In a late October post titled, Federal Court Approves Sale of Substantial Giuliani Assets to Satisfy Election Workers’ Judgment, I wrote about the October 22, 2024 order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York authorizing Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the two Georgia election workers he defamed, to sell Rudy Giuliani’s assets and appointed them as receivers to liquidate those assets.

That order set an October 29, 2024 deadline for the transfer of specifically identified property. When representatives of the election workers visited Giuliani’s New York City apartment a few days later they discovered that most of its contents, including art and sports memorabilia, had been removed a month earlier and some of those items moved to a storage facility 50 miles away on eastern Long Island earlier.

Since then, Giuliani has engaged in the same tactics that resulted in the entry of judgment in favor of Freeman and Moss. This resulted in extensive motion practice and culminated in a contempt hearing held on January 3, 2025, at which Giuliani testified in person.

At a status conference held on November 7, 2024, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman told Giuliani’s lawyer, “He is under an unqualified obligation to deliver all of the receivership property to the receiver” when he failed to meet the October 29th deadline. As memorialized in the Court’s November 8, 2024 order, Giuliani was required by November 15, 2024, to deliver to Freeman and Moss “all items of property identified in the Turnover Order, according to the Plaintiffs-Receivers’ instructions.”

On November 22, 2024, the Court entered a three-page order finding that Giuliani had not complied with the November 7, 2024 order or the Court’s earlier Turnover Order. The November 22, 2024 order required Giuliani to comply with the following instructions or face contempt:

  1. By no later than 5 p.m. Friday, December 6, 2024, Mr. Giuliani shall segregate all Receivership Property located at the CTS Facility from property that is not subject to the Turnover Order;
  2. By the same date and time, Mr. Giuliani shall provide a detailed list containing pictures of the segregated Receivership Property located at the CTS Facility sufficient to show the size and quantity of that property;
  3. By Monday, December 9, 2024, the Receivers will provide Mr. Giuliani with the location of a New York-based storage facility, and the date and time when Mr. Giuliani shall deliver all of the Receivership Property located at the CTS Facility;
  4. Mr. Giuliani shall deliver all of the Receivership Property stored at the CTS Facility to the New York-based storage facility provided by Receivers no later than Friday,December 13, 2024;
  5. Defendant Giuliani, his attorneys, agents, and persons in active concert or participation with him or them shall not transfer, encumber, or interfere with any of Defendant’s property located at Corporate Transfer and Storage, Inc. (“CTS”) or America First Warehouse (“AFX”) until the Receiver files notice on the docket that the above conditions have been satisfied.

On December 5, 2024, Freeman and Moss filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman to hold Giuliani in contempt and impose sanctions. In their motion and accompanying memorandum of law, Freeman and Moss stated, “Mr. Giuliani has not produced a single document in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery orders in this matter notwithstanding multiple orders from this Court requiring him to do so.”

In opposition to the motion, Giuliani claimed that Freeman and Moss were not legally entitled to receive any of his property because they, as receivers, failed to file an oath required by New York CPLR § 5228 and that he had not waived the requirement. He contends that the receivership was not commenced in the absence of the filing of the oath.

While the briefing was taking place on the contempt motion, the Court entered a memorandum and order on an earlier motion to compel Guiliani’s compliance with discovery. Judge Liman noted that Giuliani’s responses to discovery were late and incomplete. Moreover, Judge Liman observed, “Defendant’s responses can only be understood as showing disrespect for the law and disregard for his obligations under law.” The memorandum and order concludes,

The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s answer to Interrogatories #4 and #8 from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Defendant has until Friday, December 20, 2024, to answer or show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violation of the Court’s order.
Under Rule 37(a)(5), the Court is to impose the cost of a motion to compel on the losing party unless the losing party’s position was substantially justified. F.R.C.P. 37(a)(5). Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit its costs to the Court no later than December 23, 2024. Defendant may respond to the costs by December 30, 2024. Plaintiffs may reply by January 6, 2025.

Giuliani responded by seeking a protection order on December 23, 2024, to avoid answering Interrogatories #4 and #8, arguing that they were irrelevant to the litigation over whether his Florida condo is exempt from collection as his homestead.

In December, in response to Giuliani blaming his prior counsel for his failure to comply with discovery, Judge Liman unsealed part of the motion to withdraw by Giuliani’s his prior counsel, in which they stated,

Defendant has informed us that he will not participate in electronic discovery in the Homestead Action. Specifically, he has informed us that he will not identify or provide access to his electronic device(s) for imaging by an electronics-discovery vendor, which we have identified. We have a fundamental disagreement with that position. Defendant’s position also constitutes a failure to cooperate with us in the representation and renders it unreasonably difficult for us to carry out our employment effectively.

Events in the case culminated in a seven-hour hearing held on January 3, 2025 to determine whether Giuliani should be held in contempt. At the conclusion of the contempt hearing. Giuliani testified for more than three hours and was cross-examined over his sworn statements, including some filed by him in his bankruptcy case.

During his testimony, Giuliani reportedly testified he never intentionally withheld information concerning his assets, did not recall seeing certain of his statements, and did not willfully disobey court orders directing him to turnover assets. Giuliani did acknowledge his failure to turn over his grandfather’s gold pocket watch out of fear it would be lost.

Judge Liman told Giuliani, “Mr. Giuliani, as it stands you’re in violation of the court’s order.” Giuliani will resume testifying virtually on January 6, 2025.

Later this month the parties return to Court for a trial on whether the Florida condo is protected from collection efforts.

David’s Dicta: Dunn Law, P.A. is local counsel to Freeman and Moss and domesticated their judgment against Giuliani in Florida to create a lien against his Florida condominium.

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *