Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

[Sterngard Friegen]

Cohen and Trump file their opposition and objections to plaintiff's evidence.

Bottom line: they* did an excellent job. There is no doubt in my mind Avenatti's motion will be denied. It's not even close.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

A sample:

The instant motion by plaintiff Stephanie Clifford (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Clifford”) improperly seeks to re-litigate the same issues the Court decided against her in its order staying this action (the “Stay Order”). The “new” facts relied upon by Plaintiff do nothing to change the Court’s conclusion in the Stay Order regarding defendant Michael Cohen’s (“Mr. Cohen”) critical importance to this case. The Court held: “…as the alleged mastermind behind the Agreement and the person with the most direct knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding its formation, [Mr. Cohen’s] testimony would be indispensable to the disposition of this action.” [Stay Order, p. 7, ECF No. 53.] (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff’s “new” facts consist entirely of out-of-court statements by defendant Donald J. Trump (“Mr. Trump”) and his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, pertaining to events that occurred well after execution of the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Agreement”). These statements have no bearing on the facts and circumstances surrounding the formation of the Agreement. Thus, Plaintiff’s “new” facts are irrelevant to the Court’s findings in the Stay Order and do not warrant its reconsideration.

ECF 57, p. 4 (p. 1 from internal numbering).

Defense counsel also commented on Avenatti's publicity tour, but Judge Otero won't care.

[NMgirl]

Cohen and Trump file their opposition and objections to plaintiff's evidence.

Bottom line: they* did an excellent job. There is no doubt in my mind Avenatti's motion will be denied. It's not even close.

As always, docs are much appreciated.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Avenatti has filed his reply in support of his motion to reconsider the order granting a stay, and a response to the evidentiary objections to his evidentiary submission. Unimpressive.

As to the reply, Avenatti ignores the fact that Trump has said he needs to take Cohen's deposition. Avenatti just trundles ahead explaining why he won't need to take Cohen's deposition to pursue the first cause of action. In other words, the motion is doomed and Avenatti doesn't have the guts (or integrity) to withdraw it. But I will enjoy the slap down. I expect it will be more gentle than is warranted.

As to the response to the evidentiary objections, there may be some relevance to the statements, but who really cares. The statements don't obviate Trump's argument that he needs Cohen's testimony. And that Cohen ain't talking.

[Reality Check]

Thanks much for the documents Stern.

[Sterngard Friegen]

I do it for the children the schadenfreude. And in this case there is plenty to go around, including for Avenatti. (It's like rooting for a 0-0 tie with lots of injuries in a football game of two teams you really dislike.)

[Sterngard Friegen]

The Court's order, ECF 55, states: "The hearing on the Motion shall be set for Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are advised that due to potential conflicts with the Court’s calendar the hearing may be advanced to an earlier day that same week."

The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers. I don't see what's left to argue beyond what the parties put in their papers. Except maybe to ask Cohen's attorneys on the 21st if he's changed his mind.

[Res Ipsa]

The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers.

You literally took the words right out of my mouth. Unless Otero has something else to say to counsel, I can't see why a hearing is needed on this one.

[Sterngard Friegen]

The Court's order, ECF 55, states: "The hearing on the Motion shall be set for Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are advised that due to potential conflicts with the Court’s calendar the hearing may be advanced to an earlier day that same week."

The motion Avenatti filed is so insubstantial that I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Otero took it off calendar and decided on the papers. I don't see what's left to argue beyond what the parties put in their papers. Except maybe to ask Cohen's attorneys on the 21st if he's changed his mind.

Judge Otero seems to agree:

62

Jun 18, 2018

The Court finds the following motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing on the MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Stay Case, 53 filed by Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford [ECF #56], set for June 21, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). No appearance is required. The briefing schedule remains as set by Local Rule. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/18/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Text Only Scheduling Notice

[Sterngard Friegen]

Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!

[Dan1100]

Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!

Failure Is the Only Option

A series premise that allows the heroes or the villains to win minor battles along the way but prevents them from ever truly winning their overall "war" and achieving the Series Goal without ending or completely changing the series. They can't win, because then, of course, it would end the series.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... OnlyOption

[SLQ]

Reconsideration denined.

Hold me, Martha!

Failure Is the Only Option

A series premise that allows the heroes or the villains to win minor battles along the way but prevents them from ever truly winning their overall "war" and achieving the Series Goal without ending or completely changing the series. They can't win, because then, of course, it would end the series.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... OnlyOption

Gillian’s island

[Sterngard Friegen]

Summary of ruling: Not even close.

And this wrist slap:

In closing, the Court again counsels against the unjustified use of "extraordinary" procedural mechanisms to advance the case. Absent a compelling showing of good cause, the Court will not permit the parties to displace other litigants or violate the Court's rules. While the Court is cognizant of the amount of media attention in this case, this alone is insufficient to create the exigency required for extraordinary relief. If anything, the heightened scrutiny on this action requires that the Court ensure that the rules are scrupulously followed and that justice is administered properly and with due regard to the rights of all parties involved.

ECF 63, p. 5.

[tek]

Stormy's comin' to town!
https://www.masslive.com/expo/life_and_ ... niels.html

Q: What will the Mardi Gras shows be like?
A: It's a strip bar. And she's a porn star.
This is not a show for children or those offended by nudity.

