Freeman Motion For Sanctions
Freeman Motion For Sanctions
Freeman Motion For Sanctions
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................3
LEGAL STANDARD....................................................................................................................14
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................16
I. THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION DEFENDANT GIULIANI FOR HIS
FAILURE TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PRESERVE ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE. ...............................................................................................................16
A. Defendant Giuliani Admits That The Electronic Evidence Should Have Been
Preserved In Anticipation Of This Litigation. ................................................17
B. Defendant Giuliani Admits That He Has Failed To Take Reasonable Steps
To Preserve The Electronic Evidence In Violation Of Rule 37(e).................17
C. The Electronic Evidence Is Irretrievable As A Result Of Defendant
Giuliani’s Failure To Preserve. ......................................................................19
D. Plaintiffs Are Prejudiced By The Loss Of The Electronic Evidence. ............21
E. Defendant Giuliani Intended Not To Take Reasonable Steps To Preserve The
Electronic Evidence. .......................................................................................29
F. The Court Should Order Sanctions. ...............................................................31
1. The Court should order default judgment against Defendant Giuliani
on liability...........................................................................................31
2. The Court should order adverse inferences against Defendant
Giuliani. ..............................................................................................33
3. The Court should preclude Defendant Giuliani from relying on any of
the unpreserved electronic evidence...................................................35
G. In the Alternative, the Court Could Order Defendant Giuliani to Produce His
Devices to Plaintiffs .......................................................................................36
II. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD PLAINTIFFS’ FEES AND COSTS. .................37
-i-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 44
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Herbert v. Lando,
441 U.S. 153 (1979) ............................................................................................................................. 23
- ii -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 44
Vasser v. Shulkin,
No. 14-CV-0185 (RC), 2017 WL 5634860 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2017) ................................. 15, 30, 31, 34
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee's notes on rules - 2015 Amendment ........................................ 15, 16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's notes on rules - 2015 Amendment ............................. 15, 16, 22
- iii -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 44
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and the Court’s June 23, 2023 minute
order (“June 23 Order”), Plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye (“Shaye”) Moss
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move the Court to sanction Defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani
(“Defendant” or “Defendant Giuliani”) for failure to preserve electronic evidence (the “Motion”).
INTRODUCTION
In December 2020, Defendant Giuliani started widely publishing false claims that
Plaintiffs, two Georgia election workers, had engaged in a conspiracy to commit election fraud.
His claims were no more grounded in reality than a fever dream. However, given his stature and
that of his client (then-President Trump), state and federal investigators promptly undertook an
subsequently announced in public that there was no basis for Giuliani’s claims. In the face of
seriatim official rejections of his false claims about Plaintiffs, Defendant Giuliani consciously
embellishing them with new imagined details—for more than a year. Plaintiffs brought this
lawsuit to clear their names and hold Defendant Giuliani accountable for besmirching their
The time allotted for discovery in this case has concluded. Based on the record developed,
there is no real dispute that Defendant Giuliani published false and defamatory claims about
Plaintiffs to the world; that these publications caused Plaintiffs harm; that Defendant Giuliani’s
conduct was outrageous and caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress; and that
The only defenses Defendant Giuliani appears poised to offer on liability are that his
allegations about Plaintiffs all constitute non-actionable opinion, and that he failed to act with the
requisite degree of fault—whether that standard is negligence or “actual malice.” The first defense
-1-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 44
amounts to a legal question that this Court will confront in due course. As for the second, Plaintiffs
dispute that this case should be governed by the “actual malice” standard, but even if that standard
did apply to private figures like Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the law is clear that a defendant’s
self-serving attestations of good faith belief do not resolve the question of actual malice. Instead,
claims that turn on a defendant’s subjective belief may be tested through discovery into whether a
defendant in fact knew that his or her claims were false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
In this case, Defendant Giuliani has severely prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to test his claims
about what he knew, as well as what information he received but chose to ignore, before he made
his numerous defamatory claims between December 2020 and January 12, 2022. Plaintiffs know
that pertinent documentary evidence on those questions existed at one point, based not just on
common sense, but also because of discovery productions made by third parties. But Defendant
Giuliani himself has never produced meaningful documentary discovery in this case. And the
likely reason for that is because, as Defendant Giuliani’s May 30 declaration (the “Declaration”)
makes abundantly clear, he failed to take any steps to preserve relevant electronic evidence.
