Thursday, February 20, 2025
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Monday, February 17, 2025
Sunday, February 16, 2025
Saturday, February 15, 2025
Friday, February 14, 2025
For Eric Adams Straw Donations DOJ Files Nolle Prosequi Citing Damian Williams Website
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 14 – The five-count indictment of NYC Mayor Eric Adams was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrates Court. Inner City Press was the first one in and live tweeted it. City of Maybe book
The unsealing thread
On September 17 at noon he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Thread.
On February 10, 2025 DOJ's Emil Bove - a former SDNY prosecutor - wrote to acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon ordering her to move to dismiss the indictment.
On February 11, it was belatedly docketed that Mohamed Bahi has signed a plea agreement.
On February 13, with no motion to dismiss yet filed, Inner City Press was in the SDNY Magistrates Court amid much checking of smart phones. Acting US Attorney Sassoon had resigned.
On February 14 after 6 pm, DOJ's Edward Sullivan filed a nolle prosequi citing Damian Williams' website and asserting Adams' need for security clearance for immigration enforcement.
More on X for Subscribers here & Substack here
Back on November 1 Judge Ho heard argument, and set the trial day for April 21, 2025 - thread
On December 23 the prosecutors wrote in that Erden Arkan, "Businessman-5" in the Adams indictment, intended to plead guilty. He did.
On February 7 the US Attorney's Office wrote in to consolidate Mohamed Bahi's case, saying he intends to plead guilty, letter on Patreon here
More/extra on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
This case is USA v. Arkan, 25-cr-13 (Ho)
The Adams case is USA v. Adams, 1:24-cr-556 (Ho)
***
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
After DOJ Moved to Vacate DOGE Barred from Treasury Access Hearing Held So Ruling Soon
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 14 – New York and other states on Friday filed for an injunction against the Trump administration and early Saturday morning obtained a Temporary Restraining Order that the Administration is
"restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees." Inner City Press, which closely covers the SDNY court, immediately put the order on its DocumentCloud here.
A day later questions were being raised whether the restrained "political appointees" included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. It would appear the argument will be in Tuesday's filing and Friday's argument. Inner City Press asked, but will it be addressed before?
Yes. After 11 pm on Sunday, February 9 DOJ filed to vacate the TRO, arguing that "the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury—including even Secretary Bessent."Memo of law on Patreon here.
The states filed opposition, saying the TROs are not appealable, and that the TRO should only be modified to allow the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City the access it had before January 20. 11-page memo on Patreon here. Reply was due by 11 pm.
Analysis including on how this midnight fight on clarifying the scope of the order might have been avoided is on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
On February 14, after a press statement by AG James, the arguments, Inner City Press live tweeted here. Judge Vargas said she will rule soon.
Inner City Press will continue reporting in real time on the case.
The case is State of New York, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-1144 (Vargas)
***
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
Giuliani Settled Georgia Poll Workers Trial after No Show Now OTSC on Intervention Motion
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 14 – In Ruby Freeman's and Wandrea' Moss' ongoing attempt to collect from Rudy Giuliani, trial was to begin at 9 am on January 16. Inner City Press was there - but Giuliani was not. The case settled in the early afternoon.
In the courtroom of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman, the plaintiffs' lawyer hugged Giulani's counsel, and shook hands with Andrew Giuliani.
Back on October 8, a motion to intervene by Andrew Giuliani: "the Mayor gifted those World Series rings to his son." Filing on Patreon here.
On October 22 Judge Liman wrote that Giuliani is "ordered to transfer all personal property specified in the list below at pp. 16-18" - full list on Patreon here
On January 6 after more, Judge Liman awarded adverse inferences as a sanction, keeping the contempt motion and schedule under advisement, thread.
And new book Rudy Giuliani From Prosecutor to Defendant in SDNY here, audiobook here
The January 14 final pre-trial conference, upholding the barring as witnesses of Goodman and Monsignor Placa, Inner City Press live tweeted here.
Then the settlement: Giuliani keeps property, but compensation paid.
