Gottwald V Sebert Opposition To OSC Re: Sanctions and Contempt

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/05/2019 09:52 PM INDEX NO.
653118/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2259 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/05/2019
SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a DR. LUKE,

KASZ MONEY, INC., and PRESCRIPTION
Index No. 653118/2014
SONGS, LLC,
Hon. Jennifer Schecter
Plaintiffs,
Part 54
- against -
KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Defendant. Motion Seq. No. 48
KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
- against -
LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a DR. LUKE,

KASZ MONEY, INC., and PRESCRIPTION
SONGS, LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Counterclaim-Defendants.
NON-PARTIES MARK GERAGOS AND GERAGOS & GERAGOS A.P.C.’S

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT
1 of 27
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/05/2019 09:52 PM INDEX NO. 653118/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................4
A. Mr. Geragos’ efforts to protect Kesha from Dr. Luke’s smear campaign. ..............4
B. Dr. Luke sues the Geragos Non-Parties...................................................................6
C. Dr. Luke subpoenas Kesha’s litigation counsel for documents...............................7
D. The Court denies Dr. Luke’s request for contempt sanctions..................................8
LEGAL DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................9
I. THERE IS NO CONTEMPT OF THE COURT’S ORDER ...............................................9
A. The Geragos Non-Parties did not violate an “unequivocal mandate” to
produce the documents at issue................................................................................9
B. Mr. Geragos did not provide false testimony.........................................................13
C. Dr. Luke has suffered no prejudice........................................................................17
D. No sanctions are warranted....................................................................................18
E. No forensic examination is warranted. ..................................................................19
2 of 27
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Bronston v. U.S.,
409 U.S. 352 (1973)................................................................................................................. 15
Brummer v. Wey,
No. 153583/2015, 2019 WL 3891177 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2019) .................................... 21
Buxbaum v. Castro,
82 A.D.3d 925 (2d Dep’t 2011) ............................................................................................... 19
CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,

23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 16, 17
Dunlop Dev. Corp. v. Spitzer,

26 A.D.3d 180 (1st Dep’t 2006) .............................................................................................. 18
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan,
26 N.Y.3d 19 (2015) ...................................................................................................... 9, 10, 13
Encore I, Inc. v. Kabcenell,

2016 WL 6680456 at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Nov. 4, 2016) ........................................................... 20
Flores v. Velez,
111 A.D.3d 599 (2nd Dep’t 2013) ........................................................................................... 13
Gottlieb v. Gottlieb,
137 A.D.3d 614 (1st Dep’t 2016) ...................................................................................... 18, 19
Gottwald v. Geragos,
172 A.D.3d 445 (1st Dep’t 2019) ........................................................................................ 7, 14
Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. Big Box Store Ltd.,

2014 WL 904595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014) ............................................................................. 20
Lifeng Chen v. New Trend Apparel, Inc.,

2012 WL 4784855 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2012) ............................................................................ 19
Matter of N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Librizzi,

106 A.D.3d (2nd Dep’t 2013) ............................................................................................ 12, 21
Orent v. Bloomberg LP,

No. 156958/2017, 2019 WL 2559398 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jun. 17, 2019) ..................................... 12
Parklex Associates v. Parklex Associates, Inc.,

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) ............................................................................................................... 18
ii
3 of 27
Paul v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.,

