Rudy Giuliani On The Hook For $120,000 In Legal Fees In Libel Suit He Already Admitted (In Court!) He Lost
from the playing-4D-blackjack,-standing-on-a-pair-of-twos dept
For someone who’s a lawyer, a former prosecutor, a former mayor, and a former presidential confidant, Rudy Giuliani sure doesn’t seem to know his way around a lawsuit. It’s perhaps that last thing on that list that’s gotten him in the most trouble. Rather than recognize the peaceful transition of power that followed the 2020 election, Giuliani put himself in Trump’s pocket and helped pitch his alternative reality anywhere someone was willing to give him a platform.
Once there, he began making wild accusations — some of them demonstrably defamatory — against voting machine manufacturers, state politicians, and, as is relevant here, state election workers.
Two Georgia election workers sued Giuliani after he defamed them. And I don’t have to use the word “allegedly” because he openly admitted he defamed them in a motion filed in the very court handling this suit.
That should have resulted in Giuliani ceding the loss and opening his wallet to pay the election workers’ legal fees. Somehow, it did not. I’m sure it made some sort of cosmic sense to Rudy and his hired legal guns. But it made no sense to Judge Beryl Howell, who asked Giuliani to kindly explain how admitting you defamed someone meant (1) the lawsuit wasn’t over, and (2) that you weren’t civilly liable for legal fees or damages.
Now, what already looked bad for Giuliani looks even worse. The judge is calling the game, since Giuliani isn’t honorable enough to forfeit. Not only has he worn out the patience of Judge Howell on this matter, he’s also irritated the court to the point of sanctions in another matter: that being, his continuous refusal to comply with discovery orders.
Here’s the discussion on that point, which leads off a 57-page ruling [PDF] that culminates in an additional $120,000 Giuliani now owes to the plaintiffs he has already admitted he wronged. The judge recites the legal standards for the preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) and how these long-established rules are generally well-understood and complied with by the vast majority of litigants.
Then the judge goes after Rudy Giuliani, who has decided he’s exempt from rules that, as a lawyer himself, he’s certainly well acquainted with.
Defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani is taken at his word that he understands these obligations. He assured this Court directly that he “understand[s] the obligations” because he has “been doing this for 50 years[.]” In this case, however, Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce his ESI. Instead, Giuliani has submitted declarations with concessions turned slippery on scrutiny and excuses designed to shroud the insufficiency of his discovery compliance. The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss’s procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case.
Giuliani and the voting base he now caters to may enjoy performative court filings, but courts rarely enjoy them. This court says that sort of thing doesn’t play here.
Rather than simply play by the rules designed to promote a discovery process necessary to reach a fair decision on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, Giuliani has bemoaned plaintiffs’ efforts to secure his compliance as “punishment by process.” Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straight-forward defamation case, with the concomitant necessity of repeated court intervention.
The court notes Giuliani has been hit with several production orders and granted multiple time extensions in order to comply with orders. And he’s simply decided he’s not going to cooperate.
[T]he result of these efforts to obtain discovery from Giuliani, aside from his initial production of 193 documents, is largely a single page of communications, blobs of indecipherable data, a sliver of the financial documents required to be produced, and a declaration and two stipulations from Giuliani, who indicates in the latter stipulations his preference to concede plaintiffs’ claims rather than produce discovery in this case.
That’s the angle Giuliani is playing. It’s an incredibly stupid one. But he (and his hired counsel!) seems to think it might work.
Spoiler alert: it won’t.
Giuliani would like to have his proverbial cake and eat it too: He wants to bypass his discovery obligations now with stipulations that would leave him, somehow, free to raise his affirmative defenses to plaintiffs’ claims on appeal, with a record predicated on deficient discovery. This discovery shortcut is simply unfair and will not be permitted here.
Giuliani sort conceded a loss but never fully conceded the lawsuit. And now he no longer has the option to keep this lawsuit balanced precariously between life and death until he can suss out his exposure both here and in other libel lawsuits pending against him. Judge Howell pulls the plug on that scheme.
Rather than granting entry of default based on Giuliani’s stipulations, with their various carve-outs and reservations, default is entered here as a straight-up sanction for his discovery failures.
Let the bleeding begin!
With respect to Giuliani’s obligations to reimburse plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, Giuliani is directed: (1) to reimburse such fees and costs associated with plaintiffs’ successful first motion to compel discovery, in the amount totaling $89,172.50, with interest on that amount from July 25, 2023; (2) to reimburse such attorneys’ fees and costs associated with plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, pursuant to Rule 37(e); and (3) to ensure the Giuliani Businesses reimburse such fees and costs associated with plaintiffs’ successful motion to compel discovery from the Businesses, in the amount totaling $43,684. Should the Giuliani Businesses fail to timely reimburse plaintiffs the $43,684, Giuliani will bear that cost as a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), with interest on that amount to accrue from September 20, 2023.
