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
SDNY tweets
MRL on Patreon

Home -

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


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube
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

Suing Sacha Baron Cohen Roy Moore Got Hour Deposition Now Cites Swimming Pig Sex Case

By Matthew Russell Lee,  Patreon, thread, II

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 18 – 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.

 On December, with the case reassigned to new(er) SDNY Judge John P. Cronan, another conference was held, which Inner City Press also covered and live tweeted, here.

On June 10, 2021, Judge Cronan held a proceeding and Inner City Press again covered it. He will not be recusing himself, but expect the video of Cohen's deposition to be released. Short podcast here; Thread here and below

Now on June 18 - Juneteenth - Moore's lawyer Klayman has submitted to Judge Cronan as supplemental authority a 1984 Fifth Circuit case, Braun v. Flynn, F.2d 245, saying it concerns "a novelty entertainer who performed an act with a swimming pig at a family oriented amusement park sued a sexual oriented men's magazine for defamation for publishing her photo in its 'Chic Thrills' section" - and won. Watch this site.

From June 10: Roy Moore v. Sasha Baron Cohen, now a hearing with Larry Klayman saying Cohen was "fed answers" during his video deposition, wants him to testify in person

 Klayman says Sasha Baron Cohen was looking down and reading answers, in an "unidentified residence" in Australia.  Cohen's lawyer: He was looking down at laptop.

 Judge Cronan: He's a tall man.

Klayman: He needs to be put under oath. Cohen's lawyer: Mr. Klayman doesn't identify any response that was delayed. But he is shifting that say that someone else was in the room, supposedly feeding Mr. Cohen answers. He suggest it could be Todd Schulman. But he was deposed the day after, in LA...

Klayman: There was the time Sasha Baron Cohen was going to drop a card in front of the FBI, when he was going after Ben Carson - thankfully, Ben Carson was not a victim, the figured it out.

 Klayman: ... they figured it out. But this is how they make money, with fraud. This is how you get Golden Globe awards. Judge Cronan: Mr. Klayman, we're getting a little far afield. I will deny the request, I have viewed the video & don't think he was fed answers

Cohen's lawyer: The video should be confidential, like in the Cosby case, and the Paisley Park case. Plaintiff just wants to distribute the video in the media. They have no litigation reason. It's just a quid pro quo, to embarrass Mr. Cohen...

Klayman: When I ran Judicial Watch, you may remember, though you're young, Judge, I deposed nearly the entire Clinton cabinet. And they opposed, David Kendall and others. But we did it. Why not here?

 Cohen's lawyer: There is no presumption of public access to depositions that have not been filed with the court. [Inner City Press /  @SDNYLIVE  So why doesn't Klayman just file it?]

Cohen's lawyer uses the magic words, "judicial document" Judge Cronan: I find that the video does not find without any of the categories in the protective order. I have not reviewed it. And the transcript is not confidential.

Judge Cronan: Should there be a new protective order? Only a portion of the transcript has been filed, only it is a judicial document. [Now seems to say he *has* seen the video; also distinguishes the cases cited by Cohen, including Judge Kaplan's Prince decision]

 [Seems the video will be made available, presumably by Klayman - watch this feed.] Judge Cronan: Now let me turn to the matter of discipline. Mr. Klayman was disciplined and didn't tell the DC Court of Appeals. The DC Circuit imposed a 90 day suspension on him.

 Judge Cronan: But Judge Carter admitted Mr. Klayman pro hac vice. Did he have to report? Cohen's lawyer says yes.  Klayman: I'm a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. Judge Cronan: I will not refer Mr. Klayman to the Committee on Grievances. Now, on recusal.

Judge Cronan: I've been asked to recuse myself, in an affidavit by Mr. Moore.  Klayman (citing cases) - We'd like it referred back to Judge Carter. Judge Cronan (citing cases) I decline to recuse. Mr Moore just argues that he preferred Judge Carter's rulings.

 Judge Cronan: OK, that will be it for today. We are adjourned.

On December 18, a long argument on whether Klayman for Moore can depose Cohen, and on what. Ultimately, Judge Cronan allows one hour, limited to corporate entities. Klayman asked him to certify it for appeal: denied. Inner City Press will continue to cover it, the December 18 live tweet is here, podcast here, email spat on Patreon here.

 On February 8, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with a statement by Todd Schulman and receipts of the Moores' travel to DC, taxi order and $200 donation to the Foundation for Moral Law.

 On May 6, this: "ORDER. On April 28, 2021, the Court ordered the parties in this action to appear for a telephone conference today, May 6, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to resolve several pending disputes in this case. Dkt. 137. Plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear for this conference, but later in the day filed a letter apologizing for missing the conference and explaining that it was not properly calendared on his end. Dkt. 139. At the conference, the Court directed Defendants' counsel to send Chambers a link to the video of Sacha Noam Baron Cohens deposition, which took place on January 13, 2021. The Court confirms receipt of the link and its ability to view the video. The video shall remain confidential pending the Court's decision on Plaintiffs' challenge to the videos confidentiality designation. It is further ordered that: (1) If Plaintiffs wish to file a reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to recuse and/or disqualify the undersigned, Dkt. 138, Plaintiffs shall file their reply by no later than May 10, 2021. (2) Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a letter by May 19, 2021, showing cause why the Court should not refer him to the Grievance Committee of this Court based on his failure to notify the Court of disciplinary sanctions imposed on him in In re Klayman, 228 A.3d 713 (D.C. 2020) and In re Klayman, 991 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 2021), as required by Local Civil Rule 1.5(h). SO ORDERED. (Replies due by 5/10/2021.) (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 5/6/2021)."

Inner City Press will continue to report on this case.

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 (Cronan).


Feedback: Editorial [at]

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

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

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for