Two former Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani, are pushing for the former New York City mayor to be held in contempt of court. This comes as they seek to collect on a $148 million judgment stemming from Giuliani’s false accusations against them. The election workers are accusing Giuliani of withholding crucial information during the ongoing litigation, particularly regarding his Florida condominium, which may be pivotal in determining how he will pay the judgment.
Earlier this year, Giuliani claimed that his Palm Beach home was his permanent residence, which would make it eligible for homestead protection and exempt from debt collection. Freeman and Moss, however, argue that Giuliani treated the property as a vacation home, not a primary residence. They have alleged that he is refusing to answer key questions in the discovery process because providing truthful responses would expose his dishonesty about the property.
The legal battle centers on whether Giuliani’s Florida condo qualifies for homestead protection, which could impact the collection of the judgment. As part of their case, Freeman and Moss have requested that Giuliani disclose any financial, medical, or legal professionals he has consulted with over the past four years, as well as provide details about any email or messaging accounts and phone numbers he has used during this period.
Giuliani missed several court-ordered deadlines to respond to these questions, and when he did respond, he objected to providing the requested information, claiming that it was protected by various privileges, including attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and doctor-patient privilege. He also argued that providing his phone numbers and messaging accounts would pose a safety risk due to previous threats against him.
In response, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman issued a stern rebuke of Giuliani’s objections. In a December 17 order, Judge Liman stated that Giuliani’s failure to comply with the court’s deadlines demonstrated a “disrespect for the law” and a “disregard for his obligations under law.” He further noted that Giuliani’s objections lacked merit and that the requested information was directly relevant to determining whether the Palm Beach property was, in fact, Giuliani’s primary residence. The judge also criticized Giuliani for his refusal to provide his phone and email information, suggesting that it appeared as though he was deliberately being evasive.
Judge Liman emphasized that the information Freeman and Moss were requesting was crucial to the upcoming trial, which will focus on whether Giuliani’s Florida property qualifies for homestead protection. He also pointed out that Giuliani had not shown any valid reason why he could not easily disclose his contact information.
On December 23, Giuliani sought a protective order to prevent having to answer the questions, claiming they were not relevant to the homestead dispute. However, Freeman and Moss have pushed back, asking the court to reject Giuliani’s request and hold him in contempt for his continued noncompliance. They argued that if Giuliani had concerns about the scope of the questions, he should have worked with them to narrow the scope or sought a court order for protection. Instead, they claim, he failed to engage in any good-faith efforts to resolve the issue.
Freeman and Moss have also asked the court to make “adverse inferences” against Giuliani, meaning they want the court to assume that truthful answers to the questions would show that Giuliani did not treat the Palm Beach condo as his permanent residence.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January 3, 2025, where the court will likely decide whether Giuliani should be held in contempt and whether any adverse inferences should be drawn from his refusal to comply with the discovery process.