295 A.D.2d 982 (4th Dep’t 2002)............................................................................................ 12
People v. Siggia,
163 A.D.2d 113 (1st Dep’t 1990) ...................................................................................... 14, 15
Statutory Authorities
N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 3101(h) ................................................................................................... 13
N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 3120(2) ................................................................................................... 11
Other Authorities
Connors, Supplementary Practice Commentaries Civil Practice Laws and Rules §3101
(McKinney 2014)...................................................................................................................... 13
iii
4 of 27
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Luke’s contempt motion is a baseless and prima facie bad faith effort to further his
long-standing campaign to disparage Kesha in this Court and in the media by branding her, and
now her former counsel, as a liar in order to avoid the consequences of his years of abuse. This
motion, predicated on trumped-up charges of “perjury” and “contempt,” is just the latest in a long
line of Dr. Luke’s vexatious scorched-earth litigation tactics against numerous adversaries. As a
serial defamation plaintiff who has sued no fewer than eleven defendants for reputational harm,
Dr. Luke is no stranger to using litigation to silence his critics. Just as the Court summarily rejected
Dr. Luke’s attempts to discredit Kesha’s mother and her manager, so too should it reject this
transparent attempt to discredit her former lawyer.
This is perhaps Dr. Luke’s most egregious tactic yet—harassing his adversary’s former
counsel in this litigation with scurrilous and scattershot accusations as part of an attempt to concoct
a fictional defamatory scheme against him, and thus far wielded by him in attempt to undermine
and distract from Kesha’s highly credible claim that he drugged and raped her when she was only
18. Dr. Luke wants everyone’s credibility except for his in doubt, so he bends over backwards to
call Kesha and those who support her a liar. To that end, Dr. Luke frivolously accuses an attorney
of perjury—without even quoting the actual testimony he alleges is perjurious, because the actual
testimony doesn’t support him. In fact, Mr. Geragos’ testimony is a literally true response to a
badly phrased question by Dr. Luke's counsel and does not constitute perjury, much less a false
statement. Equally meritless is Dr. Luke’s contempt claim: the documents he claims Geragos &
Geragos (“G&G”) failed to produce in this case were not produced for the simple reason that they
are not responsive to Dr. Luke's subpoena, not because, as Dr. Luke allegedly believed, they were
“spoliated.” Accordingly, there is no contempt of the Court’s order compelling a response.
5 of 27
The sex abuse case that is currently before the Court is a classic “me too” case. In fact,
many attribute Kesha’s brave undertaking as the genesis of the #metoo movement. Mr. Geragos
defended Kesha for years from Dr. Luke’s war on her in the courts and the press. After Mr.
Geragos concluded his representation, he transferred his files to lawyers at O’Melveny & Myers
and believed he was done with this case and went on to advocate for other clients. He then got hit
with a subpoena brimming with document and testimony requests this Court called “utterly
irrelevant” and “overbroad.” Had the Court considered whether discovery of a former litigation
counsel was appropriate under the now-governing standard, Mr. Geragos correctly would have not
been subject to any discovery. Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v. Gulf Oil, L.P., 164 A.D.3d
401,405-407 (1st Dep’t 2018) (depositions of counsel are “offensive to our conception of the
adversarial process”). After he was deposed once and then called back for a second deposition,
Mr. Geragos did exactly what the Court required, refreshed his recollection, and testified for
another day. Eighteen months passed with no word from Dr. Luke that the Geragos Non-Parties
did anything wrong. And that’s because the Geragos Non-Parties fully complied with the Court’s
order for a second deposition.
This motion, based on some alleged overlap between discovery in this case and his suit
against Mr. Geragos relating to Lady Gaga, reflects only Dr. Luke’s desperation to change the
music being played on the merits before Your Honor. In that vein, Dr. Luke’s assertion that he
does not “bring this motion lightly” is patently disingenuous. Dkt. 2230 (“Br.”) 1. It is self-evident
from his groundless “perjury” accusations that he has done just that.
Dr. Luke’s motion proceeds as follows: (1) he claims Mr. Geragos testified that G&G
deleted virtually all responsive documents; (2) he claims this was recently proven false when G&G
produced emails with members of the media or containing press clippings in Dr. Luke’s separate
6 of 27
defamation case involving Lady Gaga; and (3) he claims the Geragos Non-Parties should,
therefore, be held in contempt, sanctioned, and subject to a forensic examination at their expense.
Each of these premises is gravely flawed. Mr. Geragos never testified that G&G deleted all
responsive documents. The emails G&G produced in the other case are not responsive to Dr.
Luke’s subpoena here. Accordingly, there is no violation of the Court’s order compelling a
response to the subpoena, no “perjury to conceal” documents, and no justification for an invasive
forensic examination.
The testimony Dr. Luke calls “perjury”—but which he tellingly never quotes—is that Mr.
Geragos agreed with Dr. Luke’s counsel’s leading question that it was his view “more documents”
were “probably” not produced because of G&G’s processes for periodically deleting emails.
However, this testimony is not false, let alone “perjury.” In fact, the testimony is not even an
unequivocal statement that G&G deleted emails with the media—documents that were not
responsive to the subpoena—but instead means only more responsive documents were probably
not produced because they could have been deleted through routine deletion procedures.
And yet Dr. Luke for years has feigned a belief that Mr. Geragos testified to “auto-deleting”
(a term he didn’t even utter) and “spoliating” documents—even though Dr. Luke has been
