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

Kevin Spacey Says Rapp Rape Talk is Envy of His Career, His Lawyer Mocks MeToo "Mob"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Stand-up
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 4 – Anthony Rapp's lawsuit against Kevin Spacey was removed to Federal court in November 2020, and an anonymous co-plaintiff C.D. was added.

Spacey wanted to make C.D.'s name public, to order to conduct discovery, he says.  C.D.'s lawyers opposed it, letter on Patreon here.

On May 26, 2022 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held a hearing, with Spacey testifying, on Rapp's motion to remand the case. Judge Kaplan at the end said it is his present intention to deny the motion to remand, and that the trial will start in October. Inner City Press attended then tweeted here. [Then video here]

On October 6, 2022, the trail began. On the way in video I, II; afterward Space and Vlog. Here's the live tweeted thread by Inner City Press of the openings, here

OK - Rapp v. Kevin Spacey sex abuse trial opening arguments begin  Kevin Spacey is sitting with two lawyers at the defense table, further from the judge. Rapp is at front table, with three lawyers (whom Inner City Press saw outside the SDNY cafeteria between 1 and 2 pm).  Drum roll.

Judge Kaplan, at 2:10 pm: OK, let's bring the jury in... Counsel?

Peter Saghir: We represent Anthony Rapp. To understand this case, you need to know this. When Anthony was just 14 years old, something unacceptable happened. It involved a 26 year man, Kevin Spacey

Saghir: You will see Anthony Rapp as a man, but I ask you to remember he was a child. You are going to learn that Mr. Rapp for the majority of his life has had relationships with men, as has Kevin Spacey. But that's irrelevant.

 Saghir: Anthony Rapp first performed as an actor in camp in Pennsylvania. He started getting paid work. He had done the musical Evita, and The King and I. His mom supported him in his acting. Anthony is a self-proclaimed nerd...

 Saghir: Acting helped Anthony get out of himself. He was cast in Precious Sons, with Ed Harris. At the same time, Kevin Spacey was in Long Day's Journey Into Night. Anthony and his mom were living on 81st Street near York Avenue. He won an award.

Saghir: At an event, he met Kevin Spacey. Then Anthony's friend John, aged 19, came to visit. They'd done Oliver together.  They went together to a matinee of Long Day's Journey into Night. They went backstage to meet the cast, it was a tradition.

 Saghir: Kevin Spacey came down. He invited the two of them out to dinner, then out to the Limelight Club on 6th Avenue and 20th Street, an adult nightclub. Anthony didn't have ID. Spacey talked to the doorman and they got in.

Saghir: Anthony will tell you, music was loud, people were drinking, it wasn't really his scene.  Kevin Spacey invites Anthony to a party at his apartment. John will say he was there, and flirting with Kevin Spacey. Anthony came out of the bathroom and John sat up

Saghir: For the party, another night, Anthony walked south to the 60s. The apartment has a view of NYC. It's a gathering of 5 or 6 people. Anthony only recognizes Kevin Spacey. They are all adults. So he goes into the bedroom to watch TV.

Saghir: Kevin Spacey comes into the bedroom. He is unsteady on his feet. He is intoxicated. The people from the party had left. He's alone with Kevin Spacey in his bedroom. No words were spoke. Kevin Spacey puts his hand under Anthony's butt

 Saghir: Kevin Spacey picks Anthony up like a groom would. Spacey lays Anthony down on the bed. Anthony is 5'5'', 100 pounds. Kevin Spacey climbs on top of him, and grinds his pelvis against the side of his hip. Anthony is shocked.

Saghir: Anthony's hands are schmushed to the side. This was not horseplay.  We will prove that Kevin Spacey did his to gratify his own sexual desires. Anthony wriggles out and escapes to the bathroom. He runs out to the front door. Kevin Spacey follows him.

 Saghir: Kevin Spacey says, Are you sure you want to go? Kevin Spacey is trying to get him to stay, to gratify his sexual desires. Back in Illinois, Anthony tells a friend what Kevin Spacey did... Time went up, Spacey became better known

 Saghir: Anthony's friends ask him, Did you see "L.A. Confidential?" And he remembers what happened in that bedroom. This violation at the age of 14 has impacted Anthony, he will describe how. It was no mistake. This was a deliberate act.

