Date: 08-30-2023

Case Style:

Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss v. Rudy Giuliani

Case Number: 21-cv-3354

Judge: Beryl A. Howell

Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Christine Kwon, John Knoblett, John Langford, Marie Houghton-Larsen, Meryl Conant Governski, Rachel Goodman, Sara Chimene-Weiss, Tom Ryan, Von DuBose, Mike Gottlieb

Defendant's Attorney: a href="http://www.camarasibley.com" target="_new">Joseph Sibley

Description: Washington, DC personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a defamation theory.

After the polls closed across the country on November 3, 2020-the first Presidential election in U.S. history to be conducted in the midst of a deadly global pandemic-the results in some states were immediately called, with either former Vice President Biden or then-President Trump declared the obvious winner. In other states, including Georgia, the margins of victory were substantially closer, and voters and candidates went to bed that night not knowing who had won. As days passed, local and state election officials diligently conducted the counting of absentee ballots and manual recounts, but the void of clear results became filled with increasingly outlandish paranoia from those claiming the election was being “stolen.”

Defendant Rudolph Giuliani-a current media personality and former politician once dubbed “America's mayor”-propagated and pushed that false narrative. Caught in the crossfire of Giuliani's campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election were plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye (“Shaye”) Moss (collectively, “plaintiffs”). Freeman was a temporary election worker with the Fulton County Registration and Elections Department in Fulton County, Georgia during the 2020 general election, while Moss worked on Fulton County's absentee ballot operation. After Giuliani made a litany of statements and accusations against plaintiffs concerning their activities as election workers, Freeman and Moss initiated the instant lawsuit in December 2021, against Giuliani, and others, for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.[1]

* * *


The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize “[l]iberal discovery” for the “sole purpose of assisting in the preparation and trial, or the settlement, of litigated disputes,” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34 (1984), with “the only express limitations [ ] that the information sought is not privileged, and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action[,]” but without “differentiat[ing] between information that is private or intimate and that to which no privacy interests attach,” id. at 30. As such, “the Rules often allow extensive intrusion into the affairs of both litigants and third parties.” Id. Crucial to fulfilling this central purpose of civil discovery is that parties “comply fully and timely with their discovery obligations . . . to supply relevant testimony and documents for a fair appraisal of the facts and a ‘just' determination.” Freeman v. Giuliani, No. CV 21-3354 (BAH), 2023 WL 4750552, at *1 (D.D.C. July 13, 2023) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 1). Obviously, only extant documents and data are producible, so parties must also take reasonable efforts to preserve potentially relevant evidence, including electronically stored information (“ESI”), when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable.” Gerlich v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 711 F.3d 161, 170-71 (D.C. Cir. 2013). To incentivize and enforce compliance with these

2

procedural rules, sanctions may be imposed when ESI should have been preserved “in the anticipation or conduct of litigation” but “is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e).

Defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani is taken at his word that he understands these obligations. He assured this Court directly that he “understand[s] the obligations” because he has “been doing this for 50 years[.]” Transcript of May 19, 2023 Mot. Hearing (“May 19 Hrg. Tr.”) at 67:21-68:6, ECF No. 75. In this case, however, Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court's orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce his ESI. Instead, Giuliani has submitted declarations with concessions turned slippery on scrutiny and excuses designed to shroud the insufficiency of his discovery compliance. The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' ArShaye Moss's procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case.

Rather than simply play by the rules designed to promote a discovery process necessary to reach a fair decision on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, Giuliani has bemoaned plaintiffs' efforts to secure his compliance as “punishment by process.” Id. at 75:12. Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straight-forward defamation case, with the concomitant necessity of repeated court intervention. Due to Giuliani's discovery conduct, plaintiffs have filed two motions to compel production from Giuliani and his eponymous businesses, Giuliani Communications LLC and Giuliani Partners LLC (collectively, the “Giuliani Businesses”), see Pls.' Mot. Compel (“Pls.' MTC”), ECF No. 44; Pls.' Revised Mot. Compel Giuliani Partners & Giuliani Communications (“Pls.' Giuliani Businesses Motion”), ECF No. 70,

3

resulting in two discovery hearings, Minute Entries (Mar. 21, 2023; May 19, 2023), the issuance of multiple orders seeking his discovery compliance or otherwise sanctioning him for noncompliance, see, e.g., Minute Orders (Mar. 21, 2023; May 19, 2023; May 31, 2023; June 22, 2023; June 23, 2023; July 13, 2023; July 26, 2023). Along the way, Giuliani has been afforded several extensions of time to comply with court orders and his discovery obligations. See, e.g., Minute Order (Aug. 31, 2022) (extending close of fact discovery from November 22, 2022 to May 22, 2023); Minute Order (June 16, 2023) (extending compliance with May 31, 2023 Minute Order Order compelling discovery by two weeks); Minute Order (July 13, 2023) (providing Giuliani with an additional 35 days to comply with the May 31, 2023 Minute Order). As the discussion below reveals, however, the result of these efforts to obtain discovery from Giuliani, aside from his initial production of 193 documents, is largely a single page of communications, blobs of indecipherable data, a sliver of the financial documents required to be produced, and a declaration and two stipulations from Giuliani, who indicates in the latter stipulations his preference to concede plaintiffs' claims rather than produce discovery in this case.[1]

Giuliani's preference may be due to the fact, about which he has made no secret, that he faces liability, both civil and criminal, in other investigations and civil lawsuits. See Mar. 21, 2023

4

Transcript of Discovery Hearing (“Mar. 21 Hrg. Tr.”) at 22:6-12, ECF No. 41 (Giuliani stating that he has “seven or eight cases that had pending requests for discovery” including “not just civil but criminal investigations”); see also infra n.8 (describing submission in this case of declaration by Giuliani's defense attorney's in prior criminal investigation). Perhaps, he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case. Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.

