| Kevin Spacey
Charged With Raping Rapp Has October Trial
in SDNY so Vary Told to Produce
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Stand-up
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 7 – Anthony Rapp's
lawsuit against Kevin Spacey
was removed to Federal court
in November 2020, and an
anonymous co-plaintiff C.D.
was added.
Spacey wanted to
make C.D.'s name public, to
order to conduct discovery, he
says. C.D.'s lawyers
opposed it, letter on Patreon
here.
On May 26, 2022
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held a
hearing, with Spacey
testifying, on Rapp's motion
to remand the case. Judge
Kaplan at the end said it is
his present intention to deny
the motion to remand, and that
the trial will start in
October. Inner City Press
attended then tweeted here.
[Then video
here]
On
June 6, Judge Kapplan issued
two orders: one dismissing
Rapp's first cause of action
but not the rest of the
complaint, the second denying
his motion for remand (argued
below). The first order
recounts Rapp's allegation
that when he was 14, Spacey
put him back down on a bed,
"grazing" his buttocks. Order
on Patreon here.
Upshot: the trial
is set for October. Inner City
Press will cover it. And Adam
Vary has again been told to
produce discovery, see below.
Back on September
9, 2021, Judge Kaplan held a
proceeding about 60 new names,
and sealed affidavits. Inner
City Press live tweeted it here
and below.
On
October 4 Spacey asked to seal the UK High
Court's Order which, he says, orders him to
destroy material by October 7. Full letter on
Patreon here.
On
December 9 at 4:30 pm, six hours after the US v.
Ghislaine Maxwell trial was paused at
least for one day due to an ill prosecutor,
Judge Kaplan held another proceeding
in Rapp v. Spacey (or Fowler)
and Inner City Press
live tweeted it here,
podcast (including on
Maxwell and UN) here.
On December
10, Rapp's
lawyer
wrote to Judge
Kaplan and asked
that his forthcoming
protective order
including an order
prohibiting
disclosure of names
of those alleging
abuse by Spacey -
full letter on
Patreon here.
On
March 10, 2022 a
trial date was
set: "ORDER,
This case is set
for trial on
October 4, 2022
at 9:30 a.m.
subject to any
changes
warranted by
pandemic
circumstances."
On March
14, digging in
Miscellaneous
cases, Inner
City Press
came upon satellite
litigation
between Spacey
and Adam Vary,
who citing
the First Amendment
and shield
laws declined
to answer
questions at a
deposition.
Judge
Kaplan ordered
Vary to answer
the subpoena by
May 31. On May 23,
Vary's counsel
asked for
reconsideration
or a two week
stay in order
to appeal.
On May 27
Vary's counsel
filed another
letter,
including
"nearly all of
the materials
contain
unpublished
newsgathering
information
that we
maintain is
privileged and
shielded from
production,
but we
acknowledge
was not
provided
or
obtained
subject to
promises of
confidentiality.
However, there
are a handful
of source
names
and
information
that was
provided
pursuant to
promises of
confidentiality.
Our
understanding
is that the
confidential
sources
corroborate
Mr. Rapp’s
account, but
do not want to
have
their
information
exposed.
Although we
maintain that
both
non-confidential
and
confidential
unpublished
newsgathering
materials are
privileged and
shielded from
disclosure,
there
are
special
protections
and
considerations
for
confidential
source
materials."
Full letter
on Patreon here.
On June 7,
Judge Kaplan
offered this secord
clarification:
"ORDER denying
[23 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery;
denying [24 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery.
On May 19,
2022, this
Court ordered
that Mr. Vary
submit, under
seal, for in
camera review
various
materials that
he may be
withholding
from
production in
order to
inform its
analysis of
whether he has
satisfied his
burden of
showing that
the materials,
if indeed
there are any,
should be
produced to
the defendant.
On June I,
2022 it
granted in
part Mr.
Vary's request
for additional
time within
which to
comply. (The
May 19 and
June I orders
are referred
to
collectively
as the
"Orders.") Mr.
Vary now seeks
a stay of the
Orders insofar
as they (I)
require the
submission for
in camera
review of any
withheld
materials that
contain what
he calls
"confidential
source
information"
and (2)
supposedly
require such
submission of
"post-subpoena
attorney-client
communications."
Dkt. 23. The
proposed stay,
if granted,
would remain
in effect for
"14 days after
the later of
the following
events: (a)
the Court's
ruling on Mr.
Fowler's
motion for
summary
judgment; and
(b) the
Court's ruling
on Mr. Rapp's
renewed motion
to remand. Dkt
159, 172,
20-cv-09586."
Id. The
ostensible
justification
for this
relief is to
afford Mr.
Vary's counsel
additional
time to
"consider and
possibly seek
appellate
review of
those portions
of the Court's
Orders, and
then, if Mr.
Vary does seek
appellate
review, stay
[the Orders]
until the
outcome of
such review."
Id.
Separately,
Mr. Vary
"seek[s] a
14-day stay of
any order
granting Mr.
Fowler's
motion to
compel, in
whole or in
part." Id. The
primary
request
appears to be
premised in
part on the
possibility
that ( a) a
ruling
favorable to
Mr. Fowler on
the summary
judgment
motion might
eliminate any
need for
further
discovery, and
(b) a ruling
favorable to
the plaintiff
on the remand
motion would
result in
remand to the
New York
courts and
thus possibly
result in
litigation of
Mr. Vary's
arguments in
what he
presumably
regards as a
forum more
congenial to
his position.
The Court,
however,
yesterday
denied both
Mr. Fowler's
summary
judgment
motion and the
plaintiff's
motion to
remand.
20-cv-9586,
Dkts 217,218.