repeatedly informed, including prior to the close of discovery in this case, that he was laboring
under a misapprehension of the testimony and Mr. Geragos did not testify to spoliation. G&G’s
production of emails with the press in the other case is not some great revelation that there was no
spoliation. Rather, it is merely pretext for a motion transparently designed to inflict further damage
on Kesha and her former counsel by impugning their credibility with accusations of “perjury.”
Finally, the dozen emails with the media and other emails containing press clippings G&G
produced in the Lady Gaga case are not responsive to the subpoena here. Rather than propound
7 of 27
simple requests asking for emails with the press, Dr. Luke now—two years after the Court ordered
him to “promptly” address any alleged deficiencies in third party productions—attempts to
shoehorn such documents into requests that nowhere mention the press. Instead, Dr. Luke falsely
characterizes Mr. Geragos’ responses to his attacks on Kesha in the press as part of a scheme to
terminate Dr. Luke’s contracts. That is Dr. Luke’s version of events—but a document demand
that incorporates his mischaracterization of facts lacks foundation and fails to give reasonable
notice he was seeking emails with members of the media. There thus can be no contempt because
the Court’s order requiring G&G to “respond” to the requests—like the requests themselves—
never mentioned emails with the media; there is thus neither a violation of the order, nor was the
order an “unequivocal mandate” (Br. 16) to produce such documents, which is required for a
contempt finding. Accordingly, there is no basis for sanctions or a further document production.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Mr. Geragos’ efforts to protect Kesha from Dr. Luke’s smear campaign.
Dr. Luke claims the documents at issue on this motion are a dozen emails with members
of the media and emails among Kesha’s legal and public relations team circulating press clippings
he alleges reflect a plan and efforts by Kesha and the Geragos Non-Parties “to destroy [his]
reputation and business through a coordinated media campaign.” Br. 3. But that is Dr. Luke’s
version of events (and one, as discussed in detail later, he now attempts to bake-into document
requests he says were not complied with).
Mr. Geragos testified, however, that his communications with the press were a direct
response to attempts by Dr. Luke, Dr. Luke’s counsel of record, and his crisis manager, Michael
Sitrick of Sitrick and Company, to “defame [his] client” Kesha, to “slam [his] client,” to “accuse
[his] client of extortion,” and to “poison[] the well” in the court of public opinion. See Movit Aff.
Ex. 2 at 404:24-405:11; see also id. 111:17-25.
8 of 27
Dr. Luke, for his part, admits to hiring Sitrick. See Dkt. 2081 at 445:22-446:4. Sitrick is
a self-described “practitioner[] of the dark arts of public relations” who touts his “aggressiveness”
and “ability to play the media to his client’s advantage.” 12/5/19 Affirmation of Cory D. Struble
(“Struble Aff.), Ex. 3. The Financial Times called him “The spin doctor’s spin doctor.” Id. Dr.
Luke also cannot deny that his litigation counsel, Ms. Lepera, fed numerous statements to the
media over the years denigrating Kesha and her claims that Dr. Luke raped her. E.g., 12/5/19
Affidavit of Mark Geragos (“Geragos Aff.”) ¶¶7-8; Dkts.1109-1112, 1916, 1950, 2016, 2025,
2027, 2029, 2030, see also Dkt. 1094 at 4-5.
Such statements began the day this lawsuit started. Asked whether he provided “TMZ
with a copy of the complaint before it was filed,” Mr. Geragos responded, “all the TMZ work was
done by your client, Sitrick. He is the one who had the relationship with Harvey [Levin at TMZ]
and was giving Harvey all the information. At least that’s what I was told that same day, that …
Sitrick had given Harvey the New York complaint, and Sitrick had spun the story pro Luke on that
first day.” Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 158:4-22, 416:9-417:25. Mr. Geragos was constrained to respond
to Dr. Luke’s public statements repeatedly. See id. 407:25-408:13 (“when your firm filed the
lawsuit the same day and started going on the offensive with Sitrick, that caused a firestorm of
media. So, there was responses”); id., 409:8-409:13 (“I don’t think I did any press on that day
until after … your firm hired Sitrick, and your firm issued statements. I don’t think there was any
press done prior”).
Mr. Geragos also testified to his knowledge that, throughout the lawsuit, “Sitrick was
actively leaking and planting stories and things of that nature.” Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 112:9-17.
When asked about specific press statements, Mr. Geragos explained he was constrained to respond
after Sitrick or Dr. Luke’s counsel had defamed Kesha in the press. See id. 293:18-294:5 (“I think
9 of 27
it was after … the Sitrick offensive”); 389:16-25 (“It’s right after your firm started claiming that
she was committing extortion … I generally don’t let opposing counsel say that my clients
committed crimes and let them go unresponded to.”); 403:2-10 (“I remember responding to Ms.
Lepera’s statements. She was circulating all kinds of statements”); 353:18-354:14 (“It looks to me
like Ms. Lepera was probably acting as a source and being quoted on this, is my guess.”).
Against this record, Dr. Luke plays victim. Br. 5-6. He claims Mr. Geragos filed a “Sham
Complaint” in California shortly before Dr. Luke filed this case the same day. Id. 5. But it is for
the finder of fact to decide whose case is the “sham”—not Dr. Luke. He says the “sham complaint”
was designed to “to pressure Plaintiffs to release Defendant” from contracts. Id. He then claims
Mr. Geragos conspired with others to create a “a so-called ‘Press Plan’” to incite “negative media
attention and public pressure,” a “plan” he says was “effectuate[d]” by “repeat[ing] … false
accusations against [Dr. Luke] in countless public forums.” Id. Yet, Dr. Luke never accounts for
the fact that his own horrific abuse of Kesha, perpetuated still further by the actions of Sitrick and
his counsel in the press, necessitated responses to protect Kesha from Dr. Luke’s attempt to
assassinate her character and discredit her claims. Geragos Aff. ¶¶6-9.
Dr. Luke also attempts to impugn another lawyer for Kesha, Mr. Meiselas, by claiming he
purportedly “falsely testified” to “conceal” press activities. Br. 6 & n. 4. That is not true.