Throughout the course of discovery, Plaintiffs have repeatedly inquired into the status of
Defendant Giuliani’s preservation efforts, and the Court has also given Defendant Giuliani the
opportunity to cure his failures by ordering him to detail his preservation efforts and take steps to
cure any deficiencies. Moreover, Defendant Giuliani is an attorney with over half a century of
experience and therefore is intimately familiar with his obligation to make reasonable efforts to
preserve electronic discovery. Despite this, Defendant Giuliani has now effectively conceded that
he has not taken even the most basic steps to preserve evidence that might be relevant to this
litigation.
-2-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 7 of 44
In sum, Defendant Giuliani has had eighteen months since Plaintiffs first filed this suit to
take reasonable steps to preserve his electronic evidence, including more than six months since
Plaintiffs first raised the question of preservation. Defendant Giuliani has had nearly three months
since Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel. Defendant Giuliani’s failure to preserve his electronic
records in the face of repeated reminders, and a personal awareness of his obligations, can and
should be interpreted by this Court as a deliberate effort to deprive Plaintiffs of material evidence
in this litigation.
In light of Defendant Giuliani’s willful misconduct, severe sanctions are appropriate. Fact
discovery in this matter concluded on May 22, 2023—a deadline which this Court has already
extended six months due almost entirely to Defendant Giuliani’s recalcitrance. While, in theory,
additional discovery might plausibly be able to remedy some of the prejudice Plaintiffs have
suffered, ordering that additional discovery would be inequitable and unjust. Plaintiffs have
already faced substantial delay in the adjudication of their claims. Fact discovery should not be
extended again simply because Defendant Giuliani has chosen not to comply with his obligations.
Indeed, sanctions exist to remedy the precise situation here—a sophisticated party’s abuse of
judicial process designed to avoid accountability, at enormous expense to the parties and this
Court. Defendant Giuliani should know better. His conduct warrants severe sanctions.
Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on December 23, 2021, ECF No. 1, and filed their operative,
amended complaint on May 10, 2022, ECF No. 22. Fact discovery opened on May 18, 2022, and
Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on Defendant on May 20, 2022. Defendant
Giuliani’s counsel initially conveyed that the key electronic devices had been seized by the FBI
and that he had lost access to certain email and other accounts. ECF No. 44-4; ECF No. 44-5.
Defendant’s devices were returned to him no later than August 19, 2022. ECF No. 44-5.
-3-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 8 of 44
Defendant Giuliani’s counsel conveyed that there was a database that consisted of some set of
documents collected by the FBI when they seized certain of Defendant Giuliani’s devices in April
2021 (“TrustPoint”), but he did not know what documents were contained in that database. See
ECF No. 44 at 10–12; ECF No. 56 at 6–8; ECF No. 64 at 15–16. Between July 12 and November
1, 2022, Defendant Giuliani produced a total of 193 documents collected in response to Plaintiffs’
discovery demands in this case, none of which were particularly responsive. ECF No. 44 at 4–8.
Concerned that Defendant’s meager productions might be the result of spoliation, Plaintiffs
first requested confirmation that Defendant Giuliani had taken reasonable steps to preserve his
electronic evidence during a meet and confer on December 21, 2022. ECF No. 44-7. Counsel for
Defendant Giuliani confirmed in writing that he was not aware of any preservation efforts by
Defendant Giuliani, writing “I am not aware of his preservation efforts.” Id. In an email dated
February 6, 2023, Plaintiffs again asked counsel for Defendant Giuliani to confirm that “Mr.
