Giuffre v. Dershowitz

Decision Date16 October 2019
Docket Number19 Civ. 3377 (LAP)
Citation410 F.Supp.3d 564
Parties Virginia L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. Alan DERSHOWITZ, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Joshua Schiller, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Arthur Louis Aidala, Law Offices of Aidala & Bertuna, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Christian Kiely, Howard M. Cooper, Todd & Weld LLP, Boston, MA, Imran H. Ansari, Aidala Bertuna & Kamins PC, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge

Virginia Giuffre ("Plaintiff" or "Giuffre") brings this action for defamation against Alan Dershowitz ("Defendant" or "Dershowitz"). Giuffre has long claimed that she was forced to engage in sexual activity with Dershowitz. In response, Dershowitz has repeatedly called Giuffre a liar, said that she committed perjury, and claimed that she conspired with her lawyers at the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("the Firm" or "BSF") to extort Dershowitz and others. Giuffre predicates this action on the grounds that Dershowitz's statements--which she avers are false--are actionable defamation.

Before the Court are Dershowitz's motions to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim and to disqualify BSF as Plaintiff's counsel. For the reasons stated below, Dershowitz's motion to dismiss is denied, and his motion to disqualify the Firm is granted.

I. Background

Two discrete sets of facts form the background of the two separate motions. The first relates to the defamation claim itself, while the second relates to the run-up to and filing of this litigation. Neither the truth of Giuffre's underlying claims nor Dershowitz's denial thereof is before the Court.

a. Motion to Dismiss

In allegations the Court is required to accept as true at this stage, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), Giuffre alleges that she was "forced to engage in sexual acts with Dershowitz in, among other locations, [Jeffrey] Epstein's mansion ...." (Complaint ("Compl."), dated Apr. 16, 2019 [dkt. no. 1], at ¶ 36). Prior to filing the Complaint, she had filed a joinder motion in 2014 in another case describing this alleged sexual activity. (Id. at ¶ 10). Thereafter, in 2015, Dershowitz said on national television that Giuffre's counsel on the joinder motion, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, had engaged in "unethical behavior warranting disbarment for filing the Joinder Motion." (Id. at ¶ 11). Giuffre alleges that Dershowitz made this statement about her counsel "wrongfully." (Id. ) Cassell and Edwards sued Dershowitz for defamation, and that case was settled in April 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12).

In 2015, Dershowitz made a number of statements in various media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the BBC, CNN, the Today Show, and Reuters. (Declaration Of Michelle Proctus In Support Of Defendant Alan Dershowitz's Motion To Dismiss Complaint ("Proctus Decl."), dated June 25, 2019 [dkt. no. 24], Ex. E; Proctus Decl. Ex. F; Proctus Decl. Ex. H; Proctus Decl. Ex. G at 1-2, 8-9, 53-55, 61-63). These included saying Giuffre's story was "completely, totally fabricated, made-up," that the allegations were "part of a pattern of made up stories against prominent people and world leaders," and that Giuffre is a "serial perjurer," a "serial liar," and a "serial prostitute." (Proctus Decl. Ex. E; Proctus Decl. Ex. G at 2–28).

In November 2018, the Miami Herald published the first in a series of articles that included references to Dershowitz's alleged sexual abuse of Giuffre. (Compl. at ¶ 13). In response, Dershowitz made a number of statements denying the alleged abuse took place and questioning Giuffre's motives. Dershowitz said, "[T]he story was 100% flatly categorically made up" and "[Giuffre] and her attorneys [at BSF] fabricated the assertion in order to get money from other powerful, wealthy people." (Id. at ¶ 17). Dershowitz called Giuffre a "certified, complete, total liar" who "simply made up the entire story for money." (Id. ) Dershowitz also accused Giuffre of "committing the felony of perjury." (Id. at ¶ 21).

Giuffre characterizes Dershowitz's "central assertion" as being that Giuffre committed perjury and that she and her attorneys at BSF "hatched a scheme to falsely accuse Dershowitz of sex trafficking as part of a criminal attempt to extort a settlement from another party." (Id. at ¶ 14).

Giuffre alleges that Dershowitz knew his claims of perjury were false because "Dershowitz ... knew that Dershowitz had in fact had sex with Plaintiff." (Id. at ¶ 15).

b. Motion to Disqualify

On January 22, 2015, Dershowitz appeared on the Today Show where he disputed Giuffre's allegations against him. Afterwards, Carlos Sires ("Sires"), a partner at the Firm's Fort Lauderdale office, emailed Dershowitz saying that Defendant had a "very strong appearance on the Today [S]how" and informing him, "If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know." (Declaration of Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz Decl."), dated June 7, 2019 [dkt. no. 10], Ex. H at 18). That day, Dershowitz responded, saying he would "love [Sires'] help." (Id. at 14). Sires then wrote to Dershowitz saying, "I just exchanged emails with [BSF partner] Stuart [Singer] and voiced my desire to do what we can to help you out. He shares that desire. I will speak with him tomorrow in more detail ...." (Id. at 12). The next day, Sires wrote Dershowitz saying, "Stuart and I think we can provide help." (Id. ) Sires wrote to Dershowitz that he and Singer "look forward to working with [Dershowitz] on this" and asked for copies of the pleadings. (Id. at 10).