Testifying about events that were at that point 2-3 years old, he stated only that he was “not sure”
whether G&G retained Sunshine Sachs, but it was “possible.” Dkt. 1724 at 226:17-227:7. The
brief affidavit he later submitted regarding Sunshine Sachs, Dkt. 1117, was obviously the hardly
unusual result of refreshing his recollection.
B. Dr. Luke sues the Geragos Non-Parties.
Not content to go to war in the press, Dr. Luke waged war against Mr. Geragos in the
courts, suing him personally for defamation (after having sued Kesha, her mother (twice), and her
10 of 27
manager). Dr. Luke is no stranger to using defamation litigation against his critics, having sued
no fewer than eleven defendants in seven cases between 2008-2014. Struble Aff. ¶10. In early
December 2014, less than two months after this case had been pending, Dr. Luke sued the Geragos
Non-Parties in New York State Supreme Court for defamation (the “Gaga Case”).
Shortly before then, Mr. Geragos had been quoted in the press stating his belief that other
women who had been abused by Dr. Luke would come forward. On December 2, 2014, recording
artist Stefani Germanotta, p/k/a Lady Gaga, gave a radio interview in which she disclosed she had
been raped and, while she did not name the perpetrator, she indicated the man was a record
producer. She also disclosed the unnamed man was much older than she, and she was raped at
about the same age and around the same time Kesha claims Dr. Luke raped her. Dr. Luke sued
after Mr. Geragos “tweeted” about the interview for allegedly suggesting it was Dr. Luke.
That case is ongoing, but has been largely stalled as a result of Dr. Luke’s scorched-earth
refusal to participate in discovery. For nearly two years, Dr. Luke refused to respond to virtually
every discovery request the Geragos Non-Parties served, including any documents regarding his
pre-existing reputation for sexual misconduct (against Kesha and others), claiming, on the one
hand, there were no such claims, and on the other hand, such claims should not be discoverable.
Both Supreme Court and the First Department disagreed, the latter dismissing his appeal in a two-
sentence decision calling his arguments “unavailing.” Gottwald v. Geragos, 61 Misc.3d 1214(A),
2018 WL 5624349 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2018); Gottwald v. Geragos, 172 A.D.3d 445, 446 (1st
Dep’t 2019).
C. Dr. Luke subpoenas Kesha’s litigation counsel for documents.
The Geragos Non-Parties concluded their representation of Kesha in May of 2016 and
turned over the entire case file to Kesha’s new counsel around the same time. Dkt. 634 ¶10 (2/2/17
Affirmation of Tina Glandian). That December, Dr. Luke served G&G with a subpoena duces
11 of 27
tecum (“SDT”) (Dkt. 635) commanding the production of documents and a subpoena ad
testificandum (“SAT”) (Dkt. 672) for G&G to provide testimony. In February 2017, G&G moved
to quash both.
The Court struck five of the ten document requests as “utterly irrelevant” or “overbroad.”
Dkt. 795 at 2-3 (the “Discovery Order”). The Court likewise struck as “utterly irrelevant or
overbroad” six of the deposition topics. Id. 4. The Court did not evaluate the subpoenas under the
standard subsequently set forth in the First Department’s Liberty Petroleum decision, but instead
reasoned, contrary to Liberty Petroleum, that it is “not a valid objection that information available
from other sources is being sought from a non-party.” Dkt. 795 at 1-2; but see. 164 A.D.3d at 406
(discovery not available from litigation counsel unless “the information is not available from
another source.”).
As to the SDT, the Court ordered that G&G “shall respond to demands 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10.”
Id. 2. The Court did not comment further on the latter four document requests, other than to
observe they sought “documents that include third-parties, i.e., parties outside of the attorney/client
relationship.” See id.
G&G completed its document production on April 5, 2017. 12/5/19 Affidavit of Tina
Glandian (“Glandian Aff.”), Ex. 3. Though the Court ordered “Plaintiffs [to] move promptly to
hold in contempt non-party witnesses who refuse to supply subpoenaed documents,” see id. & Dkt.
822, Dr. Luke never sought relief regarding G&G’s production, nor did he identify specific
deficiencies or request meet-and-confer regarding same. See Glandian Aff. ¶¶6-7; Struble Aff. ¶4.
D. The Court denies Dr. Luke’s request for contempt sanctions.
Following Mr. Geragos’ deposition as G&G’s corporate representative, Dr. Luke moved
for contempt and a second deposition, claiming Mr. Geragos was not adequately prepared to
address all SAT topics. Dkt. 867-868. Dr. Luke sought testimony regarding “Tweets” about the
12 of 27
Kesha-Luke dispute; who had access to Mr. Geragos’ Twitter; and a third-party’s Twitter account,
as well as the claim that Dr. Luke gave Kesha the date rape drug “GHB.” See Dkt. 867. Dr. Luke
did not seek further testimony regarding G&G’s response to the SDT, see id., despite including
that topic in a “draft” of his proposed OSC shared with counsel. See Glandian Aff. Ex. 1.
The Court struck contempt from the order to show cause and declined to issue sanctions,
but granted a second deposition. Dkt. 1020 at 6, 10-11. The Court ordered Mr. Geragos to “review
the transcript from his first deposition” to identify where he did not know or remember the answer,
refresh his recollection, and provide answers. Id. 11. The Court made clear that it would “entertain
a contempt application” only if Mr. Geragos “[did] not timely appear for a deposition and comply
with the directives provided” in its Order. Id. 10.
Mr. Geragos retained Quinn Emanuel to represent him for the second deposition, which
was conducted in March 2018. Mr. Geragos followed the Court’s order to refresh his recollection
and answer all of counsel’s questions. See Movit Aff. Ex. 3. To date, there have been no
complaints about the second deposition.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
As Dr. Luke acknowledges, he bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence
the Geragos Non-Parties (1) “with reasonable certainty, disobeyed,” (2) an order “clearly
expressing an unequivocal mandate,” and (3) causing prejudice to Dr. Luke. Br. 16 (quoting El-
Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29 (2015)). He fails to meet any of these elements.
I. THERE IS NO CONTEMPT OF THE COURT’S ORDER
A. The Geragos Non-Parties did not violate an “unequivocal mandate” to