Then on February 12 a motion to intervene: "Global Data Risk, LLC holds a continuing, valid, binding, enforceable, non-avoidable and properly perfected security interest in and lien on defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani’s 1,430 shares of stock in, and the proprietary lease for, Apartment 10W with 45 East 66th Owners Corp. Full filing on Patreon here
On February 14 Judge Liman set a schedule: "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: LET plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' Moss and defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani show cause before this Court at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, New York 10007, on February 25, 2025 at 10:00a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order should not be made and entered: 1. under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing Global Risk Data, LLC to intervene as a plaintiff in this case; 2. under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sections 5225 and 5228 of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, directing plaintiffs or defendant to deliver to Global Risk Data, LLC" - order on Patreon here
More on X for Subscribers here, Substack here
One of these cases is Freeman, et al. v. Giuliani, 1:24-mc-353 (Liman)
***
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
After Bob Menendez Sentenced to 11 Years Nadine for Trial Contests Wayback Machine
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 14 – Amid reports of investigation against Sen. Robert Menendez for taking gold bars, Inner City Press' sources on September 21 it to expect on Friday, September 22 an appearance in Federal court in Manhattan by Menendez and his wife Nadine Arslanian, now facing trial alone. This scoop was true.
Later a superseder was unveiled, including charges of bribes to act for Qatar.
On January 10 Menendez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing "the government shockingly fails to disclose the exculpatory fact that [REDACTED]." Full filing on Patreon here
On February 1, Judge Stein granted some unsealing - including of some of the material in the vault which Inner City Press requested. Order here.
Jump cut: Menendez et al were convicted; Inner City Press published a book, here.
Inner City Press live tweeted on January 29 as Daibes got eight years, Hana 97 months - and Bob Menendez 11 years, after which he told the press that "Trump was right" about political witch hunt. His surrender date is June 6 - but he's moved for bail pending appeal.
On February 14 Nadine's lawyer wrote in raising issues about "self-authenticating" documents including Fred Daibes' indictment in New Jersey and "Wayback Machine" documents, letter on 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
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Asks to Vacate SDNY Order to Mediate Calling It Premature
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 13 – In the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni lawsuits, a hearing was held on February 3 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman. Inner City Press was there with live coverage, thread
On February 10, Lively's lawyer asked for delay: "Plaintiff Blake Lively respectfully moves for an extension of time to file her amended complaint to March 5, 2025. Full filing on Patreon here
On February 11 Baldoni's lawyer consented to delay but noted "unnecessary and baseless attacks on non-party Jed Wallace and the litigation pending against Ms. Lively" - filing on Patreon here
On February 13 the parties filed a joint letter asking to be exempted from the order to mediate that was filed in the case, saying it would be premature. Filing on Patreon here
Back on February 6, a new book "Hollywood Hearsay," ranging from the CRD complaint in California o Jed Wallace's new case in Texas, comparing SDNY defamation cases, from Sarah Palin through Devin Nunes v Rachel Maddow. Book here, Audiobook here
More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here, Buy Me a Coffee 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
Capital One Was Sued for Predatory Lending in East Harlem Now Removes to SDNY
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 12 – Capital One Bank refused a payment plan and moved to foreclose on woman's property in East Harlem in upper Manhattan, NYC.
She sued in state court - and Capital One moved to transfer the case to Federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Inner City Press found it in the docket.
The plaintiff recounts how she was tricked, akin to predatory lending. She is seeking punitive damages and an injunction preventing further foreclosure actions.
The case is Sanders v. Capital One, N.A., 1:25-cv-1252 (Unassigned)
***
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
Russell Simmons Was Sued for Rape in 1990s Cited Kevin Spacey Case Now Gets Dismissed
by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 12 – Russell Simmons doubled down on Veterans Day on his bid to get a Jane Doe sexual assault case against him dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, proceeding under a pseudonym as is now being contested by Sean Combs in the many civil cases filed against him, alleged rape in Simmons' Manhattan in the 1990s.
Saying he has moved to Indonesia to retire, Simmons' lawyers argues that at the time of filing, Simmons was not domiciled in New York, and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Simmons cites another case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that Inner City Press has covered (and written a book about), Rapp v. Fowler / Kevin Spacey where Judge Lewis A. Kaplan found that Spacey's comments that "he considered London to be his home" did not undermine competent proof of his domicile in Maryland.
On February 12, 2025 Judge Koeltl ruled: "the defendant contends that he is a stateless American citizen, domiciled in Indonesia. For the following reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted" - without prejudice.
