| For
SDNY Avenatti Trial Judge Gardephe Orders
Franklin Retainer and Garagos Reply
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon,
thread
video
SDNY
COURTHOUSE, Jan 21 –
Michael Avenatti in the Nike
case against him opposed the
US Attorney's proffered legal
expert testimony about his
fiduciary duty, citing
decisions by U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judges
Valerie E. Caproni and Kimba
Wood, below.
Now in the
run-up to trial, on January 21
Judge
Paul
G. Gardephe
set this
schedule:
"ORDER as to
Michael
Avenatti: The
parties are
hereby
directed to
submit the
following
items to the
Court: 1.
Defendant will
file the
retainer
agreement, if
any, between
Defendant and
Gary Franklin,
Sr., by 7:00
p.m. on
January 20,
2020. 2. The
Government
will file
copies of Mark
Geragos's
proffer
agreements by
7:00 p.m. on
January 20,
2020. 3.
Defendant will
file a reply
to Nike's
motion to
quash (Dkt.
No. 138) by
5:00 p.m. on
January 21,
2020; any
filing by the
Government as
to Nike's
motion to
quash (Dkt.
No. 138) is
also due by
5:00 p.m. on
January 21,
2020. 4. Mark
Geragos will
submit a reply
to Defendant's
motion to
compel (Dkt.
No. 168) by
5:00 p.m. on
January 21,
2020. The
Government is
directed to
serve this
Order on
counsel for
Geragos
forthwith.
(Replies due
by 1/21/2020)
(Signed by
Judge Paul G.
Gardephe on
1/20/2020)."
Back in August
Judge Gardephe
told
Avenatti's
lawyer in
that case
Scott A.
Srebnick to
"tee up the
subpoena
issues sooner
rather than
later."
Srebnick
as in his
written
submissions
brought up the
Fifth
Amendment.
Judge Gardephe
said raising
that to a jury
would be a
first for him,
and that
Srebnick faces
a uphill
battle
convincing
him. But it
seems Srebnick
will try. He
took up 85% of
the speaking
time (Inner
City Press
live tweeted
it here),
in a courtroom
whose gallery
was less than
half filled.
Things have
changed.
Srebnick
proposed
moving the
trial from
November to
January, then
mentioned that
AUSA
Richenthal has
a trial
starting on
January 21, so
why not extend
further? More
on Patreon here.
Back
on May 28
before Judge
Batts, Avenatti's
first move was
to have his
Miami-based lawyer
Srebnick ask
to transfer
the Daniels
case to California.
The U.S. Attorney for
the SDNY's office
opposed the request, saying
it met none of
the Supreme
Court's factors
for change in
venue in the
1964 case Platt
v. Minnesota
Mining &
Mfg. Co.,
376 U.S.
240. Attorney
Srebnick's
motion to make
a motion was
denied.
[Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Matthew Podolsky
told Judge Batts
he had
recently
beaten back a
similar
attempt to
delay by
bifurcated
venue motions.
For more,
see Patreon, here.]
***
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
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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