produce the documents at issue.
The Geragos Non-Parties are not in contempt of the Court’s Discovery Order. Dr. Luke
fails to establish the Geragos Non-Parties violated an order “clearly expressing an unequivocal
13 of 27
mandate” to produce the documents he claims are responsive. El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 29. There
can be no contempt where the order in question is not an “unambiguous directive” to do what the
complaining party claims should have been done; rather, the order must “[leave] no doubt as to its
requirements.” Id. 30. Here, the Discovery Order does not clearly and unequivocally require the
production of documents Dr. Luke now claims are responsive, and the Geragos Non-Parties have
not violated that order.
As an initial matter, Dr. Luke wrongly asserts the Court ordered G&G “to produce … all
of their documents in five enumerated categories.” Br. 1. Dr. Luke never moved to compel G&G’s
production of documents. Instead, in ruling on G&G’s motion to quash, the Court ordered only
that G&G “shall respond to demands 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10 of the SDT.” Dkt. 795 at 2; see also id. 1
(defining “Geragos” as “G&G”). The Court’s order that G&G “respond” to the requests at issue
meant only that G&G should conduct a search for responsive documents, and if any responsive
documents exist, produce them. The Court did not find that any responsive documents exist, or
that the communications Dr. Luke now complains of were responsive to the requests at issue.
G&G did exactly as ordered: G&G conducted a search and determined no documents are
responsive to SDT Request Nos. 6 and 7, the requests at issue (Br. 2). See Geragos Aff. ¶¶3-10.
The Geragos Non-Parties have therefore complied with the Court’s Discovery Order.
Dr. Luke claims G&G disobeyed the Order by failing to produce a dozen emails with
members of the media and other emails among Kesha’s legal and public relations team circulating
press clippings regarding this dispute. He says these documents—which G&G produced in the
Gaga Case—are responsive to Request Nos. 6 and 7, and G&G therefore violated the Court’s order
by failing to produce them. Br. 2. But neither the SDT nor the Order required the production
of communications with members of the media or about press clippings.
10
14 of 27
Instead, these requests call for documents that relate to a “plan, request, or effort” to either
terminate or change agreements between Kesha and Dr. Luke, or “to pressure” third-party record
companies to change their agreements with him. See Br. 8. The requests further conflate the
foregoing categories with “‘protests,’ petitions, and social media campaigns.” Id. None of the
Gaga Case documents Dr. Luke puts before the Court reference any “plan” or “effort” to terminate
agreements or pressure others to do so, much less a protest, petition, or social media campaign.
Yet Dr. Luke claims the documents are “unquestionably responsive,” so “unquestionable” it seems
that he never answers why. Br. 13, 14, 18.
Dr. Luke erroneously claims these requests call for documents that show Kesha and the
Geragos Non-Parties sought “to destroy Gottwald’s reputation and business through a coordinated
media campaign.” See Br. 3. But that is Dr. Luke’s characterization of events. The requests lack
foundation because Dr. Luke’s characterization of events is baseless. Geragos Aff. ¶¶3-10. The
Geragos Non-Parties sought to protect Kesha from Dr. Luke’s campaign to assassinate her
character and wrongly brand her as a liar and an extortionist in the media. Id. Mr. Geragos has
testified repeatedly in this litigation that his statements in the press were to protect Kesha from Dr.
Luke’s war against her in the media. See supra at 4-6.
Dr. Luke’s requests, paired with his interpretation of them here, thus seem to improperly
call for some form of admission as to his characterization of events. But that is what requests for
admission are for. Document requests, by contrast, must be stated with “reasonable particularity.”
CPLR 3120(2). A defamation plaintiff plainly cannot propound a document request such as “All
documents showing defendant acted with actual malice in defaming plaintiff.” That not only calls
for an admission, but is unduly subjective and therefore fails to provide “reasonable particularity.”
Id. A responding party cannot know whether a document is responsive because the request
11
15 of 27
presumes a characterization of events from the requesting party’s point of view. The CPLR does
not expect a responding party to read minds as to whether a document reflects what the requesting
party thinks is a malicious “plan” to destroy the other in order to “terminate” or “renegotiate” the
terms of an agreement, or to “pressure” third parties.
If what Dr. Luke wanted were communications with media outlets and press clippings
about this litigation G&G produced in the Gaga Case, then he could have easily propounded
requests clearly requesting them. Indeed, when he requested public relations agency Sunshine
Sachs to produce them, he did so in plain terms, calling for “all documents relating to any
communications” with “media outlets” and including “press statements” regarding subject matters
defined to include this litigation. See Dkt. 858 at 11 (No. 1), Dkt. 849, Dkt. 1020 at 2-5.
Dr. Luke cannot use the guise of a contempt motion to wedge whole categories of
documents into a poorly drawn subpoena that fails to call for those documents, even if the Court
ordered a response. “The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the
courts to correct a palpably bad one.” Matter of N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Librizzi, 106
A.D.3d, 921 921-22 (2nd Dep’t 2013). While Dr. Luke may regret having served poorly drawn
demands, a contempt motion cannot be used as a vehicle to correct that failure. See, e.g., Paul v.
First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 982, 983 (4th Dep’t 2002) (vacating contempt finding
because though party was previously ordered to respond to document requests, there was no basis
to find a violation where they were poorly drawn). Courts consistently refuse to find contempt
where it is not beyond dispute that a party was required to produce documents that are the subject
of the contempt motion. See id.; see also Orent v Bloomberg LP, No. 156958/2017, 2019 WL
2559398, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jun. 17, 2019) (denying sanctions motion for “non-compliance with
a discovery order” based on alleged “withholding of responsive documents and misrepresentations
12
16 of 27
regarding the existence of these documents” because party “was not required to produce these
documents”); Flores v. Velez, 111 A.D.3d 599, 600 (2nd Dep’t 2013) (vacating sanction where
responsive documents did not exist).
Inasmuch as the Discovery Order merely required G&G to “respond to” Request Nos. 6
and 7—without further directives as to what documents were responsive—the Order was not an
“unequivocal mandate” requiring production of the documents at issue, as required for a contempt
finding (Br. 16, citing El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 29). Dr. Luke suggests that, in the middle of Mr.
Geragos’ first deposition, the Court “made clear” Request Nos. 6 and 7 “would include ‘statements
to the press.’” Br. 17. However, Ms. Porder referred to the SAT only, and did not refer to the
SDT requests—a meaningful difference given responsiveness within a deposition is hewed to
particular questions, whereas the SDT requests lack any guidance as to what documents are
responsive. There was thus no “unequivocal mandate” that G&G produce documents reflecting
media communications. Moreover, Ms. Porder’s comments came after G&G already made its
production, and Dr. Luke never sought any meet-and-confer follow-up efforts regarding alleged
deficiencies in G&G’s production on the basis of Ms. Porder’s comments, or otherwise. Further,
the CPLR does not require non-parties to affirmatively supplement document productions absent
a request for same. CPLR 3101(h); see Connors, Supplementary Practice Commentaries Civil
Practice Laws and Rules §3101 (McKinney 2014) §3101:49 (“a nonparty … has no obligation to
supplement … a second … subpoena may be necessary”).
B. Mr. Geragos did not provide false testimony.
Dr. Luke’s allegation that Mr. Geragos provided “false and fraudulent” testimony is, itself,
