Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll sued Donald J. Trump in this action, referred to by the court as the second closely related case, alleging that Trump raped her in the mid-1990s and later defamed her in public statements responding to her accusation. Carroll also sought damages and other relief under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which created a temporary period for adult survivors to sue over otherwise time-barred sexual assaults.

Trump filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented. He sought to exclude or restrict four categories:

The court had already addressed the first three categories in an earlier round of this case. It had denied Trump’s request to exclude the evidence concerning Stoynoff and the Access Hollywood recording and had deferred ruling on the campaign-speech excerpts until trial. The court stated that those earlier evidentiary rulings applied here and that Trump had not given a persuasive reason for a different result.

Witness-disclosure arguments

Trump’s remaining argument concerned Beall and Salerno, former employees of Bergdorf Goodman, where Carroll alleges the assault occurred. Trump argued that they were surprise witnesses and should be barred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) because Carroll had not timely disclosed them.

Rule 37(c)(1) generally prevents a party from using information or a witness that should have been disclosed under Rule 26 unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. The court explained that Trump, as the party seeking the sanction, had the burden of showing that Carroll failed to make a timely disclosure.

The court rejected the argument as to Beall. Carroll disclosed Beall in this case on January 9, 2023, the deadline set by the court. Trump argued that the relevant deadlines came from the earlier round of the litigation, where Beall had been disclosed shortly before the close of discovery. The court disagreed. It explained that discovery in the earlier round had ended before this case was filed and that this case’s scheduling order limited additional discovery mainly to newly raised issues, including damages and a later defamation statement. The order allowed the parties to seek permission for additional discovery, however.

The court also concluded that Trump knew about Beall months before the January 9 disclosure in this case and could have sought to depose her. He did not seek permission to do so and instead waited until February 23, 2023, to move to prevent her testimony. The court held that the disclosure was timely and added that, even if it had not been, Trump had not shown prejudice.

The court reached the same result for Salerno. Carroll disclosed him in this case on January 9, 2023, the court-ordered deadline. The court said the fact that Salerno was disclosed after fact discovery closed in the earlier round did not establish a failure to comply with Carroll’s disclosure obligations in this case. The court also rejected Trump’s argument that the scheduling order prevented him from deposing Salerno. Trump could have asked the court for permission to take that deposition but did not do so. Any prejudice, the court concluded, would have resulted from Trump’s failure to seek a deposition after learning that Salerno might testify.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Trump’s in limine motion in all respects. The ruling was without prejudice to Trump’s renewing his objection to the campaign-speech excerpts if Carroll offered them at trial. Unless the court ordered otherwise, the excerpts could not be mentioned in opening statements.