Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC

Background

The plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserted 18 claims against Harvey Weinstein, his former companies, and certain company officers and directors. The claims included federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, along with state-law claims involving negligent supervision, battery, assault, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and ratification.

In an earlier order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants except one sex-trafficking claim against Harvey Weinstein. Zoe Brock and the plaintiffs who joined her request for immediate judgment did not bring that remaining claim, so they had no live claims in the case.

Motions for Entry of Judgment

Brock and the other plaintiffs asked the court to enter partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which can permit an immediate appeal of a finally resolved claim when there is no just reason to wait. They argued that their dismissed claims were distinct from the remaining claim, that the issues involved differed, and that they should not have to wait for the remaining claim to be resolved.

The court denied those motions. It explained that Rule 54(b) judgment should be used sparingly to avoid piecemeal appeals. The plaintiffs did not show sufficient hardship or injustice from waiting, and the court concluded that a later appeal involving the remaining plaintiffs could overlap with the issues raised by Brock and the other plaintiffs. The court therefore declined to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b).

Motion to Stay Deposition

Weinstein separately asked the court to stay, or delay, his deposition. He cited worsening health conditions, the risks associated with COVID-19, and concerns that invoking his constitutional protection against self-incrimination could lead to an adverse inference in the civil case or affect his criminal proceedings.

The court denied the motion to stay. Although Weinstein listed serious medical conditions, he did not provide competent evidence or medical support showing how those conditions affected his ability to be deposed. The court also found it unclear when his self-incrimination concerns would be resolved. Balancing the parties’ interests, the court concluded that a stay was unnecessary and stated that whether Weinstein invoked that constitutional protection was his choice.

The court noted that Weinstein could apply for limits or conditions on the deposition if medical reasons warranted them. It also canceled the oral argument scheduled for January 21, 2021, and directed the clerk to terminate the three pending motions.

Disposition

The motions for entry of judgment were denied. Weinstein’s motion to stay his deposition was denied. The order is classified as a procedural order because it addressed immediate appeal procedures and a deposition stay rather than deciding the underlying claims.