a “false and fraudulent” claim. Br. 18. Dr. Luke flatly and repeatedly misrepresents the record,
claiming Mr. Geragos “testified under oath that he was no longer in possession of [any] responsive
emails owing to his firm’s deletion practices.” Br. 18 (citing Movit Aff., Ex. 2, at 30:15-20, 32:2-
13
17 of 27
14); see also id. 1 (“Geragos falsely stated … that all but three documents which this Court had
ordered the Geragos Parties to produce did not exist because they had been deleted”); id. 2
(“testified that they had been automatically deleted”); id. 9 (“testifies that nearly all responsive
documents have been deleted”). That is not what Mr. Geragos testified, and tellingly, Dr. Luke
does not quote the pertinent testimony anywhere in his brief. Geragos Aff. ¶¶11-13.
The testimony Dr. Luke claims is perjurious was immediately preceded by an exchange in
which Mr. Geragos testified to his understanding that “as a matter of course,” emails at G&G are
“deleted periodically.” See Movit Aff., Ex. 2 at 32:2-10. The following question and allegedly
perjurious answer then followed:
Q. And would that be why, in your view, there were not more documents produced
in response to the subpoena duces tecum?
A. Probably, yeah.
Movit Aff., Ex. 2, at 32:11-14 (emphasis added). Clearly, Mr. Geragos did not testify “he was no
longer in possession of [all] responsive emails owing to his firm’s deletion practices.” Br. 18. He
testified that, in his view, the routine delete process was probably why more documents were not
produced. See Geragos Aff. ¶¶11-13. The question’s wording is such that the answer is the
equivalent of saying “our routine deletion procedures were why some documents probably were
not produced.” Dr. Luke has already admitted to a similar understanding—undercutting his
baseless construction now—when he said Mr. Geragos only “acknowledged that this deletion
policy likely contributed to [a] small production.” See Glandian Aff. Ex. 2 at 3 (emphasis added).
This is a far cry from the “perjury” Dr. Luke claims (Br. 1); it is a literally true response to
a badly phrased, leading question with zero follow-up questioning. Geragos Aff. ¶¶11-13. A
statement is “not perjurious” where it is a “literally true” response to a question. People v. Siggia,
163 A.D.2d 113, 115–16 (1st Dep’t 1990). Nor is there “false testimony” where the question “was
14
18 of 27
somewhat ambiguous” or “at best, inartfully worded.” Id. (question “failed to meet this standard
of specificity”). Rather, “the burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific
object of the questioner's inquiry.” Id. (quoting Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352, 360 (1973)). Here,
counsel chose to immediately move on to other topics and did not follow-up with a question as to
whether there were any other reasons more documents were not produced, such as the reason that
G&G did not view such documents as responsive. Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 32:21-20; Geragos Aff. ¶¶
13; see Siggia, 163 A.D.2d at 116 (no “false testimony” where counsel failed to ask “further
questioning” that “would certainly have [] fixed [the testimony] either as fully truthful or false”).
And counsel likely realized that there were questions he left unasked when he initially planned to
seek a second deposition on this topic, but inexplicably chose not to. See Glandian Aff. Ex. 1.
Dr. Luke also mischaracterizes testimony by repeatedly stating Mr. Geragos testified all
documents were “auto-deleted.” Br. 2 (“testified that they had all been automatically deleted”);
id. 20 (“concession that they automatically delete electronic files”). Mr. Geragos did not even use
this phrase in the exchange quoted above, and it was only counsel that later in the deposition used
it, without defining it. Compare Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 32:2-10 with id. 74:24-75:3 (first reference).
Counsel seems to have construed G&G’s “deletion practices” as an automated process whereby a
computer deletes all electronic documents, see Br. 10, n. 5, but this is not Mr. Geragos’ testimony.
To the extent he responded to counsel’s use of “automatic,” it was only in the sense that G&G
abides by routine periodic procedures to manually delete documents that are not otherwise to be
saved, as set forth in a verified interrogatory response provided to Dr. Luke in October 2017. See
Movit Aff. Ex. 7 at 57. Dr. Luke’s receipt of this response two years ago further undermines his
position that G&G’s October 2019 document production was somehow a revelation documents
were not automatically deleted by a computer.
15
19 of 27
Dr. Luke claims three other answers are false, but he is wrong again. First, he claims Mr.
Geragos’ testimony that he “had been unable to locate any responsive communications with the
media” is false because the Gaga Case document production includes such emails. Br. 18 (citing
Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 33:4-8). That begs the question; as demonstrated supra, communications with
the media produced in the Gaga Case are not responsive to the SDT. In any event, Dr. Luke has
failed to carry his burden to establish Mr. Geragos’ testimony that he “didn’t find any” such
communications is false, for Dr. Luke has not proven Mr. Geragos did find such communications,
which Mr. Geragos did not specifically search for because they are nonresponsive. Cf. Geragos
Aff. ¶4. Second, Dr. Luke claims it was false for Mr. Geragos to say he did not “recall any email
with TMZ regarding the ‘Kesha-Dr. Luke dispute,’ and that if he had, they would have been
deleted automatically.” Br. 18 (citing Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 262:20-263:3). Dr. Luke points to no
evidence proving Mr. Geragos could recall an email with TMZ. Dr. Luke further misrepresents
Mr. Geragos’ testimony regarding auto-delete, as he testified only that auto-delete—again
undefined by counsel—“is generally the practice,” not that these specific emails were auto-deleted.
Movit Aff. Ex. 2 at 262:24-263:3. Third, Dr. Luke claims it is false for Mr. Geragos to testify he
“did not have any responsive documents that he believed were privileged.” Br. 18 (citing Movit
Aff. Ex. 2 at 51:13-22). That again begs the question, as there is no basis for concluding the
testimony is false since the documents are nonresponsive to the SDT.
Finally, Dr. Luke erroneously relies on CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 N.Y.3d 307,
318 (2014), to appeal to the court’s “inherent power” to sanction a “‘fraud on the court.’” Br. 14-
15. He ignores that a “fraud on the court” refers to “a systematic and pervasive scheme” through
“repeated perjury or falsification of evidence.” CDR Créances, 23 N.Y.3d at 318. It is not meant
to be invoked to address “isolated instances of perjury about matters not central to the issues in the
16
20 of 27
case,” or, as here, where the allegedly “offending party offers ‘equally plausible alternative
explanations’ for [alleged] discrepancies in testimony.” Id. 320. Accordingly, there is no basis
for Dr. Luke to request sanctions based on “fraud on the court.”
C. Dr. Luke has suffered no prejudice.
Dr. Luke fails to show prejudice. He attempts to blame the Geragos Non-Parties for his
failure to “promptly” address third-party document deficiencies as the Court ordered, Dkt. 822,
claiming two years after G&G’s production that alleged “misrepresent[ations]” disabled him from
following-up on G&G’s production efforts. Br. 19. Yet, Dr. Luke was aware of the Court’s Order,
Glandian Aff. Ex. 3, and chose not to seek further supplementation from G&G and made zero
attempt to clarify or address any specific alleged deficiencies through meet-and-confer, id. ¶7 &
Struble Aff. ¶4. This alone is reason enough to deny the motion.
G&G’s document production in the Gaga Case is not some great revelation to Dr. Luke
that justifies his belated efforts. While he claims he believed all along until recently that G&G
spoliated its documents, he fails to inform the Court that counsel for the Geragos Non-Parties have
repeatedly attempted to correct Dr. Luke’s misapprehensions. In addition to the two-year old
verified interrogatory response (Movit Aff. Ex. 7))—which informed Dr. Luke that computers do
not “automatically delete” G&G’s documents—these repeated attempts are set forth in counsel’s
declaration submitted herewith. See Struble Aff. ¶¶3-9.
Any alleged prejudice is therefore of Dr. Luke’s own making. He was fully on notice, well
