Suing
Sacha Baron Cohen Roy Moore
Got Hour Deposition Now Cites
Swimming Pig Sex Case
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon,
thread,
II
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 18 – Roy Moore's
defamation lawsuit against
Sacha Baron Cohen, which has
survived a motion to dismiss,
was on for a conference on
July 31 before U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Andrew L.
Carter. Inner
City Press
live tweeted
it, 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. Watch
this site.
From
June 10: Roy
Moore v. Sasha
Baron Cohen,
now a hearing
with Larry
Klayman saying
Cohen was "fed
answers"
during his
video
deposition,
wants him to
testify in
person
Klayman
says Sasha
Baron Cohen
was looking
down and
reading
answers, in an
"unidentified
residence" in
Australia.
Cohen's
lawyer: He was
looking down
at laptop.
Judge
Cronan: He's a
tall man.
Klayman:
He needs to be
put under
oath. Cohen's
lawyer: Mr.
Klayman
doesn't
identify any
response that
was delayed.
But he is
shifting that
say that
someone else
was in the
room,
supposedly
feeding Mr.
Cohen answers.
He suggest it
could be Todd
Schulman. But
he was deposed
the day after,
in LA...
Klayman:
There was the
time Sasha
Baron Cohen
was going to
drop a card in
front of the
FBI, when he
was going
after Ben
Carson -
thankfully,
Ben Carson was
not a victim,
the figured it
out.
Klayman:
... they
figured it
out. But this
is how they
make money,
with fraud.
This is how
you get Golden
Globe awards.
Judge Cronan:
Mr. Klayman,
we're getting
a little far
afield. I will
deny the
request, I
have viewed
the video
& don't
think he was
fed answers
Cohen's
lawyer: The
video should
be
confidential,
like in the
Cosby case,
and the
Paisley Park
case.
Plaintiff just
wants to
distribute the
video in the
media. They
have no
litigation
reason. It's
just a quid
pro quo, to
embarrass Mr.
Cohen...
Klayman:
When I ran
Judicial
Watch, you may
remember,
though you're
young, Judge,
I deposed
nearly the
entire Clinton
cabinet. And
they opposed,
David Kendall
and others.
But we did it.
Why not here?
Cohen's
lawyer: There
is no
presumption of
public access
to depositions
that have not
been filed
with the
court. [Inner
City Press
/
@SDNYLIVE
So why doesn't
Klayman just
file it?]
Cohen's
lawyer uses
the magic
words,
"judicial
document"
Judge Cronan:
I find that
the video does
not find
without any of
the categories
in the
protective
order. I have
not reviewed
it. And the
transcript is
not
confidential.
Judge
Cronan: Should
there be a new
protective
order? Only a
portion of the
transcript has
been filed,
only it is a
judicial
document. [Now
seems to say
he *has* seen
the video;
also
distinguishes
the cases
cited by
Cohen,
including
Judge Kaplan's
Prince
decision]
[Seems
the video will
be made
available,
presumably by
Klayman -
watch this
feed.] Judge
Cronan: Now
let me turn to
the matter of
discipline.
Mr. Klayman
was
disciplined
and didn't
tell the DC
Court of
Appeals. The
DC Circuit
imposed a 90
day suspension
on him.
Judge
Cronan: But
Judge Carter
admitted Mr.
Klayman pro
hac vice. Did
he have to
report?
Cohen's lawyer
says
yes.
Klayman: I'm a
member in good
standing of
the Florida
Bar. Judge
Cronan: I will
not refer Mr.
Klayman to the
Committee on
Grievances.
Now, on
recusal.
Judge
Cronan: I've
been asked to
recuse myself,
in an
affidavit by
Mr.
Moore.
Klayman
(citing cases)
- We'd like it
referred back
to Judge
Carter. Judge
Cronan (citing
cases) I
decline to
recuse. Mr
Moore just
argues that he
preferred
Judge Carter's
rulings.
Judge
Cronan: OK,
that will be
it for today.
We are
adjourned.
On
December
18, a long
argument on
whether
Klayman for Moore
can depose
Cohen, and on
what.
Ultimately,
Judge Cronan
allows one
hour, limited
to corporate
entities. Klayman
asked him to
certify it for
appeal:
denied.
Inner City
Press will
continue to
cover it, the December
18 live tweet
is
here,
podcast here,
email
spat on Patreon here.
On
February 8, defendants
filed a motion
to dismiss with a
statement by Todd
Schulman and receipts
of the Moores'
travel to DC,
taxi order and
$200
donation to
the Foundation
for Moral Law.
On
May 6, this:
"ORDER. On
April 28,
2021, the
Court ordered
the parties in
this action to
appear for a
telephone
conference
today, May 6,
2021, at 10:00
a.m. to
resolve
several
pending
disputes in
this case.
Dkt. 137.
Plaintiffs'
counsel failed
to appear for
this
conference,
but later in
the day filed
a letter
apologizing
for missing
the conference
and explaining
that it was
not properly
calendared on
his end. Dkt.
139. At the
conference,
the Court
directed
Defendants'
counsel to
send Chambers
a link to the
video of Sacha
Noam Baron
Cohens
deposition,
which took
place on
January 13,
2021. The
Court confirms
receipt of the
link and its
ability to
view the
video. The
video shall
remain
confidential
pending the
Court's
decision on
Plaintiffs'
challenge to
the videos
confidentiality
designation.
It is further
ordered that:
(1) If
Plaintiffs
wish to file a
reply to
Defendants'
opposition to
Plaintiffs'
motion to
recuse and/or
disqualify the
undersigned,
Dkt. 138,
Plaintiffs
shall file
their reply by
no later than
May 10, 2021.
(2)
Plaintiffs'
counsel shall
file a letter
by May 19,
2021, showing
cause why the
Court should
not refer him
to the
Grievance
Committee of
this Court
based on his
failure to
notify the
Court of
disciplinary
sanctions
imposed on him
in In re
Klayman, 228
A.3d 713 (D.C.
2020) and In
re Klayman,
991 F.3d 1389
(D.C. Cir.
2021), as
required by
Local Civil
Rule 1.5(h).
SO ORDERED.
(Replies due
by 5/10/2021.)
(Signed by
Judge John P.
Cronan on
5/6/2021)."
Inner
City Press
will continue
to report
on this case.
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).
***
Feedback: Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
Box
20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY
NY 10017
Other, earlier Inner
City Press are listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner
City Press, Inc. To request reprint or
other permission, e-contact Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com for
|