The case is Doe v. Simmons, 1:24-cv-1043 (Koeltl)
***
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
Luigi Mangione Waives Speedy Trial on Death Eligible Charge For Killing UnitedHealth CEO
by Matthew Russell Lee, Substack Book Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 12 – Luigi Mangione was presented in Federal court on December 19 on four charges, one of them death penalty eligible, for the killing of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson. Inner City Press was there, covering the case toward a book, thread:
Luigi Mangione has been brought in by US Marshals, in a black quarter-zip sweater.
Judge Parker: What is the government's position on bail? AUSA Domenic Gentile: We are prepared to argue for detention.
Mangione's lawyer Karen Friedman Agnifilo: We consent to detention without prejudice to make a future bail application. .
Jump cut to January 6, 2025 when the US Attorney's Office requested and the Magistrate Judge granted a continuance in the Federal case to February 17, order on Patreon here.
On February 4, death penalty qualified (learned) counsel was appointed for Mangione in SDNY, endorsed letter on Patreon here
On February 12 the US Attorney's Office wrote in to toll the Speedy Trial Act clock for another 30 days, saying Mangione consents, affirmation on Patreon here
In the interim, after some push back, Inner City Press published a book Luigi Mangione Lone Wolf here, audiobook here.
The Federal case is US v. Mangione, 1:24-mj-4375 (Moses)
More / extra on X for Subscribers here and Substack 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
In Florida Disparate United Community Banks Wants ANB But Ignores Lending Disparities
by Matthew R. Lee, Patreon Substack
FEDERAL COURT, Feb 11 – In Florida, United Community Bank is trying to move into the Miami area via merger, with a disparate lending record. Fair Finance Watch with Inner City Press on the FOIA has filed a timely first comment on, the Application by UCB to acquire American National Bank.
But consider United Community Bank's disparate lending record:
In South Carolina in 2023, United Community Banks made 673 mortgage loans to whites with 282 denials. Meanwhile to African Americans in the state it made only FIFTY ONE loans, while denying fully 45 applications.
In Florida in 2023, United Community Banks made 240 mortgage loans to whites with 86 denials. Meanwhile to African Americans in the state it made only TWELVE loans, while denying five applications.
Nationwide, United Community Banks is scarcely better. In 2023 overall it made 5576 mortgage loans to whites with 4114 denials. Meanwhile to African Americans nationwide it made only 477 loans, while denying fully 1246 applications. That is to say, while UCB to whites had more loans then denial, to African Americans it had nearly three times as many denials as of loans.
To this, on February 11 UCB through outside counsel replied that while Fair Finance Watch "cites data for the Bank’s lending in South Carolina, Florida and 'nationwide,' the comment’s assertion that “nationwide” data is relevant is misplaced. The Bank has a Southeastern—not nationwide—mortgage lending footprint consisting of locations in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee." Then, "the Bank’s self-assessments have not revealed any evidence of discriminatory practices." What a surprise. They ignore their disparities.
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
Ed Henry Fox Sex Harassment Case Summary Judgment Arguments Cite Weinstein and Ailes
By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 11 – Jennifer Eckhart and Cathy Areu sued Fox News, Ed Henry, Sean Hannity and others. Their cases have since been severed.
On July 21, 2021 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams held an oral argument. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below (podcast here)
On September 29, on reconsideration, Judge Abrams ruled that "MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Ed Henry. The Court grants Henry's motion for reconsideration with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims, but denies it with respect to the New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b and the hostile work environment statute of limitations arguments. Those claims, together with Plaintiff's claims for sex trafficking pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1591, et seq., and Gender-Motivated Violence pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-903 (2017), shall proceed against Henry. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 9/29/2022)
There were summary judgment arguments on February 11, 2025, in which Harvey Weinstein and Roger Ailes, among others, were cited. Inner City Press live tweeted it here. Judge Abrams said she will rule soon. Watch this site.
Back on September 20, 2022, Judge Abrams dismissed Henry's complaint: "Plaintiff Edward Henry brings this lawsuit for defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference against his former employer Fox News Network LLC and Fox News’ Chief Executive Officer Suzanne Scott. Henry’s claims arise from four statements issued by Fox and Scott that reported on the circumstances of Henry’s termination. The statements indicated that, after receiving a complaint from a former employee against Henry regarding sexual misconduct, Fox retained an outside law firm to conduct an investigation and ultimately terminated Henry based on the findings of that investigation. According to Henry, Defendants’ statements were false because he was not in fact terminated based on the findings of the investigation, but instead to further a narrative that Fox was reforming its culture and in an effort for Scott to advance her career. Moreover, because Fox had permitted other consensual affairs between employees and because he claims that his sexual activity with former Fox Business producer Jennifer Eckhart—who has accused him of sexually assaulting and raping her—was in reality consensual, Henry asserts that Defendants’ statements announcing his termination for “willful sexual misconduct” created the intentionally false impression that his conduct must have been “akin to rape.”
