg?s Massachusetts Senate email and calendar account con?dential password. 17. Defendant Rosenberg permitted Defendant Hefner to 1136 Defendant Rosenberg?s of?ce?s Instatrac account, with the result that Defendant Hefner would have been able and was able to monitor the actions of the Massachusetts Legislature. On multiple occasions at relevant and material times, Defendant Hefner used 18. Defendant Rosenberg?s mobile device to send text messages to a member of Defendant Rosenberg?s Massachusetts Senate staff, so that these text messages appeared to have been sent from Defendant Rosenberg rather than from Defendant Hefner. 19. Prior to Defendant Rosenberg becoming Massachusetts Senate President, Defendant Hefner represented to others that Defendant Hefner had in?uence over Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Rosenberg?s decision?making as Senator in the Massachusetts Senate and as future President of the Massachusetts Senate, including over the appointment of leadership positions in the Massachusetts Senate. Defendant Rosenberg knew or was aware that Defendant Hefner had made such representations. 20. After Defendant Rosenberg became Massachusetts Senate President, Defendant He?ier continued to make representations to others about Defendant Hefner?s in?uence over Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Rosenberg?s decisinnmmaking as Senator in the Massachusetts Senate and as President of the Massachusetts Senate, or on Defendant Rosenberg?s of?ce as Senator in the Massachusetts Senate and as President of the Massachusetts Senate. Defendant Rosenberg knew or was aware that Defendant Hefner had made such representations. 21. In approximately December 2013, Defendant Hefner and Defendant Rosenberg attended a conference that included other elected of?cials of the Massachusetts legislature. While on this trip, another elected of?cial consumed a quantity of alcohol and awoke naked in his own hotel room bed with no memory of how he got there. Some time later, this elected of?cial learned that Defendant Hefner had naked photos of this elected of?cial from this trip on Defendant Hefner?s phone. Defendant Hefner has allegedly shown these naked photos to multiple other people, at least one of whom identi?ed the elected of?cial from the photos. 22. attended a social engagement at another elected of?cial?s residence. At one point in the evening In approximately December 2014, Defendant Hefner and Defendant Rosenberg Defendant Rosenberg saw Defendant Hefner show Defendant Hefner?s phone to the host. Defendant Rosenberg observed the host have a negative reaction. As Defendant Rosenberg was leaving the residence, the host told Defendant Rosenberg that he had ?to get rid? of Defendant Hefner, or words to that effect. Later that night, when Defendant Rosenberg asked Defendant Hefner what Defendant Hefner had shown the elected of?cial, Defendant He?ier told Defendant Rosenberg it had been a picture of a naked man. 23. In approximately May 2015, Defendant Hefner sent a series of text messages to Defendant Rosenberg and a member of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff stating that Defendant He?ier had sent a sexually explicit video of himself to a third party and calling on the member of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff to ?deal with? the problem Defendant He?ier had created. 24. On approximately November 29, 2015, Defendant Hefner sent a text message to Defendant Rosenberg suggesting that Defendant htacnheig fire everyone on Defendant Rosenberg?s staff and replace them with Republicans. Defendant Rosenberg responded, ?Not everyone. still lusting after? a particular member of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff. 25. On approximately March 5, 2016, Defendant Rosenberg initiated sexualized text messages with Defendant He?ier about the spouse of another elected of?cial. 26. On multiple occasions between approximately March 2016 and approximately June 2016, Defendant Hefner sent sexually explicit text messages or text messages containing sexual innuendo to Defendant Rosenberg in which Defendant He?ier sexualized a member of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff. 27. At times relevant and material to this action, the Plaintiff worked as a legislative aide for a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives at the Massachusetts State House. 28. In approximately June 2015, the Plaintiff met Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner at a private social function at a residential address in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff spoke with both Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner about, among other things, political matters in the Massachusetts Legislature and at the Massachusetts State House. 29. Prior to June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant He?ier agreed to meet socially to speak further about political matters in the Massachusetts Legislature and at the Massachusetts State House. 30. On June 18, 2015, Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff met for drinks at a bar in Boston, Massachusetts in order to speak further about political matters in the Massachusetts Legislature and at the Massachusetts State House. Defendant He?ier made representations to the Plaintiff about Defendant Hefner?s in?uence, including with Defendant Rosenberg, and about Defendant He?ier?s insider information about Massachusetts pnlities. Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff left this bar together in order to meet with a mutual friend who at relevant and material times was involved with political matters in Massachusetts. Defendant Hefner brought the Plaintiff to Defendant Rosenberg?s residential condominium unit on Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Where Defendant Hefner lived with Defendant Rosenberg. The Plaintiff expected the mutual friend of Defendant He?ier and the Plaintiff to meet the Plaintiff and Defendant Hefner at this address. 31. On June 18, 2015, while Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff were together in Defendant Rosenberg?s residential condominium unit on Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Defendant Hefner prepared alcoholic drinks for himself and for the Plaintiff, and Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff consumed these alcoholic drinks. At this time, Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff were apparently alone together in Defendant Rosenberg?s residential condominium unit. Defendant Homer and the Plaintiff sat next to each other on a couch. Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff continued their conversation about politics in the Massachusetts Legislature and at the Massachusetts State House. Defendant Hefner continued to make representations to the Plaintiff about Defendant Hefner?s in?uence, including with Defendant Rosenberg, and about Defendant Hefner?s insider information about Massachusetts politics. Defendant Hefner then put his hand between the Plaintiff?s legs and grabbed the Plaintiffs genitals through the Plaintiffs clothing, Without the Plaintiff?s consent. The Plaintiff pushed Defendant He?ier?s hand away. Several more times, Defendant Hefner repeatedly put his hand on the Plaintiff?s genitals through the Plaintiffs clothing, Without the Plaintiffs consent. Each time, the Plaintiff again pushed Defendant He?ier?s hand away. Then Defendant Hefner additionally unzipped the Plaintiff?s pants and tried to put his hand inside the Plaintiffs pants, without the Plaintiff? consent, but the Plaintiff pushed Defendant He?ier?s hand away. At some point, the Plaintiff lett the couch to go into the bathroom in residential condominium unit, after which point the martian? friend whom the Plaintiff had expected arrived at the residential condominium unit. 32. On or about April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff attended a political event in Somerville, Massachusetts for a member of the Massachusetts Senate other than Defendant Rosenberg. Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner also attended this political event. When the Plaintiff left this political event, Defendant Rosenberg invited the Plaintiff to ride with Defendant Rosenberg in Defendant Rosenberg?s car to another political event at a restaurant in Boston, Massachusetts. Another person drove Defendant Rosenberg?s car on this occasion. Defendant Rosenberg sat in the front passenger seat of the car, and Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff rode next to each other in the back seat of the car. During the drive from the political event in Somerville to the political event in Boston, and while Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff were seated behind Defendant Rosenberg, Defendant He?aer put his hand between the Plaintiff?s legs and touched the Plaintiffs genitals over the Plaintiffs clothing, without the Plaintiff?s consent. The Plaintiff pushed Defendant He?ier?s hand away. Defendant He?ier again grabbed the Plaintiff genitals over the Plaintiff?s clothing, without the Plaintiffs consent. The Plaintiff again pushed Defendant He?'ier?s hand away and told Defendant He?ier, ?Screw off,? or words to that effect, after which Defendant Rosenberg stated, .?Knock it off back there,? or words to that effect. i 33. On or about April 19, 2016, Defendant Rosenberg invited the Plaintiff to dinner with Defendant Rosenberg at a restaurant in Boston, Massachusetts. Other people eating with Defendant Rosenberg at the same table included another member of the Massachusetts Senate and members of Defendant Rosenberg?s staff, as well as Defendant Hefner and the Plaintiff. At that table, the Plaintiff was seated next to Defendant Hefner. While seated at the table, Defendant He?ner grabbed the Plaintiff?s genitals under the tahte the Plaintiff clothing, without the Plaintiff?s consent. The Plaintiff pushed Defendant unit?s hand away. 34. Defendant Hefner is alleged to have engaged in unconsented to sexual touching of individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts Legislature or at the Massachusetts State House other than the Plaintiff, both prior to and approximately contemporaneously with Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above. 35. Other individuals with Whom Defendant He?ier is alleged to have engaged in unconsented to sexual touching include Massachusetts Senate staff members who did not report Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching in a timely manner, out of fear that such reporting would harm their careers. 36. Both prior to and approximately contemporaneously with Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above, Defendant He?ier sent sexually suggestive text messages to Massachusetts Senate staff members, including text messages accompanied by naked photographs of a man that appeared to have been taken and transmitted without the person?s consent. A policy advocate saw one of these photographs on another person?s phone. The policy advocate discussed the photograph with Defendant Hefner, who claimed that Defendant Rosenberg was aware of the photograph. 37. At times relevant and material hereto, Defendant Rosenberg provided excuses for Defendant Hefner?s conduct. Defendant Rosenberg claimed that Defendant Hefner?s mental health issues or problems with alcohol excused Defendant Hefner?s conduct. 38. As a result of Defendant He?ier?s unconseared to sexual touching of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suffers, has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future severe emotional distress and physical harm manifested by objective including, but not limited to, depression, anxiety, muscle tension, gastrointestinal distress, and impaired sleep. 39. As a result of Defendant Hefner?s explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct, the Plaintiff is unable at this time to fully disclose in complete detail to what degree Defendant Hefner did sexually abuse the Plaintiff. C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Hefner Assault 40. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 41. By engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above, Defendant Hefner acted intentionally so as to cause harmful and offensive contact with the Plaintiff. 42. By engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above, Defendant Hefner placed the Plaintiff in imminent and reasonable apprehension of said harmful and offensive contact. 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant He?ier placing the Plaintiff in imminent and reasonable apprehension of harmful and offensive contact, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and pelmanent mental distress and emotional injuries; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. Count II: Plaintiff John Doe Hefner Battery 44. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 45. By engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above, Defendant Hefner acted intentionally so as to cause unjustified harmful and offensive physical contact and touching of the Plaintiff, and repeatedly performed such unjusti?ed harmful and offensive physical contact and touching. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Hefner?s unjusti?ed harmful and offensive physical contact and touching, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and emotional injuries; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. -10.. Count Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Hefner Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress 47 The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 48. By engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above, Defendant Hefner intended to in?ict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff, or he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct. 49. The conduct of Defendant Hefner in engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above is extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant He?ier in engaging in the unconsented to sexual touching with the Plaintiff described above, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and emotional injuries as outlined above; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. 51. The mental distress and emotional injuries which the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer were severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure them. Count IV: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Hefner CL. C. 12. 