by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 13 – In case of E. Jean Carroll v Trump, on September 27, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to reverse the District Court’s holding that the President of the United States is not an employee of the government under the Westfall Act Full decision(s) here.
On September 28 Trump's lawyer Alina Habba wrote to Judge Kaplan asking that he change the caption of the case - and stay it. She argued, "the DC Court of Appeals forthcoming ruling will be case-dispositive and, therefore, it would be highly prejudicial and inequitable for Defendant to engage in time consuming and expensive pre-trial preparation."
On February 7, Judge Kaplan held a proceeding with Carroll's and Trump's new lawyer. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
On April 11, Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina filed a letter past 10 pm asking Judge Kaplan to delay the Carroll trial for 4 weeks due to publicity, attaching the transcript of Trump's arraignment before Judge Merchan. Letter on Patreon here.
On April 12, Carroll's counsel wrote in opposition to delay, arguing that "Trump is exceptionally ill-suited to complain about fairness when he has instigated (and sought to benefit from) so much of the very coverage about which he now complains."
Next, Trump lawyer asked for discovery into a non-profit funder of legal fees in the case. Judge Kaplan partially granted it - but reaffirmed the April 25 trial date: " ORDER granting in part and denying in part [108] Letter Motion to Reopen re: [108] LETTER MOTION to Reopen Discovery addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan from Alina Habba dated April 13, 2023. On April 10, 2023, plaintiffs counsel disclosed to the defendant that plaintiff-- who had testified at her deposition on October 14, 2022 that (a) no one else was paying her legal fees as "[t]his is a contingency fee case," and that (b) she was "not sure about expenses" (Dkt 108-1, Dep. Tr., at 209: 11-21) -- "now [i.e., Apr. 10, 2023] recall[ed] that at some point her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees." Dkt 108-2 at 1. Plaintiffs counsel now advises that this assistance was secured in September 2020, well after the commencement of the first to the two closely related actions of which this is the later. In subsequent discussions between the parties' respective counsel, plaintiff disclosed the identity of the financial backer, said to be a prominent funder of Democratic causes, and of the not-for profit entity through which he apparently provided such funding. Plaintiffs counsel further represented that plaintiff "has never met and has never been party to any communications (written or oral) with anyone associated with the nonprofit." Dkt 108-3 at 1. On this basis, defendant moves for "(i) a limited re-opening of the discovery period restricted to investigation into the narrow source of funding issue, and (ii) a one-month continuance of the trial date... ; or (iii) in the alternative, that the Court permit an adverse inference instruction against Plaintiff with respect to her willful defiance of her discovery obligations." Dkt 108 at 4. SO ORDERED The question whether and when plaintiff or her counsel have obtained financial support in this action has nothing directly to do with the ultimate merits of the case. See, e.g., Benitez v. Lopez,No. 7-CV-3827-SJ-SJB, 2019 WL 1578167, at *1-*2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2019). Although I do not now decide the question, it perhaps might prove relevant to the question of plaintiffs credibility, in view of the deposition testimony referred to above. Accordingly, I will permit a brief and carefully circumscribed examination of that narrow question without prejudging the question of whether and to what extent examination on this matter may be permitted at trial. Accordingly, defendant's application is granted, but only to the extent that (I) plaintiff shall furnish the defendant, no later than April 16, 2023,with documents sufficient to establish that the inception of the financing assistance for the Carroll litigation in fact occurred in or after mid-2020, (b) any documents concerning the state of plaintiffs knowledge, if any, of the financing assistance as of the date of her deposition and as of the present, and(2) defendant may conduct an additional deposition of Ms. Carroll not to exceed 60 minutes in duration,unless otherwise ordered by the Court, which shall be (1) limited to the subject of Ms. Carroll's knowledge of the financing assistance as of the date of her deposition and as of the present, and (2)completed no later than April 19, 2023. The motion is denied in all other respects save that the Court reserves for determination at trial the matter of any requested adverse inference instruction. Trial shallbegin as scheduled on April 25, 2023 unless otherwise ordered. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/13/2023)." Order / endorsement on Patreon here
More on Substack here.
Watch this site.
***
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
