Harvey Weinstein is opposing a motion by a model/actress to put discovery in her civil suit on hold pending the outcome of the disgraced producer’s appeal of his criminal conviction for the same 2013 attack against his accuser, calling the woman’s motion “wholly unjustified.”
The plaintiff is identified as Jane Doe No. 1 in the Santa Monica Superior Court lawsuit filed in February 2023, alleging sexual battery, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Doe’s lawyers argue that Judge Elaine Mandel should stay discovery in their client’s case until Weinstein’s criminal case appeal is decided.
A hearing is scheduled for April 25.
“By this motion, plaintiff seeks an order staying discovery pending resolution of Weinstein’s criminal appeal,” Doe’s attorneys state in their court papers. “A stay will avoid potentially inconsistent and confusing rulings, and it may eliminate the need to duplicate discovery and relitigate issues as well as streamline trial testimony regarding Weinstein’s rape of plaintiff.”
After Weinstein has exhausted his appellate rights and if his convictions are affirmed, Doe can use those appellate decisions to establish finality that the sexual assault occurred, rendering liability discovery for the rape moot, Doe’s lawyers further contend.
But in their court papers filed Friday, Weinstein’s attorneys, who include Bill Cosby lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, say Doe’s motion illustrates problems with the plaintiff’s case.
“Plaintiff brought this lawsuit and now refuses to prosecute it,” Weinstein’s lawyers maintain. “Plaintiff should voluntarily withdraw her lawsuit if she wishes to wait for the Court of Appeal to decide the criminal appeal, but either way, plaintiff will have to participate in discovery, including by … sitting for a deposition. This is true irrespective of whether the Court of Appeal affirms (Weinstein’s) conviction.”
Thus, a motion to stay is “wholly unjustified,” Weinstein’s lawyers further maintain in their pleadings.
Doe is “wasting time and resources hoping she can get her pay day without the nuisance of doing real discovery that would reveal that her story of sexual assault is a lie,” according to Weinstein’s attorneys’ court papers, which further state that three jurors from the criminal case gave sworn affidavits stating they would not have convicted the producer if they knew even a portion of the evidence that was withheld from them.
In December 2022, Weinstein, now 72, was convicted of three of the seven criminal counts, forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object, all of which related to Doe. The alleged crimes occurred on or about Feb. 18, 2013, in a Beverly Hills hotel room.
Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison in February 2023.
Weinstein’s attorneys previously filed an answer to the plaintiff’s civil complaint maintaining that Weinstein’s accuser’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that her request for punitive damages is unconstitutional and that her lawsuit should be dismissed.
According to Doe’s suit, she attended a film festival and alleges that Weinstein came to her hotel room unexpectedly after she attended events that day.
“After he was done raping her, he acted as if nothing out of the ordinary happened and left,” the plaintiff’s court papers allege.
Doe did not report the attack until 2017, when she had a talk with her daughter, during a time when Weinstein was at the forefront of the #metoo movement, according to her attorneys’ court papers.