before the close of discovery, that his “spoliation” contentions were rejected and that his reading
of Mr. Geragos’ testimony as an admission of “spoliation” was unfounded. And yet Dr. Luke did
not attempt, for example, to serve a second subpoena requesting the media communications (using
plain language as in the Sushine Sachs subpoenas, supra at 12) he now belatedly attempts to
shoehorn into document requests to which they have no obvious connection.
17
21 of 27
Also insufficient is Dr. Luke’s claim he suffered prejudice in spending money litigating
this motion. Br. 19. Dr. Luke could have avoided this meritless contempt motion altogether had
he sought a meet-and-confer, or any follow-up regarding alleged deficiencies, as Rule 14 requires.
See, e.g., Parklex Associates v. Parklex Associates, Inc., 33 Misc.3d 1216(A), at *8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2011) (“Surely, compliance with Rule 14[‘s] [meet and confer requirement] would have been a far
more efficient strategy to obtain the desired information than insisting upon the litigation of a
meritless motion for contempt which has cost a non-party to the litigation in excess of $21,000 and
this Court, countless hours”).
In fact, the Court should deny the motion for precisely this reason. Rule 14’s requirement
that “[c]ounsel must consult with one another in a good faith effort to resolve all disputes about
disclosure” prior to a motion is not optional. Just as he has argued in this Court, “[Dr. Luke] did
not support [his] motion with an affirmation of good faith, because no good faith attempt to resolve
this motion ever took place … This is reason enough to deny this motion.” Dkt. 998 at 5
(emphasis added) (citing Dunlop Dev. Corp. v. Spitzer, 26 A.D.3d 180, 182 (1st Dep’t 2006)
(“petitioner failed to include an affirmation of good faith, as mandated by 22 NYCRR§ 202.7(a)”).
Dr. Luke cannot wield Rule 14 and the affirmation of good faith requirement against his
adversaries when it suits him, and then skirt it when it does not. The motion should be denied.
D. No sanctions are warranted.
Dr. Luke has failed to show a violation of an order warranting sanctions, and therefore, no
sanctions are warranted. However, even were the Court to entertain his request, Dr. Luke has
failed to justify his sanctions request. At best, only the expenses incurred with this motion would
be available. That is because, as Dr. Luke’s own case holds, only legal fees “that constitute [the]
actual loss or injury as a result of contempt” are recoverable. Br. 15 (citing Gottlieb v. Gottlieb,
137 A.D.3d 614, 618 (1st Dep’t 2016) (Br. 15). The First Department reversed for improperly
18
22 of 27
including legal fees to prepare other pleadings and for trial where a party failed to produce
documents because “[t]here was no basis for the court to conclude that such legal fees constituted
an actual loss or injury related to the contempt as a means of compensating plaintiff, rather than
punishing [contemnor], for the wrong.” Id. 618-619.
As in Gottlieb, Dr. Luke seeks reimbursement of attorneys’ fees well beyond this motion
and any alleged harm, including for (1) his opposition to the motion to quash; (2) the motion to
compel a second deposition; and (3) preparing for and taking two depositions. None of these
expenses have anything to do with the claim G&G failed to produce responsive documents. In
fact, the Court struck fully half of the document requests and deposition topics at issue in G&G’s
motion to quash, finding Dr. Luke’s requests to be “utterly irrelevant” and “overbroad.” He cannot
now seek compensation for contesting a motion he largely lost due to his own poorly crafted
demands. Nor does the motion to compel a second deposition, or the expenses incurred in taking
two depositions, have anything to do with the instant motion. Dr. Luke never complained that Mr.
Geragos’ answers to questions regarding document collection and production were inadequate,
and never sought to justify a second deposition on this basis. Indeed, in Mr. Geragos’ second
deposition, Dr. Luke asked zero questions regarding G&G’s efforts to respond to the SDT. See
Movit Aff. Ex. 3.
E. No forensic examination is warranted.
Dr. Luke presents no basis for a forensic examination of G&G’s computers. Br. 20-21.
This relief is “granted only under limited circumstances, when there is reason to believe that a
litigant has tampered with the computer or hidden relevant materials …” Lifeng Chen v. New
Trend Apparel, Inc. 2012 WL 4784855, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2012); Buxbaum v. Castro, 82
A.D.3d 925 (2d Dep’t 2011) (affirming denial because “the principle of ‘full disclosure’ does not
give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure”). In the cases Dr. Luke cites, for
19
23 of 27
example, the examination was allowed against party litigants, not nonparties, and involved
repeated failure to produce documents and tampering with documents or, as in the case before
Your Honor, only after an insufficient response to an order to provide “an affidavit of good faith
related to [the party’s] own search of his computer/emails.” Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. Big Box Store
Ltd., 2014 WL 904595, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014); Encore I, Inc. v. Kabcenell, 2016 WL
6680456 at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Nov. 4, 2016). Here, Dr. Luke has made no such drastic showing,
and ironically, the basis for his motion is G&G did not spoliate.
The rarity of such examinations “reflects the fact that the production of a computer to an
adversary almost invariably will lead to disclosure of quantities of documents that are entirely
irrelevant or privileged, and, even if not privileged, possibly quite sensitive”—a concern
particularly acute here. Chen, 2012 WL 4784855, at *1. G&G is a law firm whose electronic data
repositories store confidential, privileged, and highly sensitive information belonging to third
parties and clients. A review by an outside auditor would be highly invasive and threaten the
substantial interests of numerous clients of the firm and the firm itself. Geragos Aff. ¶14.
No further supplemental document production is warranted at all because the documents
Dr. Luke seeks are not responsive. To the extent the Court orders it, a production should be
handled by G&G’s outside counsel, who oversaw the Gaga Case production. See 12/5/19
Affirmation of James McGuire. Dr. Luke’s only objection is we allegedly “cannot be trusted to
make that production … given [our alleged] failure … to correct Geragos’ false testimony or
produce additional documents.” Br. 21. This is wrong. As explained above, counsel for the
Geragos Non-Parties repeatedly informed Dr. Luke’s counsel they misapprehended the meaning
of the testimony and there was no spoliation. Further, there was no “false testimony” to “correct,”
nor were there additional documents to produce since the documents are nonresponsive. Finally,
20
24 of 27
Dr. Luke concedes the Geragos Non-Parties’ counsel in fact made a “substantial production of
documents” in the Gaga Case, Br. 2, which demonstrates they will honor their ethical obligations
to produce responsive documents, if the Court finds the SDT encompasses communications with
the press about Dr. Luke generally (and it should not, as discussed above).
Finally, the request should also be denied under Liberty Petroleum. 164 A.D.3d at 405.
As it was decided after the Discovery Order, the Court did not consider this standard, which now
governs and precludes any further order requiring production. Brummer v Wey, No. 153583/2015,
2019 WL 3891177, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2019) (denying motion to compel attorneys’
document production under Liberty Petroleum). In fact, though Liberty Petroleum holds that
discovery from an attorney must be “[un]available from another source,” the Discovery Order
explicitly rejected that standard. See id.; Dkt. 795 at 1-2 (“not a valid objection that information
available from other sources”); 164 A.D.3d at 405-407. Here, the press statements Dr. Luke seeks
are available from multiple other sources, including three different public relations agencies he
subpoenaed as well as media outlets. He has failed to carry the high burden of showing the
information he wants cannot be obtained from non-attorneys.
21
25 of 27
DATED: December 5, 2019