Giuliani's willful discovery misconduct has now led, inexorably, to plaintiffs' pending motion for sanctions due to his “Failure To Preserve Electronic Evidence,” seeking, inter alia, the entry of default judgment against Giuliani. See Pls.' Mot. for Discovery Sanctions Against Def. Giuliani (“Pls.' Mot.”), ECF No. 81. Giuliani has also not complied with two other court orders requiring him both to produce certain requested, routine financial documents relevant to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, and to reimburse plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs associated with their first motion to compel, failures for which plaintiffs request additional sanctions. Updated Joint Status Report (“Aug. 4 JSR”) at 5-6, 18, ECF No. 89. Additionally, plaintiffs' have sought sanctions due to noncompliance by Giuliani's eponymous businesses with document and deposition requests, after their motion to compel compliance was granted as conceded. See infra Part 1.C (outlining procedural history and status of plaintiffs' Giuliani Businesses Motion).

Facing court orders compelling his discovery compliance and potential default judgment as a sanction for failing to preserve ESI, Giuliani filed two personally executed, but unsworn, “stipulations” admitting, for the purposes of this litigation, liability on the factual elements of plaintiffs' claims and their entitlement to punitive damages. See Def.'s Resp. Pls.' Mot. (“Def.'s Mot. Resp.”), “Nolo Contendre [sic]” Stipulation (“Giuliani Stip.”), ECF No. 84-2; “Superseding

5

Nolo Contendre [sic]” Stipulation (“Giuliani Superseding Stip.”), ECF No. 90. Giuliani's stipulations hold more holes than Swiss cheese, with his latest stipulation expressly reserving “his arguments that the statements complained of are protected and non-actionable opinion for purposes of appeal[,]” Giuliani Superseding Stip. ¶¶ 5-6, which arguments were previously rejected in this Court's decision denying defendant's motion to dismiss, see Freeman v. Giuliani, No. CV 213354 (BAH), 2022 WL 16551323, at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2022). The reservations in Giuliani's stipulations make clear his goal to bypass the discovery process and a merits trial-at which his defenses may be fully scrutinized and tested in our judicial system's time-honored adversarial process-and to delay such a fair reckoning by taking his chances on appeal, based on the abbreviated record he forced on plaintiffs. Yet, just as taking shortcuts to win an election carries risks-even potential criminal liability-bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions, no matter what reservations a noncompliant party may try artificially to preserve for appeal.

The downside risk of turning the discovery process into what this Court has previously described as a “murky mess,” May 19 Hrg. Tr. at 105:22, is that Rule 37 provides a remedy: sanctions, including entry of default judgment, against Giuliani. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e)(2)(C); 37(b)(2)(a)(vi). Given the willful shirking of his discovery obligations in anticipation of and during this litigation, Giuliani leaves little other choice. For the reasons set out below, the pending motion is granted. Default judgment will be entered against Giuliani as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rules 37(e)(2)(C) and 37(b)(2)(a)(vi), holding him civilly liable on plaintiffs' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims, and Giuliani is directed to reimburse plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs associated with their instant motion.

In addition, as this case now heads to trial to determine any damages due on plaintiffs' claims, Giuliani will be given a final opportunity to comply with discovery relevant to the determination of damages, both compensatory and punitive, or face imposition of additional discovery-related sanctions, under Rule 37(b)(2), in the form of adverse instructions and exclusion of evidence at trial, as outlined in more detail below. Specifically, Giuliani is directed, by September 20, 2023, to do the following:

a. produce complete responses to plaintiffs' requests for financial documents, set out in plaintiffs' Requests for Production (“RFP”) Numbers 40 and 41, which he was previously ordered to produce by June 30, 2023, see Minute Order (June 22, 2023);

b. ensure the Giuliani Businesses produce complete responses to plaintiffs' requests for financial documents and viewership metrics, including RFP Numbers 19 and 35, seeking records sufficient to show how his podcast, called Common Sense, generates revenue, including through advertising agreements and distribution contracts, and records sufficient to summarize viewer and listener metrics for Giuliani's statements on social media and Common Sense from the date of original publication through the present, including reach, count, page visits, posts, shares, time spent, impressions, and listener numbers, and the number of online views and/or impressions of any statements Giuliani made about plaintiffs, as described in the Amended Complaint ¶¶ 57-101, ECF No. 22, as well as designate one or more corporate representatives to sit for depositions on those businesses' behalf; and

c. reimburse plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs associated with their successful first motion to compel discovery from Giuliani, in the amount totaling $89,172.50, with interest on that amount from July 25, 2023, which is when this reimbursement payment was originally due, see Minute Order (July 13, 2023); and

d. ensure the Giuliani Businesses reimburse plaintiffs' attorneys fees associated with their successful motion to compel discovery from the Businesses, in the amount totaling $43,684, with interest on that amount to accrue from September 20, 2023 until the date of final judgment against Giuliani personally if his eponymous businesses fail to comply.

Outcome: 08/30/2023 93 ORDER GRANTING plaintiffs' 81 Motion for Sanctions. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 30, 2023. (lcbah4) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
08/30/2023 94 MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiffs' 81 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 30, 2023. (lcbah4) (Entered: 08/30/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: