McKee V. Laurion: Affidavit of Charles Payne, Private Investigator

Standard

JANUARY 28, 2011.

The following is a replica of a document from the Minnesota defamation lawsuit David McKee M.D. V. Dennis K Laurion.


STATE  OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT  COURT, COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

SIXTH DISTRICT

Case Type:  Defamation, Court File No.:  69 DV-CV-10-1706


David  McKee, M.D., Plaintiff,

v.

Dennis Laurion,     Defendant.

AFFIDAVIT OF
CHARLES PAYNE


 

STATE OF MINNESOTA   )
)  SS.
COUNTY  OF HENNEPIN )

CHARLES PAYNE, being first duly sworn under oath, states as follows:

1. My name is CHARLES PAYNE. I am a licensed private investigator in the State of Minnesota, License Number  261. I  have been licensed since 1978. I have been involved in the investigations industry since 1971.

2. My work includes a variety of investigations for various purposes, including civil litigation.

3. I do not know any of the parties in this lawsuit. I do not have any financial stake in the outcome of this case, except I am being paid my normal hourly rate for my work in this matter.

4. I have been asked to locate an individual who was identified as a “friend” nurse of Defendant Dennis Laurion, to whom Laurion attributes the statement “He is a real tool,” in reference  to  Dr.  David McKee. Defendant Laurion used this phrase in his website postings and various correspondence  that  he  wrote  to  professional  organizations,  colleagues, and peers of Dr. McKee, which I understand form the basis for this lawsuit.

5. Having been asked to locate this individual, the  only  criteria provided by Mr. Laurion of his “friend” nurse is less than minimal. Mr. Laurion maintains that she was someone with whom he worked while he was a part-time employee for about seven years at St. Mary’s Medical Center in outpatient records, but he does not know her name. He gave a very limited physical description of her as  in  her  50’s,  about  5’6″ tall, dark blond or light brunette hair, graying, with a “trim” build. The representation that he does not even recall her first name makes this search virtually impossible.

6. Mr. Laurion was not able to identify any particular unit of  the hospital she worked, other than she had  some  outpatient  position.  He gave the names of some other personnel with whom he worked.

7. I have instituted efforts to begin to try to locate this  person.  I am severely handicapped by the very limited information furnished by Mr. Laurion, which is surprisingly sparse for a person whom he said was a “friend,” and whom he worked with for some seven years.

8. My efforts to locate this person included  the  following:

•    I have instituted research with the Minnesota Board of Nursing, located at 2829 University Ave. SE, Minneapolis, MN to determine the number of nurses that are currently and had historically been licensed with the State of Minnesota since 01/ 01/ 2000 in St. Louis County. Our preliminary research determined that in St. Louis County there are 4048 current licensees that are female. Using the event of Mr. Laurion meeting this individual at the Lakeside Post Office which  is  located  at  4427 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55804, I have begun to have the search narrowed to the 55804 zip code. At the time of this writing, it is believed there are 560 licensees in that zip code having held a nursing license since  01/ 01/ 2000.

•    With the gross absence of any identifying information  and without  access to the Human Resources at St. Mary’s Hospital,  these  reasonable  efforts are the  only avenue of research  currently  underway.

•    As this research has only recently begun, extensive further  research needs to take place in addition to contacts with these prospective individuals to identify the “friend” nurse. If the person exists, which is uncertain, it will require more detailed information from Mr. Laurion in order to find her. I am told that Mr. Laurion has made no efforts to find her himself. If she does exist, Mr. Laurion presumably has more information about her that would allow us to locate her.

The above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Dated: January 28, 2011
/S/ CHARLES PAYNE

Subscribed and sworn to before me
This day of January 2011

/S/ Notary Public                                                      [ Seal ]


Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Web Posting

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply To Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Cease And Desist Letter To Defendant Dennis Laurion

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Complaint To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint To Sixth Judicial District Duluth Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Response To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Answer To Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Deposition Extracts

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances Before Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances After Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony In Response To Questions By Marshall Tanick

Affidavits By Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Parents

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Motion To Oppose Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Memo In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Sixth Judicial District Court’s Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Appeal Of Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Order To Strike Portion Of Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Announces Decision

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Petition For Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Opposition To Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Supreme Court Decision On David McKee MD V. Dennis K. Laurion

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2010

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2011

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2012

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2013

McKee V Laurion Is A Textbook Case

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s