Karen Read seeks dismissal of portion of wrongful-death suit in O’Keefe case

On Monday, Karen Read's lawyers asked Plymouth County Superior Court Judge Daniel O’Shea to dismiss part of the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Keefe. They argued that the family lacks standing to pursue emotional-distress damages because they did not witness the crash or see O’Keefe’s body until after he was declared dead at the hospital. The hearing took place in the courtroom of Judge O’Shea, and it comes as Read faces civil claims that were paused during her criminal case. Read was acquitted earlier this year after two highly publicized trials related to O’Keefe’s death. While she was cleared of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident, she was found guilty of drunken driving, a conviction that carries probation and is separate from the wrongful-death action now moving forward.

In the civil matter, the O’Keefe family — including his parents, brother and a niece he helped raise after the deaths of his sister and brother-in-law — allege emotional distress caused by Read’s actions in the weeks and months surrounding O’Keefe’s death. Read’s lawyers contend that none of the named plaintiffs observed the alleged incident described in the complaint and that they were not witnesses to the event, having arrived at the scene hours later. They assert that these plaintiffs lack the legal standing needed to pursue emotional-distress damages in this context. The family’s lawyers, led by Marc Diller, say Read’s conduct created a public climate in which the family suffered ongoing harm, including reputational and emotional distress tied to Read’s statements and the broader narrative around the case.

The O’Keefe family counters that Read engaged in a campaign of disinformation about the case, including public statements and the involvement of crime bloggers that they say amplified harassment against the family. They argue these actions caused them lasting emotional distress and financial harms from the intense media attention. Their legal team contends that Read’s conduct extended beyond the immediate aftermath of the death and that the family suffered as a result of a public campaign they consider to be constructed to undermine the truth about what happened.

The two sides disagree on how to apply standing rules in a wrongful-death action that mirrors aspects of the criminal case but seeks different remedies. The O’Keefe family has also filed claims against the two bars where Read and O’Keefe reportedly drank before his death, arguing that the establishments bear responsibility for contributing to a situation that led to the fatal night. Read’s defense maintains that the civil claims should be evaluated separately from the criminal case and that the emotional-distress claims should be restricted to those with direct, witnessed exposure to the events.

Background context remains central to the dispute. O’Keefe, a former boyfriend of Read, died in 2022 after a night of heavy drinking. He was found on the lawn of a fellow officer’s home, and prosecutors contended Read struck him with her SUV and left him to die in a blizzard. Read’s defense framed the case as part of a broader debate over police misconduct and a potential cover-up, while Read herself was not found guilty of the major charges in this matter. The civil case, including the wrongful-death and emotional-distress claims, had been put on hold during the criminal proceedings but began moving forward again this week. The legal process continues to unfold as both sides prepare for further arguments and potential motions.

As the court weighs questions of standing and the scope of damages, there is no immediate timetable for a final ruling. Lawyers on both sides expect additional hearings to address how the emotional-distress claims should be adjudicated separate from the criminal record, and whether further factual development is needed before the case proceeds toward resolution.