New York, New York
By: By: / AM.

7
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
SULLIVAN, LLP EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
Robert L. Raskopf Jura Zibas
Cory D. Struble jura.zibas@wilsonelser.com
robertraskopf@quinnemanuel .com 150 East 42nd Street
corystruble@quinnemanuel.com New York, New York
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor (212) 490-3000
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000 -and-
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL

Attorneys for Non-party Mark Geragos Gregg D. Thomas (pro hac vice pending)
James J. McGuire (pro hac vice pending)
Mark. R. Caramanica (pro hac vice pending)
gthomas@tlolawfirm.com
jmcguire@tlolawfirm.com
mcaramanica@tlolawfirm.com
601 South Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813)984-3060
Attorneys for Non-party Geragos & Geragos,

A Professional Corporation
26 of 27
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17
I, Robert L. Raskopf, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State
of New York, hereby certify that this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Proposed
Order to Show Cause for Sanctions and Contempt complies with the word count limits set forth in
Rule 17 of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (22 NYCRR 202.70(g)) because it
contains 6,978 words, excluding the parts of the memorandum exempted by Rule 17. In preparing
this certification, I have relied on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare
this memorandum of law.
New York, New York

December 5, 2019
/s/ Robert L. Raskopf .

Robert L. Raskopf
23
27 of 27

Gottwald V Sebert Opposition To OSC Re: Sanctions and Contempt

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Gottwald V Sebert Opposition To OSC Re: Sanctions and Contempt

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/05/2019 09:52 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a DR. LUKE,

KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Defendant. Motion Seq. No. 48

KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA,

LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a DR. LUKE,

NON-PARTIES MARK GERAGOS AND GERAGOS & GERAGOS A.P.C.’S

CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,

Dunlop Dev. Corp. v. Spitzer,

Encore I, Inc. v. Kabcenell,

Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. Big Box Store Ltd.,

Lifeng Chen v. New Trend Apparel, Inc.,

Matter of N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Librizzi,

Orent v. Bloomberg LP,

Parklex Associates v. Parklex Associates, Inc.,

Paul v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.,

N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 3120(2) ................................................................................................... 11

transparent attempt to discredit her former lawyer.

“spoliated.” Accordingly, there is no contempt of the Court’s order compelling a response.

order for a second deposition.

him to “promptly” address any alleged deficiencies in third party productions—attempts to

requests he says were not complied with).

Ex. 2 at 404:24-405:11; see also id. 111:17-25.

2027, 2029, 2030, see also Dkt. 1094 at 4-5.

press done prior”).

unusual result of refreshing his recollection.

B. Dr. Luke sues the Geragos Non-Parties.

C. Dr. Luke subpoenas Kesha’s litigation counsel for documents.

relationship.” See id.

D. The Court denies Dr. Luke’s request for contempt sanctions.

with the directives provided” in its Order. Id. 10.

complaints about the second deposition.

I. THERE IS NO CONTEMPT OF THE COURT’S ORDER

A. The Geragos Non-Parties did not violate an “unequivocal mandate” to

not violated that order.

of communications with members of the media or about press clippings.

that he never answers why. Br. 13, 14, 18.

Luke’s war against her in the media. See supra at 4-6.

terms of an agreement, or to “pressure” third parties.

a discovery order” based on alleged “withholding of responsive documents and misrepresentations

responsive documents did not exist).

SDT requests—a meaningful difference given responsiveness within a deposition is hewed to

supplement … a second … subpoena may be necessary”).

B. Mr. Geragos did not provide false testimony.

perjurious answer then followed:

were not automatically deleted by a computer.

Mr. Geragos’ testimony regarding auto-delete, as he testified only that auto-delete—again

testimony is false since the documents are nonresponsive to the SDT.

for Dr. Luke to request sanctions based on “fraud on the court.”

C. Dr. Luke has suffered no prejudice.

declaration submitted herewith. See Struble Aff. ¶¶3-9.

shoehorn into document requests to which they have no obvious connection.

he sought a meet-and-confer, or any follow-up regarding alleged deficiencies, as Rule 14 requires.

this Court, countless hours”).

(“petitioner failed to include an affirmation of good faith, as mandated by 22 NYCRR§ 202.7(a)”).

D. No sanctions are warranted.

punishing [contemnor], for the wrong.” Id. 618-619.

Movit Aff. Ex. 3.

E. No forensic examination is warranted.

No further supplemental document production is warranted at all because the documents

information he wants cannot be obtained from non-attorneys.

DATED: December 5, 2019