Saghir: You will hear in this trial from another man... Anthony read an article, about the author's encounter with Harvey Weinstein. He feels it was similar. And feels, maybe he can hold Kevin Spacey to account. He speaks to a reporter, and a story is published

Saghir: Kevin Spacey responded to the article with a statement on Twitter: I have a lot of respect for Anthony Rapp as an actor... I do not remember the encounter. If I did it, I owe him an apology... I now live as a gay man. But not a word about the 14 year old.

 Saghir: Afterward, Kevin Spacey says his memory changed, it never happened, Anthony is a liar. Both sides took depositions; we deposed Spacey. After that tweet, he went through boxes and boxes of documents. Now he claims it was a studio apartment.

Saghir: He wrote a draft before the tweet, he wrote that he took drugs & drank a lot. When asked he said he meant 1987, not 1986. He's retreating from his words.  We retained Lisa Roccio. She found no malingering & no exaggeration. But Spacey retained Dr Loftus...

Saghir: We will ask you, jurors, to render a verdict of 100% justice. Thank you for your time.

 Judge Kaplan: Defense?

Jennifer Keller: My client Kevin Spacey wants justice. This case is about whether you think this happened. It is not a trial of every other rumor

 Keller: It's not about if you like Frank Underwood. It's about this thing - did it happen? Mr Rapp is now 50. He created a story and it grew. He has been repeating this same false story. Never went to the police. He'd say it when he saw Kevin Space get an Oscar

 Keller: He's been telling this story to raise his own profile. He never became the international star Kevin Spacey did. He has been simmering with resentment. It's not easy to defend this, after 30 years.

Keller: Anthony's mother gave up her career as a nurse to help Anthony. But Anthony wanted to spread his wings. He wrote a book about this, about his life. He'd hit his mother in the face, knocked her glasses off.

 Keller: Yes Kevin Spacey had to go through boxes and boxes to find out which apartment he was living in then. He is a packrat. But he found the lease. It was one room. You could see everything.

Keller: Because Anthony Rapp never went to the police, it never got checked out. He can't say who the guests were. Facts are stubborn things. And John, when he was deposed, told the story about the Limelight, then that they went to the apartment.

 Keller: The reality is that Mr. Spacey was interested in John, not Anthony. Mr. Spacey called John and his mother in Illinois. They both have ancestors from Scotland. This story does not match up with the facts, or this other witness. It just doesn't.

Keller: Why make up a bedroom story? Well, being surprised that all the guests had left only make sense if there is a separate room. Let's see what Mr. Rapp said.  [Plays deposition, questions about windows and doors]

 Keller: Mr. Rapp did not detect any erection, and he knew what that was. Mr. Rapp described Mr. Spacey as having been a dead weight.

 Keller: As Mr. Spacey's star rose, Mr. Rapp grew resentful. "Rent" was the apex of his career. He peaked in 2000 and grew bitter. So he became an out gay actor.  I don't know if he would have been a leading man anyway.

Keller: Mr. Rapp knew that Mr. Spacey was in the closet, and through he could be doing things for the gay community.  Mr. Rapp would go to Oscar parties and tell people about what Mr. Spacey supposedly done to him. He threw pencils at the screen one year.

 Keller: It's not a true story, but he did tell it a lot. Mr. Rapp blames everything on Mr. Spacey - that he cheated on his boyfriend, and that he cannot assert himself in sexual relationship. We'll show you different. He forgets his lines? It's Mr. Spacey.

 Keller: He doesn't want to seem to want to talk about other traumas. He claims Yul Brenner punched him at 10 years old, he say. But he doesn't want to talk about it. Please use your common sense when you listen to Dr. Roccio. There was no PTSD.

 Keller: What about this tweet that Mr. Spacey sent? It was right after the Harvey Weinstein allegations. All sorts of people are worried about being canceled. Here comes Mr. Rapp. It is panic, among Mr. Spacey's business manager and agent

 Keller: This is one of the cardinal rules of the so-called #MeToo movement, that you have to believe the victim. You'll see that Mr. Spacey said, this didn't happen, I don't remember it. They told him to apologize. It was cleverly set up by Mr. Rapp

Keller: Mr. Rapp didn't go to the New York Times. He didn't even go to the New York Post... This so-called independent journalist was a personal friend of Mr. Rapp. They plotted together to nail Mr. Spacey.

Keller: Mr. Spacey was only trying to be respectful to Mr. Rapp, he was asking, Could it have happened? They made him apologize to keep the social media mob from coming after him. Mr. Spacey knew he had never been attracted to kids.

 Keller: This book Rapp wrote, it was supposedly about "Rent" - but it was about him. And it didn't have this story on it, even anonymized... Mr. Rapp had a lot of therapy. He had one therapist for twenty years - twenty years. Never mentioned Mr. Spacey.

 Keller: I know it is a super-charged environment we live in these days. But you all are not super-charged. There is no liability here. Thank you. Judge Kaplan: OK folks, that's it for the day.

Watch this site.

On October 3, Spacey through counsel filed his exhibit list, including "Jan 24, 1986 Handwritten note re loans to Mr. Fowler [Spacey]," Excerpt from "Anything Goes" by Anthony Rapp, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus' CV, and "Email Chain dated October 29, 2017."

On October 4, Judge Kaplan ruled: "Defendant's in limine motion no. 2 is granted with respect to the incident described at pages 7 through 9 and otherwise denied. The third point trenches upon a slightly murkier area. Experts often may be permitted to explain the bases for their opinions, subject to some qualifications. But there is a line, not always clearly delimited, where experts sometimes pass from appropriate explanations of the bases for their opinions to conduits for circumventing the rules on hearsay. Attempting to draw that line in the abstract in advance of the trial would be inappropriate. So too would be attempting to generalize as to whether proposed testimony that has not yet even been described in general goes beyond the scope of the expert's report. The Court declines to do either here. The Clerk shall terminate Dkts 231 and 255. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/04/2022)."

Back on September 17, Spacey through counsel filed a letter seeking to limit the anticipated testimony of Dr. Lisa M. Roccio - who also testified for the prosecution in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell: "Defendant Kevin Spacey Fowler (“Mr. Fowler”) will and hereby does move this Court, before the United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located in the Federal Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, on October 6, 2022, or a date to be set by the Court, for an order in limine to preclude plaintiff Anthony Rapp from offering expert testimony on credibility issues and other improper opinions of his expert witness, Lisa Rocchio, Ph.D. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401-403, 701-702, and other applicable law, Mr. Fowler brings this motion to preclude Dr. Rocchio from testifying at trial about opinions or information that would invade the province of the jury and are otherwise inappropriate for expert opinion. Dr. Rocchio’s report includes opinions and conclusions that purport to opine on the credibility of Plaintiff and his allegations, as well as the purported corroboration of other evidence. This is plainly improper. Dr. Rocchio also provides impermissible expert opinions constituting legal conclusions and a narrative description of hearsay statements of which she has no personal knowledge. Relatedly, Plaintiff’s counsel should be precluded from asking questions of Mr. Fowler’s rebuttal witness, Alexander Bardey, M.D., about credibility issues, including without limitation allegations of unrelated alleged misconduct of Mr. Fowler. Dr. Bardey was not designated to opine about credibility issues or anything to do with a psychological evaluation of Mr. Fowler. Nor was Dr. Rocchio. And other allegations of sexual misconduct are entirely irrelevant to either expert’s opinion. Finally, Mr. Fowler seeks an order precluding Dr. Rocchio from testifying at trial about any opinions not stated by her in her report or at her deposition." Full letter on Patreon here.

On September 9, in the run up to the October 6 trial, Spacey through counsel indicated he wants to make public Rapp's sexual history. From his filing: "I write to inform Your Honor that Mr. Fowler will be filing a motion in limine that bears on the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to transcript designations submitted on September 8, 2022." Complete filing on Patreon here.