111 - Massachusetts Civil Rights Act 52. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 53. At all relevant and material times to this action, the Plaintiff had substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual -11. touching guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 54. At times material hereto, Defendant Hefner interfered with the Plaintiffs substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching by engaging in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above. 55. At times material hereto, Defendant Hefner accomplished his interference with the Plaintiffs substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching by intimidation, as the Plaintiff reasonably feared retaliation from Defendant Rosenberg if the Plaintiff reported or complained of Defendant He?ier?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff, with the result that Defendant Hefner engaged in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff. 56. A reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position would have been unable to overcome the intimidation used by Defendant Hefner to accompiish Defendant Hefner?s interference with the Plaintiffs substantive due process rights to bodiiy integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching as described above. 57. At times material hereto, Defendant He?ier accomplished his interference with the Plaintiffs substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching by moral coercion, as Defendant Hefner used his apparent in?uence with Defendant Rosenberg to constrain the Plaintiff from reporting or complaining of Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff, with the result that Defendant Hefner engaged in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff. 58. A reasonable person in the Plaintiff 3 position would have been unable to overcome the moral coercion used by Defendant Hefner to accomplish Defendant Hefner?s interference with -12- the Plaintiff" substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching as described above. 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Hefner?s interference with the Plaintiff?s substantive due process rights to bodily integrity and not to be subjected to unconsented to and unwanted sexual touching, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and emotional injuries; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. Count V: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Rosenberg Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 60. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 61. At all times relevant and material to this action, Defendant Rosenberg knew or was aware that Defendant He?ier posed a substantial risk of serious harm to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff. 62. By Defendant Rosenberg delegating authority to Defendant He?ier as an actual or apparent agent for or of Defendant Rosenberg and equipping Defendant He?rer with the tools to act as an actual agent for or of Defendant Rosenberg or to appear as an agent for or of Defendant Rosenberg, with Defendant Rosenb erg?s knowledge or awareness that Defendant Hefner had made representations to others about Defendant Hefner?s actual or apparent in?uence over Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Rosenberg?s decision-making, Defendant Rosenberg provided Defendant Hefner with access to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts Legislature or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff. -13- 63. By Defendant Rosenberg inviting the Plaintiff to sit with Defendant Hefner in Defendant Rosenberg?s car with Defendant Rosenberg?s knowledge or awareness that Defendant Hefner posed a substantial risk of serious harm to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts Legislature or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff; and with Defendant Rosenberg?s knowledge or awareness that Defendant Hefner would engage in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff or that Defendant Hefner was engaging in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above, Defendant Rosenberg subjected the Plaintiff to Defendant He?ier?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above. 64. By subjecting the Plaintiff to Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above, Defendant Rosenberg intended to in?ict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff, or he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct. 65. The conduct of Defendant Rosenberg in subjecting the Plaintiff to Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above is extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Rosenberg in subjecting the Plaintiff to Defendant Hefner?s unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and emotional injuries as. outlined above; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. -14. 67. The mental distress and emotional injuries which the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer were severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure them. Count VI: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Rosenberg Civil Conspiracy 68. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 69. Defendant Rosenberg and Defendant Hefner made an agreement or had a common design or understanding to give Defendant Hefner access to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts Legislature or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff, with Whom Defendant Hefner could engage in unwanted sexual touching. 70. As a result of Defendant Rosenberg?s and Defendant He?ier?s agreement or common design or understanding to give Defendant Hefner access to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts 3: 14.333.113.23 or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff, Defendant Hefner did have access to the Plaintiff, with the result that Defendant He?rer did engage in unconsented to sexual touching of the Plaintiff as described above. 71. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Rosenberg?s agreement or common design or understanding with Defendant He?rer to give Defendant Hefner access to individuals who worked, communicated with or lobbied at the Massachusetts Legislature or at the Massachusetts State House, including the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and emotional injuries as outlined above; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages. -15- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants on each claim in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus costs, interest, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CLAIMS. By Attorney for Plaintiff John Doe, ?are/W Mitchell Garabedian, 13/130 #184760 mgarabedian@garabedianlaw.com LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL GARABEDIAN 100 State Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 (617) 523-6250 .7: Ligng?a* 53-332 {data} MM - - al??GNtS} 135% elf" 3:33; maria: i4- (7 yacamtlg; .9 211-332. .1. im4-Qu?L77 ULS an! Sift." 1 .-. 41> keg/?145 ?m ?Mia-r; M?nm meat 4 2( ?er? I671) (762411; 6f Cg l?ch-H?if ??at #112. qy?c?ci/Waw/f?a?/?J/? -16-