Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC

Background

Louisette Geiss, Sarah Ann Thomas (also identified as Sarah Ann Masse), Melissa Thompson, and other plaintiffs sued The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC and other defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants, including Harvey Weinstein, engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse facilitated by The Weinstein Company and its officers and directors.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part as to these plaintiffs and in full as to the Miramax-era plaintiffs. According to the motion, the only claims remaining were the named plaintiffs’ claims against Harvey Weinstein under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).

The plaintiffs moved for a 30-day stay, or temporary pause, while a bankruptcy court handled the effective date of The Weinstein Company’s Fifth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation. The plan created a Sexual Misconduct Claims Fund of more than $17 million for victims of Weinstein’s sexual abuse and misconduct. The plaintiffs stated that they intended to participate in that claims process and voluntarily dismiss their district-court claims after the bankruptcy court’s effective-date notice was filed.

Reasons Given for the Requested Stay

The plaintiffs argued that a stay would avoid near-term discovery disputes and conserve the parties’ and court’s resources. They described disputes over Harvey Weinstein’s document production and deposition, as well as subpoenas issued to 13 nonparties. They also represented that the bankruptcy plan was expected to become effective shortly.

The motion relied on the court’s discretion to control its docket and described five considerations for a stay: the parties’ interests in proceeding or avoiding delay, the burden on the party seeking the stay, the court’s interests, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest.

Ruling

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a 30-day stay until March 12. The grant was conditional: the plaintiffs and defendant had to agree by February 12 to firm dates for the depositions of Harvey Weinstein and Melissa Thompson and file their agreement on the court’s electronic docket.

The order addresses the stay only. It does not itself dismiss the case or rule on the merits of the remaining claims. The motion stated that the plaintiffs planned to dismiss their claims after the bankruptcy plan’s effective-date notice was filed, but the order provided in the text supplied grants the stay subject to the stated deposition condition.