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Henry has failed to plausibly allege that any of Defendants’ statements were false, or that they gave rise to a defamatory inference. His First Amended Complaint (the “complaint”) also lacks factual allegations to sustain his remaining claims for false light/invasion of privacy and tortious interference. The complaint is thus dismissed in its entirety, albeit with leave to amend if Henry has a good faith basis to do so." Full order on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
Back on May 9, 2022 Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein held a discovery proceeding, and Inner City Press live tweeted here:
Fox, represented by Proskauer, wants discovery into Eckhart's mental / emotional distress.
Judge Gorenstein: Are dental procedures relevant?
Proskauer: Plaintiff has put her mental condition at issue but doesn't want to give us HIPAA authorizations.
Fox's lawyer: We want to explore what else caused the emotion distress Plaintiff is alleging. We want gynecological records. We should be able to probe that in discovery.
Eckhart's lawyer: When our client was raped in 2019 she was left with scratches and bruises
Eckhart's lawyer: Rarely does a court order production of nine years of medical records. We are not asking her dentist for records. She had panic attacks and we're getting those records. We can meet and confer.
Eckhart's lawyer: She had a panic attack in Atlanta and we're getting those records, a trauma counselor and a therapist, we don't object to producing that.
Fox's lawyer: This is new information to us. Plaintiff is claiming emotional distress since she met Henry.
Judge Gorenstein: I'm not prepared at this point to say that Defendant is permitted to comb through Plaintiff's primary care medical records. But the plaintiff must go through the record and produce anything having to do with mental. We trust parties to comply.
Jump cut forward to April 22, 2024 when Fox' counsel filed another letter and redacted doctor's declaration asking for Eckhart's medical records going back to 2012, arguing that "accurate assessment of a change in sexual functioning requires adequate knowledge of prior sexual functioning."
As Inner City Press reported first on May 6, the case against NPR and CNN was dismissed with prejudice here.
Another case, Edward Henry v. Fox New Network LLP et al, 21-cv-7299 (Abram) had a proceeding before Judge Abrams on October 28. Inner City Press live tweeted here:
now in Ed Henry v. FOX News and Suzanne Scott, who Henry says turned against him and publicly humiliated him, there's a proceeding
Judge Abrams: I find that a discretionary extension of the time to serve is justified. The Judge Engelmayer case is distinguishable - here, the failure to serve was not willful. Let's talk about next steps. What does FOX News intend to do - a motion to dismiss?
FOX lawyer: Yes, we intend to move to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute and the First Amendment. We'd like a stay of discovery. Ed Henry's lawyer Joel MacMull: The state anti-SLAPP provision for a stay of discovery does not in Federal court
Judge Abrams: Tell me what your thinking is. Ed Henry's lawyer: Let's formulate the briefing schedule. If we choose to amend, we'll contact [Fox lawyer Avi] Weitzman in the first instance.
Weitzman: For a reply, we'd like December 17. Ten days.
Judge Abrams: Have a good day all. Stay safe. We are adjourned.
From July 21, 2021: Fox News' lawyer says that even if Fox knew of prostitution, it would not make out a sex trafficking claim for purposes of Federal jurisdiction. "She hasn't alleged that Mr. Henry coerced anyone into a commercial sex act."
Fox News' lawyer: She alleged Ed Henry had an affair with a Las Vegas stripper. But that is not even workplace conduct.
Judge Abrams: But if he promised to get a woman into an important place to get a job, why isn't that a thing of value?
Judge Abrams: Why can't I consider his text message asking, Why did you turn away today? Fox News' lawyer: Her claims are time barred. Those communications are not sexual. Judge Abrams: Isn't it part of that harassment? Fox News' lawyer: It is too remote in time
Fox News' lawyer: The alleged rape was in 2017. The text is 20 months later. It's too remote. Judge Abrams: There are texts saying, Are you playing hard to get. The Morgan case says it is not too remove-- Fox News' lawyer: I think you're talking about the Sullivan case.