Giuliani has preserved, searched, and produced documents from his e-mail accounts, devices,
social media accounts, messaging applications, or other electronic devices for documents
responsive to” Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFPs”). (Ex. 1.) Counsel for Defendant
into Defendant Giuliani’s repositories of potentially relevant information and his preservation and
search efforts. Defendant Giuliani confirmed during his deposition that he used multiple phones,
email addresses, and messaging applications in the months following the 2020 presidential
election. (Ex. 4 at 17:14–19, 21:5–11, 22:24–25:6.) Defendant Giuliani claimed to have taken “a
quick look” for responsive material on messaging platforms and some of his devices but did not
“know” if that look related to “this case” or if he “lumped a group of cases together.” (Id. at 25:19–
-4-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 9 of 44
26:8, 26:20–27:7.) Defendant Giuliani could not recall ever reaching out to any of the companies
for applications he used, like WhatsApp or Signal, to ask them to pull down his data. (Id. at 28:9–
16.) When asked whether he had ever gone back to the companies, as far as searching the devices
seized by the FBI in April 2021 after they were returned, Defendant Giuliani claimed they were
“wiped out” when he received them back and any search of them “hasn’t helped because…I can’t
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted a filing detailing the outstanding discovery
disputes with Defendant Giuliani and specifically argued that Defendant Giuliani had been unable
to confirm that he had adequately preserved materials responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFPs despite
Plaintiffs’ requests. ECF No. 36 at 6. Defendant Giuliani’s response was silent regarding his
During a discovery conference before this Court on March 21, the Court asked counsel for
Defendant Giuliani whether Defendant Giuliani had “locked down – put a litigation hold on – all
of his records given the pendency of this litigation?” (Ex. 7 at 10:22–11:2.) Counsel for Defendant
Giuliani stated:
Well, Your Honor, I think the answer is yes. I don't know -- I don't recall in his
deposition if he was specifically asked that question. But, certainly, the documents
that were taken by the DOJ were locked – in April of 2021. So all of those
documents are fixed, so that's certainly locked in.
I am not sure that there was specifically – I don't know that there was a specific
interrogatory asked, other than the one I mentioned that asked whether he deleted
documents. But he -- he certainly is willing to certify that however the Court would
like him to do so.
-5-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 10 of 44
Following the March 21 discovery hearing, the Court issued a minute order directing
Defendant Giuliani to, inter alia, (a) submit notice to the Court describing in specific terms the
data on TrustPoint that were searched in response to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, including date range and
contents (e.g., social media accounts, text messages, and communications on other messaging
platforms, such as Signal, Telegram, etc.); and (b) what locations and data sources remained for
response, Defendant filed a notice on March 24 in which he did not describe in specific terms the
data on TrustPoint or what locations and data sources remain for searches to be completed. ECF
On April 17, with the Court’s leave, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion to compel Defendant
Giuliani, specifically requesting that the Court compel Defendant Giuliani to detail his
preservation efforts. ECF No. 44 at 16–18. In his opposition, the only effort regarding
preservation that Defendant Giuliani was able to articulate was an action he did not even take, but
instead one taken by the FBI when that agency seized Giuliani’s electronic devices in April of
In their briefing, Plaintiffs explained having obtained discovery from third-parties and
public sources making clear what Plaintiffs suspected all along: there exists, somewhere in various
accounts and devices, documentary evidence that goes to the heart of Plaintiffs claims. For
example, on April 26, between Plaintiffs filing their motion to compel and reply in support thereof,
Plaintiffs received a production of documents from Christina Bobb. That production yielded a text
thread with Defendant Giuliani discussing sending a video of Plaintiffs to Rusty Bowers, then the
Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, ECF No. 56-3; and an August 17, 2022, direct
-6-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 11 of 44
message with Ms. Bobb on Instagram, which Defendant has never produced, ECF No. 56-4. See
ECF No. 56 at 3, 5. Defendant Giuliani has never produced either of those documents or any
social media communications from Ms. Bobb, and he had never even disclosed the phone number
he used to communicate with Ms. Bobb to Plaintiffs prior to Ms. Bobb’s production. (Gottlieb
Decl. ¶ 3); ECF No. 56 at 3, 5. Nor are either of these documents listed in Defendant Giuliani’s
privilege log as far as Plaintiffs can discern. (Ex. 2 at 11:25–13:12); ECF No. 44 at 8; (Gottlieb
seeking a comment from Defendant Giuliani on one of the key early rebuttals of Defendant
Giuliani’s claims—i.e., Georgia Secretary of State Chief Investigator Frances Watson’s December
Good morning,
First, I hope Mayor Giuliani is doing well and has a full and speedy
recovery from Covid-19. Has he had a chance to see the affidavit
from Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the Georgia
secretary of state, that was filed yesterday? Watson claims that,
according to his investigation, poll watchers and media were not
asked to leave before counting ended, but that they “simply left on
their own when they saw one group of workers, whose job was only
to open envelopes and who had completed that task, also leave.”
