Rudy Giuliani talks to reporters before the Republican National Convention, on July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee (AP Photo/Paul Sancya).
Two former Georgia election workers who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani to the tune of $148 million have once again asked a federal judge to hold the former New York City mayor in contempt, accusing him of withholding vital information as they try to collect on the massive judgment.
As Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss continue litigation over how Giuliani will pay off what he owes them, the fate of his multimillion-dollar Florida condominium has yet to be decided. Giuliani earlier this year claimed that the Palm Beach home was his permanent residence, making it eligible for homestead protection and thereby exempting the property from debt collection.
Attorneys for the Georgia election workers have pushed back on that claim, alleging in court documents that Giuliani treated the Florida condo as a vacation home, not a permanent residence. The duo have been alleging that Giuliani is refusing to answer certain questions required in the discovery process because truthful answers would show he has not been honest about the Florida property.
The issue of Giuliani’s permanent residence will be central to the Jan. 16, 2025, trial between the parties.
As part of the litigation, Freeman and Moss in November asked Giuliani to identify any financial, medical, or legal professionals he had consulted with for the last four years as well as any email/messaging accounts and phone numbers used in that time period.
After he missed several court-ordered deadlines, Giuliani eventually objected to the questions, claiming that the information was protected by “privilege, including, but not limited to the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine and doctor patient privilege.” He also objected to providing the plaintiffs with his phones and messaging accounts, claiming such information “poses a safety and security concern to his wellbeing, as there were previous threats received by Defendant.”
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman on Dec. 17, penned a scathing rebuke of Giuliani’s late objections and issued an order compelling him to provide answers to Freeman and Moss.
“Defendant’s responses can only be understood as showing disrespect for the law and disregard for his obligations under law,” Liman wrote in the order, referring to Giuliani twice missing deadlines to respond to the plaintiffs’ questions. “The Defendant has not shown good cause for his failure to timely respond, and his tardy objections are accordingly waived.”
But even if the objections had not been waived, Liman said that Giuliani’s objections were “without merit.”
“The information requested by Interrogatory #4 (“financial, medical, or legal professional or firm whom you have consulted during the period of January 1, 2020, through the present”) is squarely relevant to Defendant’s claim for a homestead exemption,” Liman wrote. “The identities, and correspondingly, locations of the Defendant’s professional services providers are relevant to whether he in fact treated Palm Beach as his permanent residence, as a matter of subjective intent and actual occupancy, as opposed to a vacation home.”
Liman also said that Giuliani’s refusal to provide the phone and messaging information makes it appear as if he is being intentionally evasive.
“Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here because the Defendant’s repeated noncompliance with his discovery obligations in this and other matters give substantial reason to question the completeness of his disclosures, and those disclosures are of great import to the upcoming Homestead trial,” he wrote. ” Defendant has not shown good cause why he cannot easily and quickly disclose his email addresses and phone numbers. Defendant is not the only former public official who has been sued in this Court.”
Giuliani responded on Dec. 23, by seeking a protective order preventing him from having to respond to the questions, claiming they were not relevant to the homestead litigation.
Moss and Freeman on Thursday implored Liman to reject the request for a protective order and to hold Giuliani in contempt.
“If Defendant had good-faith concerns about that scope [of the questions], he could have conferred with Plaintiffs to seek clarification and, if necessary, sought agreement narrowing the scope of the interrogatory to address his concerns or, failing that, timely sought an order from this Court narrowing the Interrogatory or protecting his answers from public disclosure,” the filing states. “He did none of those things.”
The election workers also asked the court to make “adverse inferences” against Giuliani, including assuming that truthful answers to the aforementioned questions would “show that Mr. Giuliani did not treat the Palm Beach Condo as his permanent residence.”
A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Jan. 3, 2025.