Fox News' lawyer: They were co-workers. Mr. Henry was not a manager. Their first contact was through a private Twitter message. Nor is there a sufficient allegation that Fox knew of Mr. Henry's misconduct. She reported it, three years later.
Judge Abrams: Wasn't she asked, in her exit interview, if she had been sexually harassed? Fox News' lawyer: It is not an admission of knowledge. In this day and age it is common to ask that in an exit interview. To find that way would disincentivize asking
Fox News' lawyer: She concedes in his briefing that when she said toxic workplace, she didn't mention sexual harassment. But we don't have to read her mind.
Fox News' lawyer: She claims that Fox firing Mr. Henry without giving her prior notice was a form of retaliation. She says Fox's Rule 11 motion is also retaliation. That cannot be a cognizable claim. She has already filed and amended. And the motion is authorized
Fox News' lawyer: She says that Mr. Henry's filing, which included intimate photographs, is Fox News' fault. But Fox didn't endorse the filing. Anyway, the Rule 11 motion is against Ms. Area and the firm representing her. I want to defend my honor, about hiring me
Fox News' lawyer: Ms. Areu's case was severed. And hiring me is not an admission -- Judge Abrams: I find those arguments offensive and will not consider them. Fox News' lawyer: Anyway, the statute doesn't apply to images included in a legal pleading.
Ed Henry's lawyer: If he was trying to date someone, that does not support that he was a habitual sex harasser. His statement about putting her in a room with important people was after they had a sexual relationship. Judge Abrams: Before the alleged rape--
Ed Henry's lawyer: There was a relationship, then an offer to help. That cannot be sex trafficking. They had sex. They had a relationship; it continued. You can't just say, it's turned into sex trafficking because they spoke about supporting each other
Ed Henry's lawyer: Maybe he's puffing. But it's not enough. In the Weinstein cases, there are very specific allegations, many meetings before he gets them into a hotel room. In the David case you decided, he suggested she had the film role. That's not this.
Ed Henry's lawyer: There's no need to entice her - he's already in a relationship with her. He's a political anchor. She doesn't talk about politics. Why would she believe she would be on a political show?
Ed Henry's lawyer: The "Yo, why did you turn away" was just a greeting. Mr. Henry cannot be personally liable under these cited statutes because he was not her supervisor. Judge Abrams: What about gender animus? Ed Henry's lawyer: We're not conceding anything.
Ed Henry's lawyer: We were within our right to append the pictures Judge Abrams: Why couldn't you just describe them in writing? Ed Henry's lawyer: We redacted the more intimate sections.
Judge Abrams: I have a hard stop coming up. [So a ruling today is unlikely - Inner City Press will stay on the case(s)
Ms. Eckhart's lawyer cites Bill O'Reilly. Judge Abrams: Under state law, the employer would have to condone or approved. Eckhart's lawyer: They condoned it. Even approved it, by promoting him.
Eckhart's lawyer: My client was told, You're going to face repercussions if you pursue the complaint. Then she was terminated despite her outstanding performance. We didn't plead that Fox asks everyone if they faced harassment, despite what Ms. McKenna said.
Judge Abrams: Why should I read into "toxic environment" that she was alleging protected activity? Eckhart's lawyer: Fox understood that she could have been raising a concern about harassment and discrimination. Judge Abrams: And the sex trafficking claim? Eckhart's lawyer: He made promises to her that were fraudulent. Then he violently attacked her. This is Weinstein-esque. He pushed her head down.
Eckhart's lawyer: I've never seen anything like this, the filing of those photographs. We cited photos of my client handcuffed, not these photographs. This was gratuitous. How can they argue it is a common legal practice?
Judge Abrams: What about the redactions? Eckhart's lawyer: You can see around the thong... Also, when you're raping a woman, that fact that she's a woman obviously has something to do with it.
Eckhart's lawyer: They called Ms. Areu a hot potato. That's not appropriate. Fox News' lawyer: It was the situation created by the Wigdor firm I was referring to. Ed Henry's lawyer: The photos were relevant. Even rape would not make out a sex trafficking case.
Judge Abrams: Well argued on all sides. I will reserve decision. Adjourned.