Watson also says that “there were no mystery ballots that were
brought in from an unknown location and hidden under tables,”
claiming that ballots were sealed in boxes and placed under the table
by workers who thought they were done for the night, and that the
boxes were later opened when counting continued. Watson does not
explain why workers thought they were done.
ECF No. 64-7. Defendant Giuliani has never produced that email (or listed on a privilege log as
-7-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 12 of 44
Similarly, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol released a December 13, 2020, email from Defendant Giuliani to
Boris Epshteyn, an advisor to the 2020 Trump Campaign, approving a draft statement from the
Trump Legal Team, which reiterates Defendant’s false claims about Plaintiffs: “Georgia has video
evidence of 30,000 illegal ballots cast after the observers were removed.” ECF No. 56-7 at 3.
Defendant Giuliani has never produced that email to Plaintiffs, and the December 13 email does
not appear on any privilege log produced in this case (or listed on a privilege log as far as Plaintiffs
Defendant Giuliani has also never produced (or listed on a privilege log as far as Plaintiffs
can discern) a December 7, 2020, text thread between Mr. Epshteyn, Defendant Giuliani, and
-8-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 13 of 44
(Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 11.) These are not the only examples Plaintiffs have of relevant documents
and communications that appear to have vanished from Defendant Giuliani’s repositories. (Decl.
¶ 5.)
Discovery from Defendant Giuliani and third-parties suggests that there should be many
records responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in this case. For example, Defendant Giuliani
testified that he “talked to many people” who said that poll observers were excluded from State
Farm Arena on election night 2020 and that “there were constant complaints about that.” (Ex. 4
at 352:22–353:21.) Christina Bobb testified that Defendant Giuliani was “getting like 10,000
emails a day” during the relevant time period, and that she was copied on some emails precisely
to ensure that certain emails were actually brought to Defendant’s attention. (Ex. 5 at 40:16–
41:21.) Similarly, Bernard Kerik testified that Defendant Giuliani’s team was receiving leads on
possible fraud from “a hundred different sources” during November and December 2020. (Ex. 6,
Kerik at 47:12–48:7.)
On May 19, 2023, three days before the close of fact discovery, the Court held another
discovery hearing, during which Defendant Giuliani admitted that he had been under an obligation
to preserve documents related to this litigation since before this action was even filed. (Ex. 2 at
67:21–68:2.) When the Court inquired as to what steps Defendant Giuliani had taken to preserve
his electronic evidence, counsel for Defendant stated that Defendant Giuliani “has not deleted any
documents.” (Id. at 65:20–25.) The Court explained that “not deleting documents is not the same
as preserving the information in a manner that can be retrieved and searched.” (Id. at 66:1–20.)
With respect to pre-April 2021 material, counsel for Defendant Giuliani represented (without
substantiation of any kind) that Defendant Giuliani “lost the ability to do any preservation as of
April 2021” and that whatever data was preserved “was preserved because it was taken by the
-9-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 14 of 44
government.” (Id. at 67:11–18.) Defendant Giuliani represented to the Court that “90 to 95 percent
of my communication is done on Apple, and it’s backed up by the iCloud.” (Id. at 53:4–8.) But
that there “is a problem with the cloud. When we go back to the period of time -- material that
was seized by the FBI, that I don’t have access to on the cloud. They have it, but I don’t have
access to it.” (Id. at 95:17–97:8.) Regarding his preservation obligations, Defendant Giuliani
stated “understand, I have been doing this for 50 years; I understand the obligations.” (Id. at 68:5–
6.)
