Anderson Attorney Seeks DIRECTV Sales Guidelines

Former Derry Town Administrator John Anderson’s attorney has filed a motion to obtain more information about DIRECTV’s policies and procedures for its salesmen on the street.
Anderson, 50, went on paid administrative leave July 12 after a July 11 incident at his home, in which he was alleged to have exposed himself to a door-to-door salesman of DIRECTV services. The case was investigated by state police and handled through the Rockingham County Attorney’s Office. Anderson was arrested and formally charged in August, at which time the Town Council voted to place him on unpaid leave. He went back on paid leave for the last week of his contract with the town. His trial was scheduled for Dec. 13, but has been postponed to Feb. 7, 2014.

Anderson’s attorney, James Rosenberg, said in a phone call, “We have asked for any training information that is available from DIRECTV.” Rosenberg said he is curious about statements made by the alleged victim that he entered the home and remained to present his entire sales pitch.
“I am curious,” Rosenberg said, “to see if the training adds issues to inform us of his mental state.”
Rosenberg’s motion includes comments that the DIRECTV salesperson arrived at Anderson’s home “uninvited and unannounced.” Rosenberg points out that “despite the fact that Mr. Anderson was nude, the salesperson continued to enter the residence, remain inside and proceed with the sales visit, ‘pitching’ Mr. Anderson on the product in his own home.” And before leaving the Anderson residence, the salesperson left a DIRECTV brochure with his phone number for Anderson to follow up on.
Rosenberg originally subpoenaed DIRECTV to provide information on its policies regarding salespeople entering homes and leaving their contact information. DIRECTV refused, and in the current motion, Rosenberg is asking the court to issue an order to DIRECTV to comply.
Rosenberg bases his argument in part on RSA 645:1, which, he wrote, requires the state to prove that Anderson “engaged in conduct which he should know will likely cause affront or alarm.” Rosenberg wrote in his motion, “It is hard to understand how Mr. Anderson could have known the salesman to be affronted or alarmed during an incident that occurred in the privacy of his own home.”
Rosenberg further stated that Anderson was in the privacy of his own home, the salesman never told Anderson he was “offended or upset,” the salesman did not immediately leave the home and that he continued to “pitch” DIRECTV services to Anderson.
Rosenberg contends the decision of the salesperson to remain in Anderson’s home is demonstrating that the salesperson was neither affronted nor alarmed. Access to the training materials, he wrote, will help ascertain if DIRECTV prescribes a course of action when sales staff are confronted with difficult situations. “Those facts,” he wrote, “may further show that the DIRECTV salesperson had other choices to make that day he could simply have left immediately.”