A federal judge in New York recently held Rudy Giuliani in contempt and imposed sanctions for his repeated disregard of court orders related to the defamation case brought by two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. The workers had previously been awarded a $148 million judgment against Giuliani for defaming them, and the legal battle continued as they sought to collect on the judgment.
The contempt hearing followed numerous requests from Freeman and Moss, accusing Giuliani of a consistent pattern of defying court orders to provide personal property and information for discovery. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, who was appointed by Donald Trump, presided over the hearing and ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Liman’s decision was unequivocal, stating that it was “not even close.” The judge pointed out that Giuliani’s objections to providing the requested information were meritless and that he had violated a prior order to respond by a specific deadline.
In his ruling, Judge Liman emphasized that Giuliani, as a former attorney, was fully aware of his legal obligations and had previously committed discovery violations. He also noted that Giuliani’s objections to providing information, such as emails and phone records, were pretextual. The judge found that Giuliani’s actions had prejudiced the plaintiffs’ case as they prepared for trial, which was set to begin shortly after the hearing.
Giuliani’s legal team had argued that some of the requested information was protected by privileges, such as attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege, and that disclosing certain details could compromise his safety. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that Giuliani’s objections lacked merit. Judge Liman also pointed out that Giuliani had failed to provide any substantial responses to the discovery requests, including failing to produce a single email despite being required to do so.
The issue at the heart of the case was Giuliani’s claim about his Florida condominium, which he had previously stated was his permanent residence, potentially exempting it from debt collection proceedings under Florida law. However, Freeman and Moss disputed this claim, arguing that the condo was more of a vacation home than a permanent residence. The legal dispute also involved questions about Giuliani’s financial and legal dealings over the past several years, as well as his failure to provide relevant information during discovery.
The ruling is part of an ongoing series of legal challenges for Giuliani, who has faced multiple defamation lawsuits related to his false claims about the 2020 election. In addition to the contempt ruling in New York, Giuliani is scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C., for a separate contempt hearing regarding violations of a court order barring him from repeating defamatory statements about Freeman and Moss. The election workers had previously filed a motion accusing Giuliani of continuing to spread false claims even after being awarded a significant judgment and declaring bankruptcy.
As Giuliani faces mounting legal pressure, the court’s decision in New York serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to comply with discovery rules and court orders. The sanctions and contempt ruling are likely to have significant implications for the ongoing defamation litigation, as Freeman and Moss continue their efforts to hold Giuliani accountable for his actions.