Dershowitz had a document marked "CONFIDENTIAL L/C PRIVILEGE" ("Confidential Memorandum") sent to Sires and others (apparently all lawyers) that contained a discussion of the case and Dershowitz's thoughts on legal strategy. (Sealed Tr. at 73:3, Sept. 24, 2019; Declaration of Imran Ansari, dated July 23, 2019 (Sealed Document Placed in Vault [dkt. no. 42] ), Ex. A). Dershowitz also sent Sires a number of court pleadings, which Sires said he would review. (Dershowitz Decl. Ex. H at 5, 9).

Sires wrote back saying, "I'm sure you have already looked at this issue, but the attached opinion and Restatement section relate to Alan's recently-circulated notes concerning his acting in ‘self defense’ to the charges leveled against him." (Id. at 6).

A day after receiving the Confidential Memorandum and after commenting on it, Sires informed Dershowitz that he and Singer were "precluded from assisting [Dershowitz] in this matter due to a conflict, the nature of which we are not at liberty to discuss." (Id. at 2). Dershowitz responded "Darn. I was really hoping you could come on board." (Id. )

David Boies ("Boies"), a name partner in the Firm, met with Giuffre in July 2014 and agreed to represent her. (Declaration of Joshua Schiller In Support Of Plaintiff's Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Disqualify Boies Schiller Flexner("Schiller Decl."), dated July 3, 2019 [dkt. no. 36], Ex. 12 at ¶¶ 5-6)). Sigrid McCawley, a BSF partner, represented Giuffre as a fact witness in the since-settled defamation suit brought by Cassell and Edwards against Dershowitz in Florida. (Schiller Decl. Ex. 4 at ¶¶ 43, 45). The Firm also represented Giuffre on two other matters, an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida and litigation filed in September 2015 in this district against Jeffrey Epstein's compatriot, Ghislaine Maxwell. (Schiller Decl. Ex. 12 at ¶ 8).

Sires says that on January 22, 2015, the same day he initially contacted Dershowitz offering assistance, Sires spoke telephonically with Dershowitz and informed him that the Firm would need to run a conflict check. While Dershowitz does not address this assertion, he says that by the next day, he believed there was no conflict check outstanding. (Schiller Decl. Ex. 8 at ¶ 5; Dershowitz Decl. at ¶¶ 33-36). Further, Dershowitz says that he offered to call David Boies, saying Boies is a friend, but that Sires said it would be unnecessary. (Dershowitz Decl. at ¶ 34). Singer contacted Boies and raised the possibility of representing Dershowitz; Boies informed Singer that there was a conflict, and Singer immediately informed Sires. (Schiller Decl. Ex. 8 at ¶ 16). On January 30, 2015, Sires sent the email to Dershowitz saying that a conflict precluded the Firm from providing representation to Dershowitz. (Id. at 8-9; Schiller Decl. Ex. 8 at ¶ 16; Dershowitz Decl. Ex. H at 2).

On February 9, 2015, the Firm's General Counsel issued a screening memorandum to all Firm personnel, directing Sires and Singer not to discuss or share any information regarding any aspect of the allegations against Dershowitz or Dershowitz's responses to those allegations with any other Firm personnel. (Schiller Decl. Ex. 11).

Although these facts are largely undisputed, other facts relating to Dershowitz's interactions with Boies are vigorously disputed.

In May of 2015, Dershowitz met with Boies to discuss Giuffre's allegations. (Compl. at ¶ 70; Dershowitz Decl. at ¶ 47). Dershowitz says that he told Boies that Dershowitz's "records ... demonstrated that Giuffre's allegations could not be true." (Dershowitz Decl. at ¶ 48). Dershowitz alleges that during this meeting, and in multiple phone calls afterwards, Boies stated that he did not believe Giuffre's allegations against Dershowitz. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-61). Dershowitz recorded one or more of these discussions and played them to reporters in support of his allegation that the Firm's attorneys did not believe Giuffre. (Compl. at ¶ 69; Dershowitz Decl. at ¶ 59).

Giuffre acknowledges that these communications took place but alleges that Dershowitz's statements regarding his meeting with Boies are taken out of context and that the recordings Dershowitz produced to reporters were also "out of context." (Compl. at ¶ 69). Boies says that he "told Mr. Dershowitz...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Lemberg Law, LLC v. eGeneration Mktg.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 29 Mayo 2020
    ...significance," id. (citing Lefrak v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 527 F.2d 1136, 1138-40 (2d Cir.1975)). See also Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 410 F. Supp. 3d 564, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Motions to disqualify are viewed with disfavor because of their vulnerability to abuse as litigation tactics.") (citati......
  • Penrose Hill, Ltd. v. Mabray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 18 Agosto 2020
    ...that later statements were not republication because they were "substantively identical" to previous statements he had made. 410 F. Supp. 3d 564, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). In other words, he did not just reference his prior statements but actually repeated them. See id. Here, the only statements......
  • Lindberg v. Dow Jones & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 11 Agosto 2021
    ... ... at 98 N.Y. 2d at 371 ... [ 57 ] Id. at 370-1 ... [ 58 ] Id. at 370 ... [ 59 ] Ghiffre v ... Dershowitz, 410 F.Supp.3d 564, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ... [ 60 ] Second Article at ¶ 8 ... [ 61 ] Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y ... 638, 639-40 ... ...
  • Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. Am.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 1 Junio 2021
    ...[the statement's] probable falsity." Liberman, 605 N.E.2d at 349-50 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 410 F. Supp. 3d 564, 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).10 Here, however, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Mother Eisodia made her initial police report with eith......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT