Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attends a ceremony in Zuccotti Park, organized by the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, on the 19th Anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York, NY, September 11, 2020 (Anthony Behar/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday ordered Rudy Giuliani to attend a contempt hearing after two Georgia election workers accused him of violating court orders and repeatedly flouting discovery obligations.
On Thursday, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman to hold the former New York City mayor in contempt and impose sanctions.
In a motion and accompanying 22-page memorandum of law, the pair explained how they have lost their patience as they seek to enforce the multimillion-dollar judgment in their defamation case against him.
With due haste – and before Giuliani was able to file a response to the contempt and sanctions request – Liman ordered the parties to attend a civil contempt hearing slated for the morning of Jan. 3, 2025.
The judge also set a briefing schedule – but suggested any motions practice related to the upcoming hearing is optional.
“Defendant shall file a memorandum in response to the motion no later than December 19, 2024,” the court’s terse, one-page order reads. “Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in reply no later than December 27, 2024. Any untimely filings will be disregarded.”
In yesterday’s harshly-worded filing, Freeman and Moss asked for a double whammy of sorts. Their memo says they want Giuliani punished with a contempt finding and concomitant contempt sanction – and separate sanctions related to discovery violations.
In December 2023, Freeman and Moss won a $148 million default defamation verdict over a campaign against the women in which Giuliani falsely proclaimed the pair were engaged in fraud and had “cheated” voters during the 2020 presidential election.
The pair have since been engaged in various forms of litigation to avail their monetary interests against the onetime federal prosecutor — including a recent series of Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) aimed at prying away relevant financial information.
The plaintiffs say Giuliani has not been forthcoming — even after two consecutive Liman-issued orders regarding those requests.
Those orders were issued by the court on Oct. 28, and Nov. 22. The first order directed the defendant to expediently reply to discovery requests and set deadlines for such replies. After the first deadline was missed, the court set another deadline for Giuliani to explain himself and avoid being held in contempt. After that second deadline whooshed by, Freeman and Moss asked Liman to step back in.
“Mr. Giuliani has not produced a single document in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery orders in this matter notwithstanding multiple orders from this Court requiring him to do so,” the memo reads.
The filing notes some urgency in the request because of an upcoming trial related to a sub-issue in the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain the money they are owed. Currently, there is a dispute as to whether or not Giuliani established a homestead on his Palm Beach apartment in Florida before the creditors fixed a lien on the property.
Giuliani is scheduled to be deposed on Dec. 27; discovery closes on Dec. 31; the trial is slated for Jan. 16, 2025.
“The Court should not permit Mr. Giuliani to delay accountability, especially in the context of a judgment-enforcement action, which this Court has acknowledged ‘should move quickly’ and not be ‘extended’ or ‘lengthy,”” the Thursday motion reads. “Permitting Mr. Giuliani additional time to obfuscate in response to unambiguous discovery orders — especially when he has not provided any indicia of an attempt to comply — risks jeopardizing an already justifiably compressed time frame.”
Freeman and Moss say they need discovery to help with that case. Not convinced they will receive the requested documents, however, they want the court to sanction Giuliani separately for the discovery violations.
“The Court also should sanction Mr. Giuliani for failing to obey multiple discovery orders,” the motion continues. “Here, severe discovery sanctions are warranted given Mr. Giuliani’s willful flouting of multiple orders of this Court, his history of refusing to participate in discovery even in the face of possible sanctions, and his conscious disregard of the inevitable consequence of his conduct.”
The Freeman-Moss filing argues that there is much to discuss or debate about Giuliani’s discovery-related conduct so far.
“Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the only colorable issue before the Court is not whether to apply Rule 37 sanctions, but rather what type of sanction to impose,” the motion goes on. “Mr. Giuliani’s conduct necessitates severe sanctions — in particular, adverse inferences and preclusion.”
While pre-hearing motions are technically optional, the judge made clear that the format of the hearing will, in substantial part, be dictated by what the parties choose to submit.
“With their filings in response to the motion for civil contempt, the parties shall indicate whether they wish the Court to hear evidence or testimony on January 3, 2025 and shall submit any physical exhibits they wish the Court to consider in connection with the motion for civil contempt,” the order concludes.
The former federal prosecutor who hitched his wagon to pro-Donald Trump conspiracy theories in the wake of the latter’s 2020 election loss has put himself under increasing legal jeopardy in the defamation case in recent days and weeks.
Late last month, Liman ordered Giuliani to deliver all of the property owed to Freeman and Moss — which the creditors claim was “secreted away” — by Dec. 9, or face the “pain of contempt.”
Giuliani also faces contempt in a D.C.-based case related to claims that he has continued to defame the duo even in defeat.