On April 20, 2021, SDNY Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein held an oral argument as to whether Judge Abrams' stay on discovery should remain in place until Fox's motion to get out of the case is decided. Inner City Press live tweeted it here: (podcast here)
Ed Henry's lawyer: My client is out of a job for months, unable to clear his reputation. The fact that Fox is pointing to document in its system that might help Mr. Henry is not the point. We need the case to move forward. I agree with the plaintiffs on that.
Ed Henry's lawyer: We need the plaintiff's emails, with us and others. Maybe there's a way to limit the nature of the discovery we get as to Fox.
Judge Gorenstein: OK, I'll give Fox a chance to reply. Fox's lawyer: We don't think Fox should be dragged into it
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein: Defendant's argument with dismissal as to it have support. I am sympathetic to Plaintiff's wish to move forward, and Henry's, to try to defend his reputation. But there is not much prejudice, like elderly witnesses...
Judge Gorenstein: As to the breadth of discovery, there are limits to what a third party has to produce, versus a party. Electronic discovery is expensive to re-do. So, I conclude the stay previously ordered by Judge Abrams should remain in place.
So: there will still be a stay on discovery, until Fox's motion to get out of the case is decided.
On October 19, Ed Henry had fired back, including "7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between Ed Henry and Jennifer Eckhart, dated October 21, 2015. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a message, dated January 2, 2016, from Jennifer Eckhart to Ed Henry sending him a “Playlist” of songs via Dropbox. Included in this “Playlist” are songs like “Coffee (Fucking)” (which features the lyrics “Fucking in the morning . . . I’ve never felt comfortable like this . . . Sweet dreams turn into fucking in the morning”) and “Cockiness (Love It When You Eat It)” (which features the lyrics “I want you to be my sex slave . . . Set my whole body on fire”). 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of email correspondence Jennifer Eckhart sent to Ed Henry, dated January 13, 2016, with a link to a picture of a man’s tattoo, as well as a screenshot from that webpage. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibits G-U are true and correct copies of photographs Jennifer Eckhart sent Ed Henry in 2017. In exhibits I, J, M, and Q, Plaintiff’s intimate parts have been purposely obscured. Dated: New York, New York October 19, 2020."
The exhibits was in PACER, and public - then on the morning of October 20, they were not available. Jennifer Eckhard's lawyer wrote in:
"we made an emergency application to the ECF Help Desk to temporarily seal these exhibits pending a formal application to Your Honor, which was granted early this morning. Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 91 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 2 The Honorable Ronnie Abrams October 20, 2020 Page 2 While we expect that Defendant Henry will attempt to draw a false equivalency between the text messages that Plaintiff included in her Amended Complaint in an effort to justify his behavior, there is obviously no comparison between words sent by a party and disseminating nude images of someone to the general public. Indeed, in New York, public dissemination of nude images in this manner is actually unlawful. See N.Y. Penal Law § 245.15. Notably, we are not seeking to redact or seal any of the non-image related exhibits that Defendant Henry filed with his motion to dismiss (notwithstanding the fact that this material is also irrelevant at the motion to dismiss stage). These pictures also represent the type of confidential and sensitive information that are normally sealed in the course of litigations. In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987). Courts have identified particular examples of “higher values.” See e.g., Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2017 WL 1787934, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)"
Will this citation to Maxwell work? On October 22 Ed Henry fired back: "Re: Jennifer Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al., Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-05593 Dear Judge Abrams: We write on behalf of Defendant Edward Henry in response to the October 20, 2020 letter motion filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Eckhart, requesting that this Court seal certain documents filed by Mr. Henry in connection with his motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and for a more definite statement. See Dkt 91. Mr. Henry opposes Plaintiff’s request to seal these documents from the public. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s application should be denied for improper use of the Court’s “Emergency Sealing” process and for her offensive and meritless argument that under New York law the “public dissemination of nude images in this manner is actually unlawful,” citing to New York Penal Law 245.15. (See Plaintiff letter at 2.) In actuality, the Emergency Sealing Request is intended for instances when a party mistakenly files its own confidential information, not to hide from public view documents that the party finds embarrassing. See SDNY Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions § 21.7 (April 1, 2020). Plaintiff, therefore, had no right to seek emergency sealing through the ECF office. Moreover, Plaintiff has no need to seek relief on an emergency basis. In her letter, Plaintiff falsely contends that Mr. Henry did cfoti@maglaw.com (212) 880-9530 October 21, 2020 Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 94 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 4 The Honorable Ronnie Abrams October 21, 2020 2 not inform Plaintiff about the photographs prior to filing. To the contrary, as far back as July, Mr. Henry’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Mr. Henry was in possession of the photographs which we believed proved the fallacy of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff obviously knew the nature of the photographs she had sent Mr. Henry and could have sought relief from their becoming public prior to the filing. She chose not to do so. Her decision instead to utilize the Emergency Sealing mechanism is a blatant misuse of the court system and requires that the temporary stay be lifted immediately."