On September 22, Spacey asked to file only under seal depositions about "third parties" -  " my firm represents Defendant Kevin Spacey Fowler. I write to request permission to file under seal certain deposition transcript excerpts to be submitted with Mr. Fowler’s motions in limine, which are due on Monday, September 26th and we would like to file as soon as tomorrow. The Court previously limited Plaintiff’s ability to ask Mr. Fowler in discovery about alleged accusations made against Mr. Fowler by accusers not publicly identified. But, at deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Mr. Fowler and his expert witnesses about other accusations or rumors reported or loosely asserted in the media. Mr. Fowler denied these allegations and, for the reasons set forth in the forthcoming motions in limine, none of these issues are relevant to, or should be referenced at, the upcoming trial. This case is about Plaintiff’s claims, not any other rumors or accusations made by third parties. Because the information has no relevance to this case, the public’s right to access such materials is low. See, e.g., Toretto v. Donnelly Fin. Solutions, Inc., 583 F.Supp.3d 570, (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (stating “presumption of public access is low” where materials are irrelevant to the matter). Further, public disclosure of these transcripts will cause some intrusion on the privacy interests of Mr. Fowler and third parties" - full filing on Patreon here.

On September 23 Rapp's lawyer opposed any sealing, saying that Spacey's lawyer "has neither told us or shown us his proposed redactions."

Back on June 6, Judge Kaplan issued two orders: one dismissing Rapp's first cause of action but not the rest of the complaint, the second denying his motion for remand (argued below). The first order recounts Rapp's allegation that when he was 14, Spacey put him back down on a bed, "grazing" his buttocks. Order on Patreon here.

On August 25, this: "TRIAL ORDER: The Clerks Office is scheduled to provide the Court a jury panel for this case on Thursday. October 6, 2022. On that day, the parties must be present in Courtroom 21B by 9:30 AM ready to begin jury selection and proceed immediately to trial. You are instructed to take the following steps in connection with the trial as further set forth in this Order. ( Jury Selection set for 10/6/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/25/22)."

As to jury selection, Judge Kaplan on September 7 ordered, "ORDER. Consistent with the Rule, the Court will examine prospective jurors, as it does in all cases, and will take the parties' helpful joint questionnaire into consideration in formulating its own examination. Upon conclusion of the Court's examination, it will afford counsel adequate opportunity to suggest additional questions and ask any that the Court considers proper. The request to have prospective jurors complete a written questionnaire in writing is denied. Among other reasons, it agrees that "jurors tend[] to understand written questions differently from those who draft[] the questions, leading to substantial difficulty in parsing their responses." United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 2011). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/7/22)."

Back on August 9, Judge Kaplan ruled: "Fowler's motion to compel is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks (a) production of Vary's pre-2017 communications with Rapp, 2021 communications with Darlow Smithson Productions, and documents regarding any interactions between Vary and Fowler and (b) a supplemental deposition. Vary shall sit for a supplemental deposition not to exceed four hours and answer, to the extent consistent with this Memorandum Opinion, all questions he refused to answer at his initial deposition and all reasonable follow up questions and questions about or relating to the newly produced documents and matters disclosed therein. The documents shall be produced no later than August 15, 2022. The supplemental deposition shall take place on a date mutually acceptable to Vary and the parties, which shall be on or before September 9, 2022."

Back on September 9, 2021, Judge Kaplan held a proceeding about 60 new names, and sealed affidavits. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

On October 4 Spacey asked to seal the UK High Court's Order which, he says, orders him to destroy material by October 7. Full letter on Patreon here.

On December 9 at 4:30 pm, six hours after the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial was paused at least for one day due to an ill prosecutor, Judge Kaplan held another proceeding in Rapp v. Spacey (or Fowler) and Inner City Press live tweeted it here, podcast (including on Maxwell and UN) here.

On December 10, Rapp's lawyer wrote to Judge Kaplan and asked that his forthcoming protective order including an order prohibiting disclosure of names of those alleging abuse by Spacey - full letter on Patreon here.

