Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

In SDNY Avenatti Gets to Jan 9 To Review 4000 New Pages on Nike Bid To Quash Subpoena

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon, thread video

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 6 – Michael Avenatti in the Nike case against him opposed the US Attorney's proffered legal expert testimony about his fiduciary duty, citing decisions by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judges Valerie E. Caproni and Kimba Wood, below.

  Now in the run up to a trial set to begin on January 22, Avenatti has been granted until January 9 to review 4000 new pages from Nike before responding to Nike's Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Avenatti's lawyer Scott A. Srebnick on January 4 asked SDNY Judge Paul G. Gardephe for the adjournment, and it was granted on January 6.

  Srebnick wrote, "We believe these these additional 4,000 pages will bear directly on [Gary] Franklin's 'claim of right,' Nike's bias, and whether Nike has (or not) 'fully cooperated' with the government's investigation as it now claims." Inner City Press will continue to cover this case, including Avenatti's response now due January 9. Watch this site. The case is US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-373 (Gardephe).

The US Attorney's Office on December 27 wrote that "The Government respectfully submits this letter, pursuant to the Court’s request during the conference in this matter on December 17, 2019 and the Court’s order of December 20, 2019 (Dkt. No. 105), to provide a supplemental summary of the expert opinions that the Government expects to offer during its case-in-chief at trial. The Government also respectfully requests that the Court order the defendant to file a similar supplemental summary on or before January 3, 2020. The Government expects to offer testimony in its case-in-chief at trial from Nora Freeman Engstrom, Esq., or Mark L. Tuft, Esq.1  Professor Engstrom is a Professor of Law and the Deane F. Johnson Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, where she teaches classes in, among other things, legal ethics. She is the author or co-author of numerous publications, including Legal Ethics (Foundation Press, 7th ed. 2016). Mr. Tuft is a partner at Cooper, White & Cooper LLP, who principally focuses on, among other things, professional liability, and counsels lawyers and law firms on professional responsibility. He is a Certified Specialist in Legal Malpractice Law and former President of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. He is the co-author of California Practice Guide on Professional Responsibility (The Rutter Group), which is available on Westlaw."

  Back in August Judge Paul G. Gardephe told Avenatti's lawyer in that case Scott A. Srebnick to "tee up the subpoena issues sooner rather than later."

 Srebnick as in his written submissions brought up the Fifth Amendment. Judge Gardephe said raising that to a jury would be a first for him, and that Srebnick faces a uphill battle convincing him. But it seems Srebnick will try. He took up 85% of the speaking time (Inner City Press live tweeted it here), in a courtroom whose gallery was less than half filled. Things have changed.

  Srebnick proposed moving the trial from November to January, then mentioned that AUSA Richenthal has a trial starting on January 21, so why not extend further? More on Patreon here.

Back on May 28 before Judge Batts, Avenatti's first move was to have his Miami-based lawyer Srebnick ask to transfer the Daniels case to California.

  The U.S. Attorney for the SDNY's office opposed the request, saying it met none of the Supreme Court's factors for change in venue in the 1964 case Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240.  Attorney Srebnick's motion to make a motion was denied.

[Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky told Judge Batts he had recently beaten back a similar attempt to delay by bifurcated venue motions. For more, see Patreon, here.]


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for