In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee,  Patreon, thread, II

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 7 – Roy Moore's defamation lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen was ended in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 13, 2021 as Judge John P. Cronan granted Cohen summary judgment:

"Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred  by both a waiver clause in the agreement that Judge Moore signed prior to the interview and also  by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court agrees that Judge Moore’s claims are  barred by the unambiguous contractual language, which precludes the very causes of action he  now brings. Although Kayla Moore was not a signatory to that contract, her claims are barred by  the First Amendment. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted in its entirety." Order on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.

Update: soon after the order, this: "NOTICE OF APPEAL. Document filed by Kayla Moore, Roy Stewart Moore."

On June 10, 2022, the appeal was heard by a Second Circuit panel of Pooler, Lynch, Lohier, C.JJ. Judge Lunch asked most of the questions. Inner City Press live tweeted, thread here and below.

On July 7, in a summary order the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Cronan's order, finding that Moore signed a waiver and on "Kayla Moore’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud... we conclude that the First 6 Amendment bars her claims. “[H]eightened First Amendment protections apply 7 to any tort alleging reputational harm as long as the underlying speech relates to 8 a matter of public concern.” Dongguk Univ. v. Yale Univ., 734 F.3d 113, 129 (2d 9 Cir. 2013). “Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the 11 community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of 12 general interest and of value and concern to the public.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 13 U.S. 443, 453 (2011)." Also, satire...

From the June 10 argument: Moore's lawyer Klayman: This is about the fraudster Sacha Baron Cohen... They were not going to get into sexual issues, such as being branded as a pedophile.

Judge: Wasn't this claim released? No one said they were not going to get into sexual issues.

 Moore's lawyer: Judge Moore had the right to rely on the strike outs. Judge Cronan didn't allow us any discovery... He violated his own strictures. Judge: No he didn't. You have an argument on ambiguity. But don't tell me that Judge Cronan went back on something

 Moore's lawyer: We had only one hour with Sacha Baron Cohen. There is an issue whether he was being fed answers, but I'm not going to get into that here. Let us have some discovery. Judge Carter, the previous judge, took us into chambers. I was willing to talk

Roy Moore's lawyer: In the Borat case, it was clear who was who. Here, there was fraud upon fraud. Johnny Depp deserved a jury trial and got one - he got it, and showed he was telling the truth and the woman who accused him was not. [2 Cir Judges do not comment]

Judge: Mr. Klayman you have reserve 3 minutes. You can continue to use them. Klayman: I'll reserve. David Wright: NY law since 1959 is clear - if you disclaim the very contentions that underlie the claim, you do not state a claim. He waived it.

Davis Wright lawyer: This comedy -- Judge: The show was not very funny. But lucky for you, that's not the test. Davis Wright lawyer: We were dealing with a party who read the contract and excised a portion. He was a former Supreme Court justice of Alabama.

 Davis Wright lawyer: Let's turn to the First Amendment issues. This court should affirm the decision below because the appellant's claim are all barred by the First Amendment. Sacha Baron Cohen, it was a satire, as a former Mossad agent, ID-ing pedophiles

 Davis Wright lawyer: The Washington Post article cites 14 year old girl & Roy Moore at 32. The satire is protected by the First Amendment. 

Judge: You're saying there is a factual basis? Then you add the pedophile-detecting wand? Davis Wright lawyer: It was parody

Klayman: She just made my argument. Sacha Baron Cohen was branding my client a pedophile, with or without a wand. The Washington Post article was not part of the record. Let me cite to you the Texas Supreme Court...

Judge: What about the wand? You didn't sue the 14 year old?

Klayman: Actually she was sued. But she didn't call him a pedophile.

Judge: She said, I was 14. Isn't that calling him a pedophile?

Klayman: Judge, you are litigating another case.

Klayman: Your Honor is taking things from outside of this case. You are calling my client a pedophile.

Judge: Excuse me. Was not the tape of this episode part of the record? Klayman: You don't get to make the decision nor does Cronan. The jury does.

Judge: The discovery was about the corporate structure, whether the release could be invoked by Mr. Cohen.

Klayman: Go back and read the brief again -- Judge: Are you contesting whether Mr. Cohen is a producer? Klayman: We didn't focus on that.

Klayman: We were denied due process. We need discovery. You cannot permit this type of smear- Judge: Thank you. We'll reserve decision.

Inner City Press has covered the case throughout, initially before SDNY Judge Andrew L. Carter, live tweeted here.

 On December, with the case reassigned to new(er) SDNY Judge John P. Cronan, another conference was held, which Inner City Press also covered and live tweeted, here.

On June 10, 2021, Judge Cronan held a proceeding and Inner City Press again covered it. He will not be recusing himself, but expect the video of Cohen's deposition to be released. Short podcast here; Thread here and below

Now on June 18 - Juneteenth - Moore's lawyer Klayman has submitted to Judge Cronan as supplemental authority a 1984 Fifth Circuit case, Braun v. Flynn, F.2d 245, saying it concerns "a novelty entertainer who performed an act with a swimming pig at a family oriented amusement park sued a sexual oriented men's magazine for defamation for publishing her photo in its 'Chic Thrills' section" - and won.

Judge Carter on August 1 summoned each party's lawyers to his robing room, first together then one by one, ex parte. When they emerged a schedule was set. Klayman's pro hac vice application is due on August 8, and then on August 22 the status of the case, including if the party's consent to referral to an SDNY Magistrate Judge.   

Inner City Press afterward in the hall outside Judge Carter's courtroom asked Klayman if he or his client are amenable to referral to a Magistrate. Klayman told Inner City Press that he found Judge Carter to be fair, emphasizing that was on the record, he would like it reported.   

When Inner City Press asked about a separate disciplinary action pending in the District of Columbia Klayman said it was a complaint by a dissatisfied client who sued Voice of America and said he had gotten Gloria Alred, who was at the SDNY this week speaking to the press about Jeffrey Epstein, to express support for him.     Klayman's Law Group, with an American flag on the business card he gave to Inner City Press, has offices in Washington and Florida. Whether the long ago interchange with Judge Chin will or should have an impact on this case in the SDNY in 2019 in a question for another day. August 8, to be precise.

 This case is Moore et al. v. Cohen et al., 19-cv-4977 (Cronan).