Hence, the
action is
going forward
in this Court
and Mr. Vary's
apparent hopes
will not be
realized. Nor
is there any
need for him
to have a stay
for a further
two weeks
while he
considers
further
whether he
wishes to
attempt to
appeal from
the Orders. He
has been
actively
litigating the
requirement
for in camera
inspection for
17 days
already. He
does not need
any more time
to think about
whether he
wishes to
attempt to
appeal from
the Orders.
And he will be
at liberty to
seek a stay
pending appeal
from this
Court in the
event that he
does so. This
Court is not
in the
business of
giving
advisory
opinions
concerning
whether it
would grant a
stay pending
an appeal if a
litigant
decides to
file one. The
second request
is made as "a
cautionary
measure"
against the
possibility
that this
Court, if it
orders
disclosure of
any
"confidential
source
information"
and
"post-subpoena
attorney-client
communications"
following in
camera review,
would require
disclosure
without Mr.
Vary having an
opportunity to
seek review.
The request is
denied on the
ground that
the
possibility to
which Mr. Vary
alludes is at
best
speculative.
That of course
is not to say
that the Court
necessarily
would afford
Mr. Vary a
leisurely
opportunity to
seek a stay,
should he seek
to pursue such
an option. The
Clerk shall
terminate Dkts
23 and 24 in
22-mc-0063
(LAK). SO
ORDERED.
(Signed by
Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan on
6/7/2022)."
This case is
Fowler v. Vary,
22-mc-63
(Kaplan)
Inner
City Press
will continue
to follow these
cases.
From back on Dec 9: now in
Rapp v. Kevin Spacey (for
rape of 14 year-old), a
proceeding in SDNY by
phone, in a case which
Inner City Press has been
reporting on and will, in
haitus from #MaxwellTrial
which has no call-in line,
live tweet:
Spacey, defending himself
from claim he raped Rapp,
wanted get discovery into
all of his past
relationships.
Spacey's lawyer: He's only
alleging that Mr Fowler
[that is, Kevin Spacey]
picked him up and dropped
him. It's essentially
child abuse, not sexual
assault.
On January
10, 2021 Spacey's lawyer wrote
to Judge Kaplan to preclude
Rapp from calling
Justin Dawes as a
witness,
including
portions
of his
December 28, 2021 deposition.
They argue
that Dawes
withheld
information, the name of
an "unnamed
friend."
On January 12,
Rapp's lawyers
filed a 5 page
letter
including that
"Mr. Dawes, he
agreed to
voluntarily,
without a
subpoena,
testify about
how Spacey
made an
inappropriate
sexual advance
on him when he
was a minor...
" at one point
his hand was
on my leg. You
know, I
thought it was
mildly
uncomfortable.
I did not, you
know, feel
threatened,
but I thought
it was a kind
of, you know,
probing of a
sexual nature
to see how
comfortable I
was with
that.'" Full
letter on
Patreon here.
Watch this
site. Inner
City Press will stay on it
- podcast
Watch this site.
From February 23:
Lawyers for Kevin Spacey are
arguing to strike testimony of
Doctor Seymour H. Block.
Spacey is being sued civilly
for sex abuse.
Judge
Kaplan: You are asking me to
make an important decision, in
a country that values public
trials as much as we do, in
the unique circumstance of a
person who sued and also went
to the press with it. In
advance.
Plaintiffs
lawyer: When my client gave
the interview before this
case. So there was no attempt
to influence the jury. In
fact, when my client spoke to
the press this case would have
been barred by the statute of
limitations.
Judge
Kaplan: But if disclosure
would harm him, why did he go
to the press? Plaintiff's
lawyer: They did not reveal
his name. Judge Kaplan: But he
couldn't know it would work.
The publication checked his
account with others. There was
a chance he would be ID-ed
Judge Kaplan:
What's that case you're
citing? Defense: Doe, 241 FRD
154, 159 (SDNY, 2006). And
another one by Justice
Brennan, about how public
trials bring in more
witnesses. CD made his
decision. We have our due
process rights. [He calls
Spacey "Mr. Fowler"]
Judge Kaplan: On
a proper showing, the
pleadings need not contain the
name of a party, no? Defense:
They have to meet the Doe
factors. And CD has not met
his burden. Plaintiff: Doe v.
Colgate, the plaintiff went to
the press and was still
anonymous.
Judge
Kaplan: I'm going to wait
until you make your expert
disclosure. Plaintiff's
lawyer: There is a person
beyond Mr Rapp who is aware of
this. And Mr Rapp is not
seeking to withhold his name.
Judge Kaplan: You
need to file the relevant
piece of the deposition.
The proceeding ends, just like
that.
From February 2:
Spacey's lawyer says it is
unfair for C.D. to proceeding
anonymously. "While it is true
we have C.D.'s name, only if
we make it public can others
come forward with evidence
about him... this is the right
to due process."
C.D.'s lawyer:
The sealed plaintiff versus
sealed defendant factors weigh
in our favor. We are talking
about the rape of a minor. The
declaration by his therapist
shows he would suffer harm if
his name is made public.
Judge: If
it happened it's abhorrent.
But I don't have to be
reminded of what Mr Spacey is
accused of in every sentence.
CD's lawyer: Spacey said, as
to Rapp, that if it happened
he was sorry. But here he is
denying it entirely.
Judge: You're not
getting anywhere.
Judge Kaplan: Get
me your papers, and you'll get
a decision promptly. Until
then, don't disclose the name
to third parties - except to
Mr. Rapp, subject to sealing.
Spacey's lawyer:
Every day is lost time.
So Rapp's
deposition will go forward,
with C.D.'s real name said at
it but reported in the
transcript as C.D..
Inner City Press will continue
to report on this case. More
on Patreon here.
The case is
Rapp et al v. Fowler,
20-cv-9586 (Kaplan)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
