by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 1 – In the sexual harassment case of Charlotte Bennett against Andrew Cuomo a discovery conference was held on October 1 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. Inner City Press live tweeted it - thread:
Counsel: We're talking 4000 text messages. Proportionality is the gold standard in determining discovery. Anything additional would be of only marginal value. Yes, one of the photos was redacted... Judge: I thought there were more redactions.
Counsel: We have not seen black-box redactions. As a matter of law, text message chains are a single document. We have a protective order here - there is no burden in producing them. We've only gotten 400 of 4000 pages
Melissa DeRosa's counsel Sulkowski: The omission of pages of a text chain is a redaction - Judge: That is not a good argument, Ms. Sulkowski. But we do need to ask Ms. [Lillia] McEnaney to produce the videos. McEnaney's lawyer: We have to watch each video
Judge: I regret it's a burden, but it has to be done. Can you complete review and production by the end of the month? McEnaney's lawyer: No. She has a full time job. There are 100s of videos. And I am the managing partner of a small law firm.
Judge: I'm going to give her a month to do it. October 31. If you end of needing more, you can apply to me. McEnaney's lawyer: I hope the product is worth the emotional distress my client will feel. She had a panic attack. Judge: I regret it. But you must produce
Charlotte Bennett's lawyer: The defendants have delayed, they have made us pay for all the re-imaging of the multiple iPhones. We have spend 100s of lawyer hours going through the materials and videos. We want this to move forward. The defendants want to delay...Cuomo's lawyer: Ms. Bennett knew she would have to produce discovery. It is not just a technical problem. We want to correct the public record why we have had to expend resources - it is NOT because we are weaponizing the judicial system, that impugns our client
Cuomo's lawyer: We want to depose Ms. Bennett before the end of the year - and for that, she will have to complete discovery production by the end of October. This is frustrating. Judge: I understand. By the end of October. Bennett's lawyer: We have worked hard
Judge: No one has explicitly asked for an extension of discovery and I'm not giving one out. We don't need to have every document in order to do the depositions. Let's calendar them. DeRosa's lawyer: Plaintiff's counsel is interfering- Bennett's lawyer: We object
Judge: You have to get through this case together. Be nice. I know the parties despise each other Cuomo's lawyer: We remain concerned about plaintiff's counsel's statements to the press. I am not specifically seeking a gag order but I want to raise it as an issue
Cuomo's lawyer: It's an attempt to prejudice our client. Judge: No relief is being sought. We are adjourned. Inner City Press will continue to cover the cases- The case is Bennett v. Cuomo, et al., 1:22-cv-07846 (Broderick / Cave)
***
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
