Robinson v. De Niro

Background

The court considered the defendants’ remaining motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or issues may be presented to the jury. The motions concerned Robinson’s claims for gender discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as the defendants’ counterclaims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty. A jury trial was scheduled for October 30, 2023.

The defendants asked the court to: (1) prevent the jury from considering punitive damages; (2) prevent an award of economic damages on Robinson’s remaining retaliation claim; and (3) exclude documentary and testimonial evidence supporting Robinson’s equitable defenses.

Punitive damages

The defendants argued that the facts did not support punitive damages. Robinson argued that the question should be left for the jury and that discovery evidence supported such an award.

The court denied the motion. It explained that the defendants did not argue that punitive damages were unavailable as a matter of law; instead, they argued that the evidence did not justify an award. The court stated that this factual argument could be addressed through a motion for judgment as a matter of law after Robinson presented her case. The court also noted that the defendants had not identified evidence concerning punitive damages that would be irrelevant to Robinson’s discrimination claims.

Economic damages for retaliation

The defendants argued that Robinson’s April 2, 2019 email could not support a retaliation claim because the decision to remove her from work on the townhouse had already been made before the email. Robinson responded that her retaliation claim also included later conduct, including an instruction that other employees not speak with her.

The court denied the motion. It relied on its earlier summary-judgment ruling that a reasonable jury could find that taking away Robinson’s responsibilities related to the townhouse and her assistant, and telling employees not to speak with her, were actions reasonably likely to deter protected activity under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court stated that the text message cited by the defendants addressed, at most, the removal of Robinson’s townhouse responsibilities and did not address the instruction to other Canal Productions employees. Therefore, even if the townhouse-related retaliation were precluded, other alleged retaliatory conduct remained at issue.

Equitable defenses

The defendants sought to exclude evidence supporting Robinson’s defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, and laches. The court deemed the waiver and estoppel defenses abandoned because Robinson had not proposed jury instructions for them.

The court granted the motion with respect to unclean hands and laches. It held that unclean hands is an equitable defense to equitable claims and that laches generally applies to equitable claims, not legal claims for damages brought within the applicable limitations period. Because those defenses were unavailable against the defendants’ claims, evidence solely related to them was irrelevant.

Disposition

The court concluded that the defendants’ motions in limine were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Judge Liman did not, in this opinion, enter judgment on the parties’ underlying claims or counterclaims.