On March 10, 2022 a trial date was set: "ORDER, This case is set for trial on October 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. subject to any changes warranted by pandemic circumstances."

On March 14, digging in Miscellaneous cases, Inner City Press came upon satellite litigation between Spacey and Adam Vary, who citing the First Amendment and shield laws declined to answer questions at a deposition. 

Judge Kaplan ordered Vary to answer the subpoena by May 31. On May 23, Vary's counsel asked for reconsideration or a two week stay in order to appeal.

On May 27 Vary's counsel filed another letter, including "nearly all of the materials contain unpublished newsgathering information that we  maintain is privileged and shielded from production, but we acknowledge was not provided or  obtained subject to promises of confidentiality. However, there are a handful of source names  and information that was provided pursuant to promises of confidentiality. Our understanding is that the confidential sources corroborate Mr. Rapp’s account, but do not want to have their  information exposed. Although we maintain that both non-confidential and confidential  unpublished newsgathering materials are privileged and shielded from disclosure, there are  special protections and considerations for confidential source materials." Full letter on Patreon here.

On June 7, Judge Kaplan offered this secord clarification: "ORDER denying [23 in 22-mc-0063] Letter Motion for Discovery; denying [24 in 22-mc-0063] Letter Motion for Discovery. On May 19, 2022, this Court ordered that Mr. Vary submit, under seal, for in camera review various materials that he may be withholding from production in order to inform its analysis of whether he has satisfied his burden of showing that the materials, if indeed there are any, should be produced to the defendant. On June I, 2022 it granted in part Mr. Vary's request for additional time within which to comply. (The May 19 and June I orders are referred to collectively as the "Orders.") Mr. Vary now seeks a stay of the Orders insofar as they (I) require the submission for in camera review of any withheld materials that contain what he calls "confidential source information" and (2) supposedly require such submission of "post-subpoena attorney-client communications." Dkt. 23. The proposed stay, if granted, would remain in effect for "14 days after the later of the following events: (a) the Court's ruling on Mr. Fowler's motion for summary judgment; and (b) the Court's ruling on Mr. Rapp's renewed motion to remand. Dkt 159, 172, 20-cv-09586." Id. The ostensible justification for this relief is to afford Mr. Vary's counsel additional time to "consider and possibly seek appellate review of those portions of the Court's Orders, and then, if Mr. Vary does seek appellate review, stay [the Orders] until the outcome of such review." Id. Separately, Mr. Vary "seek[s] a 14-day stay of any order granting Mr. Fowler's motion to compel, in whole or in part." Id. The primary request appears to be premised in part on the possibility that ( a) a ruling favorable to Mr. Fowler on the summary judgment motion might eliminate any need for further discovery, and (b) a ruling favorable to the plaintiff on the remand motion would result in remand to the New York courts and thus possibly result in litigation of Mr. Vary's arguments in what he presumably regards as a forum more congenial to his position. The Court, however, yesterday denied both Mr. Fowler's summary judgment motion and the plaintiff's motion to remand. 20-cv-9586, Dkts 217,218. Hence, the action is going forward in this Court and Mr. Vary's apparent hopes will not be realized. Nor is there any need for him to have a stay for a further two weeks while he considers further whether he wishes to attempt to appeal from the Orders. He has been actively litigating the requirement for in camera inspection for 17 days already. He does not need any more time to think about whether he wishes to attempt to appeal from the Orders. And he will be at liberty to seek a stay pending appeal from this Court in the event that he does so. This Court is not in the business of giving advisory opinions concerning whether it would grant a stay pending an appeal if a litigant decides to file one. The second request is made as "a cautionary measure" against the possibility that this Court, if it orders disclosure of any "confidential source information" and "post-subpoena attorney-client communications" following in camera review, would require disclosure without Mr. Vary having an opportunity to seek review. The request is denied on the ground that the possibility to which Mr. Vary alludes is at best speculative. That of course is not to say that the Court necessarily would afford Mr. Vary a leisurely opportunity to seek a stay, should he seek to pursue such an option. The Clerk shall terminate Dkts 23 and 24 in 22-mc-0063 (LAK). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/7/2022)."

