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

By Matthew Russell Lee,  Patreon, thread, II

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 31– Roy Moore's defamation lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen, which has survived a motion to dismiss, was on for a conference on July 31 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Andrew L. Carter. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

Defense lawyer: Of the woman who have sued Moore, there's some discussion, we need discovery into it. But we can focus on the issues in the motion to dismiss [which was denied.]

 Defense: There hasn't been any elaboration on the 1st Amendment issues. But if the Court wants to move forward with full discovery, we will comply.

 Judge Carter: Yes, let's move forward with full discovery. How long do you think it will take? In 120 days?

A: 150.

Defense lawyer: We need more than 150 days to make inquiry with all the women who have sued

Judge Moore. We need six months. Or more. Plaintiff's lawyer: Fine, six months.

Judge Carter: OK, by Feb 2, groundhog's day. Status report by Sept 16.

When the suit arrived for a pre-motion conference on August 1, 2019 before Judge Carter, an even more preliminary matter was raised. Moore's lawyer Larry Klayman, previously of Judicial Watch, had yet to apply to be admitted to practice in the SDNY for the case, pro hac vice.    

The reason quickly came out. In a 1997 case before then District Judge Denny Chin, Klayman has asked Judge Chin about any contacts or connections with John Huang, a Democratic Party fundraiser Judicial Watch was then, well, Watching.   

It seems that when Judge Chin asked Klayman "You asked questions of the court, at least in part, because of my race?"  Klayman replied, "In part. And let me tell you why ... We are all human, and sometimes, sometimes subjective criteria can unwittingly, no matter how ethical, no matter how decent, no matter how honest someone is--and we believe you to be that--they can subjectively influence our decision-making. Honor has to search his own soul to a large extent."    

Judge Chin imposed a condition that Klayman, on any future pro hace vice application in the SDNY would have to disclose Judge Chin's order against him in that case, Macdraw, Inc v. The CIT Group Equip, et al., 91-cv-05153 (DC). There was no sunset clause on this mandate to disclose.    

Judge Carter on August 1 summoned each party's lawyers to his robing room, first together then one by one, ex parte. When they emerged a schedule was set. Klayman's pro hac vice application is due on August 8, and then on August 22 the status of the case, including if the party's consent to referral to an SDNY Magistrate Judge.   

Inner City Press afterward in the hall outside Judge Carter's courtroom asked Klayman if he or his client are amenable to referral to a Magistrate. Klayman told Inner City Press that he found Judge Carter to be fair, emphasizing that was on the record, he would like it reported.   

When Inner City Press asked about a separate disciplinary action pending in the District of Columbia Klayman said it was a complaint by a dissatisfied client who sued Voice of America and said he had gotten Gloria Alred, who was at the SDNY this week speaking to the press about Jeffrey Epstein, to express support for him.     Klayman's Law Group, with an American flag on the business card he gave to Inner City Press, has offices in Washington and Florida. Whether the long ago interchange with Judge Chin will or should have an impact on this case in the SDNY in 2019 in a question for another day. August 8, to be precise. This case is Moore et al. v. Cohen et al., 19-cv-4977 (Carter).