[Res Ipsa]

The Court held that while it "is undeniable that Plaintiff has a valid interest in the prompt resolution of her claims,"
Plaintiff "has not established that she has actually been deterred from speaking, or that a delay in
proceedings would cause undue prejudice."

Who does that Judge think he is?

This poor woman has only been able to do an Anderson Cooper interview, a Saturday Night Live appearance, and numerous live shows. She must be allowed to speak personally with every American door-to-door!

[Sterngard Friegen]

The Court held that while it "is undeniable that Plaintiff has a valid interest in the prompt resolution of her claims,"
Plaintiff "has not established that she has actually been deterred from speaking, or that a delay in
proceedings would cause undue prejudice."

Who does that Judge think he is?

This poor woman has only been able to do an Anderson Cooper interview, a Saturday Night Live appearance, and numerous live shows. She must be allowed to speak personally with every American door-to-door!

Or bedroom to bedroom.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Avenatti files his opposition to the ex parte order to shut him up. His arguments:

Defendant Michael Cohen’s (“Mr. Cohen”) request for a gag order restricting the speech of Michael Avenatti (“Mr. Avenatti”), counsel for plaintiff Stephanie Clifford (“Plaintiff”), must be denied. Mr. Cohen seeks to impose a prior restraint on speech, the most highly disfavored and extraordinary remedy curtailing First Amendment rights under the law. This remedy carries a heavy burden and one that Mr. Cohen fails to satisfy.

First, Mr. Cohen’s request is premature. The focus of a gag order is on prejudice that may result to a party with regards to obtaining a fair trial due to the prejudicial impact from publicity on local jurors. Here, however, there is no jury or jury trial. Indeed, there is presently no active case because of the stay sought and obtained by Defendants over Plaintiff’s objection. As a result, the threshold requirement for a gag order does not exist. Indeed, there can be no serious and “imminent” threat to Mr. Cohen’s right to a fair trial. And in any event, Mr. Cohen fails to establish that his negative press coverage will cease to exist if a gag order is issued given the media’s intense interest in this lawsuit.

Second, Mr. Cohen fails to address why “less restrictive alternatives” to a gag order are unavailable. The Court has at its disposal a variety of tools to ensure that the jury pool will not be tainted. Mr. Cohen does not address any of these less restrictive alternatives.

Third, Mr. Cohen’s proposed order is not narrowly drawn. It is overbroad by sweeping in matters that are routinely public record in all civil cases, and by conflating prohibitions on discussing this case with discussing the criminal proceedings in New York, which cannot be restricted. It also creates confusion over what is permissible and what is not permissible, which ultimately creates additional burdens on the Court to address serial disputes between the parties.

The gag order motion will be denied, but Avenatii has not endeared himself with Judge Otero.

[Foggy]

Defendant Michael Cohen’s (“Mr. Cohen”) request for a gag order restricting the speech of Michael Avenatti (“Mr. Avenatti”), counsel for plaintiff Stephanie Clifford (“Plaintiff”) ...

Because without all the quotation marks and parentheses, the judge would have no idea who Cohen and Avenatti were, nor who the plaintiff is. Legalese at its most insipid.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Today's latest filing. Despite the compendium of behavior by Avenatti in the reply, Judge Otero will almost certainly not enter a gag order.

I guess we can chalk that up as a win for Avenatti. Along with his being flown around in a private plane and vacationing in the nicest spots.

And you-know-who wrote the reply.

[Dan1100]

The Seth MacFarlane of the legal profession.

Can't wait for Ted 3.

[SLQ]

Today's latest filing. Despite the compendium of behavior by Avenatti in the reply, Judge Otero will almost certainly not enter a gag order.

I guess we can chalk that up as a win for Avenatti. Along with his being flown around in a private plane and vacationing in the nicest spots.

And you-know-who wrote the reply.

Do tell. Did she try (too late) to meet the TRO elements in the reply? (I'll have to read it later.)

[SLQ]

Probably doesn't help that Cohen invoked the tee vee talking heads over the weekend.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Gag order denied.

Judge Otero's recitation of the factual assertions at pp. 1-3 is precious.

Michael Avenatti has also become an object of derision in Judge Otero's courtroom. From the Order (ECF 74) at p. 6:

While the Court shares Judge Wood's concerns about the extent and manner of Mr. Avenatti's publicity tour, the rights and issues involved in this action are far less consequential than the potential criminal prosecution in New York. If Ms. Clifford succeeds in invalidating the agreement between herself, Mr. Trump, and EC, Mr. Cohen suffers no identifiable loss.1 In fact, EC may even be entitled to a return of the $130,000 allegedly paid by Mr. Cohen to Ms. Daniels on its behalf. (See First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 27, ECF No. 14.) The sole cause of action asserted against Mr. Cohen in his personal capacity is a claim for defamation, which must survive Defendant's Motion to Strike and many other hurdles before a trial can even be contemplated. (See Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 31.) It is clear that Mr. Cohen's worry is not about the effect of the publicity on this litigation, but the effect of the publicity surrounding this action on the SDNY Action. While this is a valid concern, this Court does not have the constitutional authority to impose a gag order on an attorney due to the potential effect of his comments on a proceeding outside the Court's jurisdiction. [Emphasis added.]

The Court also went out of its way to continue the stay for another 45 days.

Yet another dormant case from which Avenatti can not legitimately milk any publicity -- for now.

[Till Eulenspiegel]

Will we have discovery now ?

[Reality Check]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Dan1100]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.