But the sealing was not lifted. Judge Abrams ruled that since she can't consider such "extrinsic" material on a motions to dismiss, the photos are not judicial documents, at least not for now: "Sealing requests are subject to the test set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). That test requires the Court to first determine whether the documents at issue are “judicial documents” by examining whether they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). If the documents are judicial documents, then a common law presumption of access attaches, and the Court must then consider the weight of that presumption against any “competing considerations.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119–120. In light of the fact that these exhibits were submitted in connection with Defendant Henry’s motion to dismiss, they would generally be considered judicial documents entitled to a presumption of public access. See City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov, No. USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 10-21-20 Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 95 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 2 2 15-CV-5345, 2019 WL 4747654, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (“Documents submitted in support or opposition to a motion to dismiss are judicial documents.”). The Court nevertheless grants the motion to seal the fifteen photographs. Not only do these exhibits contain highly sensitive images that Plaintiff has an understandable interest in keeping private, cf. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“In determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, courts should first consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public.”), but they also constitute extrinsic evidence which this Court is not permitted to consider—and thus should not have been filed—in conjunction with this motion to dismiss. See Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 231 (2d Cir. 2016), see also Kopec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152, 155–56 (2d Cir. 1991). Hence, they are not at this time “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 239. Taken together, these considerations outweigh any presumption of access, and the Court finds that—at this juncture—sealing is appropriate under Lugosch. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exhibits 7–21 of docket entry 85 is GRANTED, albeit without prejudice to an application to unseal the exhibits at an appropriate time. The Court will file these exhibits under seal, visible to only the parties (Jennifer Eckhart, Fox News Network, LLC, Ed Henry, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Howard Kurtz); counsel for the parties; and court staff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 91." Watch this site.
We'll have more on this, too. For now we note that the Guiffre v. [Ghislaine] Maxwell case cited above was cited elsewhere in the SDNY on October 20, in support of sealing or not docketing mere words, letters by Suspicious Activities Report leaker / whistleblower Natalie Edwards, which Inner City Press applied to unseal, October 20 order here.
Ms. Areu says Sean Hannity threw a $100 bill on the set desk and "began calling out to men in the room and demanding that someone take Ms. Areu out on a date for drinks at Del Friscos."
At issue on October 7 was whether the separate the two women's cases. This will be done.
Update: After Inner City Press published the above about the October 7 proceeding, we received the following which we publish in full:
Statement from FOX News on the Cathy Areu amended complaint “As we have maintained, the accusations against Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Howard Kurtz are utterly devoid of merit. Ms. Areu’s allegation that women are not treated equally at FOX News is also provably false and yet another malicious attempt to smear the network with baseless claims. In fact, FOX News has provided more leadership opportunities for women than any other cable news network, including featuring more solo women anchors and hosts on-air and retaining a senior staff comprised of more than 50% female executives.”
Statement from FOX News in response to Wigdor lawsuit filing: “Based on the findings of a comprehensive independent investigation conducted by an outside law firm, including interviews with numerous eyewitnesses, we have determined that all of Cathy Areu’s claims against FOX News, including its management as well as its hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity & Howard Kurtz and its contributor Gianno Caldwell, are false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit. We take all claims of harassment, misconduct and retaliation seriously, promptly investigating them and taking immediate action as needed — in this case, the appropriate action based on our investigation is to defend vigorously against these baseless allegations. Ms. Areu and Jennifer Eckhart can pursue their claims against Ed Henry directly with him, as FOX News already took swift action as soon as it learned of Ms. Eckhart’s claims on June 25 and Mr. Henry is no longer employed by the network.”
The lead case is Eckhart et al v. Fox News Network, LLC et al., 20-cv-5593 (Abrams / Gorenstein)
***
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