Default judgment on the sanctions motions. The case proceeds to trial. That means Giuliani still has to turn over the documents he’s already been ordered to produce multiple times, which will no doubt be used against him as this goes in front of a jury to determine exactly how much more Rudy owes the election workers he defamed. Good times. And that should show other people in his position what exactly they’re getting in return for hitching their reputation to Trump’s fallen star.
Filed Under: 2020 election, attorney's fees, beryl howell, defamation, default judgment, libel, ruby freeman, rudy giuliani, the big lie, wandrea' arshaye moss


Comments on “Rudy Giuliani On The Hook For $120,000 In Legal Fees In Libel Suit He Already Admitted (In Court!) He Lost”
Trump will save the day!
The judgement and fine don’t matter because President Trump will arrive any second now, pardon Rudy, and save the day! Just you wait and see! Trump will make everything right so his loyal followers won’t have to suffer their fate.
I wish that was sarcasm, but I really wonder if people like Rudy believe it. Could this be why he doesn’t care about openly admitting he defamed someone?
Re: Trump will save the day!
A rational explanation is that there is something in the files that he is hiding that will result in a worse outcome in this, or other trials, should it be available to the plaintiffs.
In other words, accepting a default judgement may be less costly than contesting it.
Re: Re:
Except he’s still got to produce the documents. It does seem like he’s attempting to string things out long enough so he can be pardoned and Trump can make this all go away.
Re: Re: Re:
Alex Jones never provided full financials. And a pardon is already a long shot. Rudy’s broke. He’s already had judgements against him big enough he won’t likely ever pay them off. What’s another billion in legal fees, frankly. If we suspect he’s avoiding sharing info that is criminal, the logic could be “Criminal Contempt might get me prison, but that’s pretty rare. This document will get me prison.”
Re: Re: Re:2
Thankfully, Alex Jones hasn’t been getting away with his “claim bankruptcy while hiding my assets” scheme so far, and hopefully Guliani doesn’t try the same thing, because he would DEFINITELY not get away with it!
Ideally the second his fancy schmancy penthouse in New York gets sold, the money is seized and given to these election workers. I mean shit, if I were them I’d already have liens filed on that sucker a long time ago! (IANAL though, no idea if that’s something they can do in a case like this?)
Re:
Well, you can’t pardon someone from a civil suit, but you point out something similar to my thinking: That these clowns, for years, have been trying to run out the clock until a real coup occurs and they areno longer beholden to anyone or anything because in their minds they are masters or friends of leopards.
That proverb never made any sense. One has to have a cake in order to eat it. Saying “eat his cake and have it too” would make a little more sense, but even Homer Simpson figured out the loophole in that (“mmm, forbidden cake”).
Re:
You only need physical access to the cake to eat it, not possession.
It’s called Habeas Cookies.
It’s not just that the discovery document will be used against him here. They’ll likely be used against him in all the other trials he and Trump are in together.
And that might upset the Führer.
Re:
He isn’t in a government leading position right now. Until such a time (hopefully never), you can just refer to him as Twitler. Too bad Musk ruined that portmanteau. Xitler doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Re: Re: Xitler doesn’t have the same ring to it
It does if you pronounce the “X” as it is in the word “luxury”.
Pure shenanigans I tell you
Well talk about a ridiculous ruling and judge, don’t they know that the law doesn’t apply to members of the party of law and order? They’re on the ‘the law protects but doesn’t bind’ half of the equation, how dare the judge try to enforce the law against them?
The best thing Rudy Giuliani could have done for his legacy would have been to die quietly about ten years ago.
Re:
Oh, he did. But it was hubris of him to think that being braindead was sufficient justification for buying his hair dye from the mortician. That perk is reserved for the next stage of conservatism.
lock him up
A judge IS allowed to jail a person for contempt of court for failure to produce documents – even if its a civil trial. The record iirc is 14 years in jail.
It smacks more of him desperately trying to keep the dogs at bay while he figures out ways to stash his cash out of their reach.
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields
Re:
Unfortunately, Giuliani – as per his reference to his legal experience – seems to be wanting to dazzle the court with bullshit.
None of those conditions are proof against old age and non compos mentis, as most recently and inarguibly proven by R.G. himself.
If you eat a cake you no longer have a cake. Therefore you cannot both have a cake and eat it, all the parts f the cake you eat are no longer cake. It is fashionable to try to poke holes in well established and commonly used language but it just makes the hole poker look silly. Just like those who always insist that double negatives are wrong. Language isn’t pure maths, it is communication and the meaning of “have your cake and eat it” is absolutely clear.
Common Errors in English Usage
Retired Washington State University professor Paul Brians has the history on the misworded have/eat cake idiom:
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/you-cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too/
The proper phrasing is “eat your cake and have it too,” because in modern usage “have” is a synonym for eat. I am having cake connotes the same meaning as I am eating cake.