A short excerpt from Thursday’s 76-page decision by Judge Jessica Clarke (S.D.N.Y.) in Doe v. Black (see also this article yesterday by Politico [Erica Orden]):
This case is an action under the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that Defendant Leon Black brutally raped and assaulted her in New York City in 2002, when she was only sixteen years old. She claims that prior to this assault, she was abused and groomed by Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) and Ghislane Maxwell (“Maxwell”)—who then trafficked her to other men, including Defendant.
Although the parties have exchanged almost no discovery, Defendant brings a Motion for Case-Terminating Sanctions based on lies, fraud, and spoliated evidence that he contends render this case rotten to the core. Ultimately, the Court finds that both Plaintiff’s former attorney Jeanne Christensen (“Ms. Christensen”), on behalf of Wigdor LLP (“Wigdor”), and Plaintiff Jane Doe have engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case. However, taking seriously its obligation to remedy prejudice with lesser sanctions where available, the Court finds that this misconduct need not doom Plaintiff’s claim.
The Court issues various factual and legal findings to support sanctions here. Plaintiff’s former counsel—Ms. Christensen—lied repeatedly to the Court and to opposing counsel in this litigation about what was happening in a related action. Ms. Christensen also directed Plaintiff to destroy a relevant social media account that Plaintiff used to communicate publicly about her experiences as a purported Epstein victim. And, Plaintiff falsified sonogram images in her personal journals, which her First Amended Complaint relies on to support the allegations in this action.
In light of the serious and varied misconduct committed by both Plaintiff and her former counsel, the Court strongly considered granting the case-terminating sanctions Defendant requests in this matter. However, the Court ultimately concludes that lesser sanctions can address the misconduct. As such, the Court issues a number of sanctions against Plaintiff, Ms. Christensen, and Wigdor.
Ms. Christensen must file this Opinion and Order in any case in any federal court within the Second Circuit in which she is counsel of record, from the date of publication until one year from today. For a period of five years, Ms. Christensen must also share this Opinion and Order with any federal court within the Second Circuit where a sanctions motion has been filed against her, her employer, or her client, and she is counsel of record. Additionally, Ms. Christensen and Wigdor must pay Defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this Motion.
Plaintiff, meanwhile, is barred from using any of the personal journals in which the Court has found falsified sonograms in prosecuting this action. The Court will also instruct the jury that the Court found that portions of these journals were falsified by Plaintiff. Similarly, given the spoliation of Plaintiff’s social media account, Defendant may present evidence about the account’s deletion and advise the jury about its potential relevance. The Court will instruct the jury that it may consider the account and the circumstances under which it was destroyed.
{[But] Plaintiff and Wigdor’s conduct, while extremely troubling, does not warrant the extreme measure of terminal sanctions. The lesser sanctions levied against Wigdor and Ms. Christensen, which include a significant monetary penalty and a requirement to notify future courts of this Opinion and Order, suffice to deter future misconduct. Ms. Christensen’s lies were contained to relatively few filings and, to the Court’s knowledge, she has not previously been sanctioned. Because these lies were quickly identified, they did not prejudice Defendant on the merits of this dispute. Furthermore, because the Court does not find that Ms. Christensen directed Plaintiff to delete her Twitter account with the intent to deprive Defendant of the evidence in litigation, terminal sanctions are not available to the Court under Rule 37(e). Plaintiff’s conduct falsifying sonogram images can also be remedied by precluding that evidence at trial.
The misconduct found here also pertains almost exclusively to Plaintiff’s alleged abuse by Epstein. Although Plaintiff’s relationship with Epstein is certainly relevant for the reasons described herein, the crux of this action is whether Defendant Leon Black raped and assaulted Plaintiff. None of the lies and fabrications substantively bear on this central issue.}
With respect to anonymity and sealing, the Court denies Defendant’s request to de-anonymize Plaintiff. Ultimately, the Court concludes that the relevant factors favor Plaintiff’s continued anonymity. The Court does, however, unseal the filings related to this Motion, with redactions for information that would tend to reveal Plaintiff’s identity or involve other narrow categories of sensitive information….