This case is Fowler v. Vary, 22-mc-63 (Kaplan)
Inner City Press will continue to follow these cases.

From back on Dec 9: now in Rapp v. Kevin Spacey (for rape of 14 year-old), a proceeding in SDNY by phone, in a case which Inner City Press has been reporting on and will, in haitus from #MaxwellTrial which has no call-in line, live tweet:

Spacey, defending himself from claim he raped Rapp, wanted get discovery into all of his past relationships.

Spacey's lawyer: He's only alleging that Mr Fowler [that is, Kevin Spacey] picked him up and dropped him. It's essentially child abuse, not sexual assault.
On January 10, 2021 Spacey's lawyer wrote to Judge Kaplan to preclude Rapp from calling Justin Dawes as a witness, including portions of his December 28, 2021 deposition. They argue that Dawes withheld information, the name of an "unnamed friend."

  On January 12, Rapp's lawyers filed a 5 page letter including that "Mr. Dawes, he agreed to voluntarily, without a subpoena, testify about how Spacey made an inappropriate sexual advance on him when he was a minor... " at one point his hand was on my leg. You know, I thought it was mildly uncomfortable. I did not, you know, feel threatened, but I thought it was a kind of, you know, probing of a sexual nature to see how comfortable I was with that.'" Full letter on Patreon here.

Watch this site.
Inner City Press will stay on it - podcast

Watch this site.

From February 23: Lawyers for Kevin Spacey are arguing to strike testimony of Doctor Seymour H. Block. Spacey is being sued civilly for sex abuse.

 Judge Kaplan: You are asking me to make an important decision, in a country that values public trials as much as we do, in the unique circumstance of a person who sued and also went to the press with it. In advance.

 Plaintiffs lawyer: When my client gave the interview before this case. So there was no attempt to influence the jury. In fact, when my client spoke to the press this case would have been barred by the statute of limitations.

 Judge Kaplan: But if disclosure would harm him, why did he go to the press? Plaintiff's lawyer: They did not reveal his name. Judge Kaplan: But he couldn't know it would work. The publication checked his account with others. There was a chance he would be ID-ed

Judge Kaplan: What's that case you're citing? Defense: Doe, 241 FRD 154, 159 (SDNY, 2006). And another one by Justice Brennan, about how public trials bring in more witnesses. CD made his decision. We have our due process rights. [He calls Spacey "Mr. Fowler"]

Judge Kaplan: On a proper showing, the pleadings need not contain the name of a party, no? Defense: They have to meet the Doe factors. And CD has not met his burden. Plaintiff: Doe v. Colgate, the plaintiff went to the press and was still anonymous.

 Judge Kaplan: I'm going to wait until you make your expert disclosure.  Plaintiff's lawyer: There is a person beyond Mr Rapp who is aware of this. And Mr Rapp is not seeking to withhold his name.

Judge Kaplan: You need to file the relevant piece of the deposition.

The proceeding ends, just like that.

From February 2: Spacey's lawyer says it is unfair for C.D. to proceeding anonymously. "While it is true we have C.D.'s name, only if we make it public can others come forward with evidence about him... this is the right to due process."

C.D.'s lawyer: The sealed plaintiff versus sealed defendant factors weigh in our favor. We are talking about the rape of a minor. The declaration by his therapist shows he would suffer harm if his name is made public.

 Judge: If it happened it's abhorrent. But I don't have to be reminded of what Mr Spacey is accused of in every sentence. CD's lawyer: Spacey said, as to Rapp, that if it happened he was sorry. But here he is denying it entirely.

Judge: You're not getting anywhere.

Judge Kaplan: Get me your papers, and you'll get a decision promptly. Until then, don't disclose the name to third parties - except to Mr. Rapp, subject to sealing.

Spacey's lawyer: Every day is lost time.

  So Rapp's deposition will go forward, with C.D.'s real name said at it but reported in the transcript as C.D..  Inner City Press will continue to report on this case. More on Patreon here.

The case is  Rapp et al v. Fowler, 20-cv-9586 (Kaplan)



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]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: 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 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]