Following the hearing, the Court ordered Defendant Giuliani to, by May 30, inter alia:
On May 30, Defendant Giuliani filed a declaration, but failed to resolve these issues. ECF
No. 60 (the “Giuliani Declaration” or “Giuliani Decl.”). The Giuliani Declaration identifies the
following data sources as likely to contain (or at one point to have contained) responsive
- 10 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 15 of 44
information: (1) three personal email accounts (Gmail, iCloud, and Protonmail); (2) an iCloud
account; (3) three phone numbers that he used to send messages via text and messaging
application; (4) three messaging applications (Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram); (5) five social media
handles, (items (1) through (5) collectively, “Identified Sources”); (6) and nine devices, two of
which were not seized by the FBI (“Seized Devices” as to the seven seized, “Unseized Devices”
as to the two unseized, and “Responsive Devices” as to the nine collectively). Giuliani Decl. ¶ 3.
The Declaration is silent on any efforts by Defendant Giuliani to take any steps to preserve
the Identified Sources or the Responsive Devices. See generally id. The Declaration states that
Defendant Giuliani turned off the auto-delete function at some period “in late 2020 or early 2021”
specifying which of those platforms this action applied to, or the process that Defendant Giuliani
used to take such steps) and did not manually delete “any electronic documents or dispose[] of any
As to TrustPoint, the Declaration represents that “TrustPoint One documents consist of all
documents that were extracted from the electronic devices taken by the DOJ in April 2021 when
the DOJ seized those devices” but does not confirm what exactly was “extracted.” Id. ¶ 4. The
Declaration is silent on whether TrustPoint contains all of Defendant Giuliani’s iMessage, text
message, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, or social media accounts or rather, if it contains any of
information happened to be stored locally on the Seized Devices. Id. ¶ 5. The Declaration does
not include any representations about whether the government extracted Defendant Giuliani’s
Gmail or Proton Mail accounts or his Business Files (as defined below), in part or in their entirety.
Id. ¶¶ 4–5. The Declaration explains that if Defendant Giuliani had accessed his social media
- 11 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 16 of 44
accounts “via the web, no data from social media would have been extracted from the devices” to
TrustPoint. Id. ¶ 5. As to the iCloud account, the Declaration assumes that data would have also
been included “because I synced my iCloud to my devices” without providing any confirmation
of when or how such activities might have taken place, such as the intervals at which Defendant
Giuliani generally “synced” his “iCloud to my devices” or whether all of his various accounts were
included within such activities. Giuliani Decl. ¶ 5. The Declaration is silent on any efforts to
recover any of the evidence that was “wiped” from his devices. See generally Giuliani Decl.
Plaintiffs responded to the Declaration in a filing on June 14 (as directed by the Court’s
May 31 Minute Order). ECF No. 64 (the “Response to the Declaration”). In the Response to the
Declaration, Plaintiffs show in detail that the Declaration does not explain any affirmative steps
by Defendant Giuliani to preserve any materials relevant to this action at any time. Id.
On June 16, Defendant produced 4,902 TrustPoint files to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 77 at 13.
Of those files, 3,233 are .txt files. ECF No. 77-1 ¶ 5. Txt files are generally non-usable, non-
readable raw data. Id. Of those txt files, 2,350 are completely non-readable, non-usable computer
files known as “blobs.” Id. In his position statement, Defendant Giuliani opined that, in his non-
expert view, the large volume of blank and/or non-responsive documents in his June 16 production
of materials from TrustPoint “appears to be a result of file corruption resulting from the DOJ
seizure.” ECF No. 77 at 20. The non-txt files are overwhelmingly non-responsive junk including:
informational packets regarding Microsoft auto-updates (in five different languages); articles and
memes about George Floyd; and death notices from The Washington Post. (Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 6.)
On June 23, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for sanctions for
- 12 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 17 of 44
Plaintiffs to file their motion by July 7, 2023. June 23 Minute Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Request
On June 29, 2023, Defendant introduced further confusion regarding TrustPoint, when his
counsel provided Plaintiffs with a sealed motion filed by Defendant Giuliani’s criminal defense
counsel in In re Search Warrant Dated April 21, 2021, No. 21-MJ-4335 (S.D.N.Y.). ECF No. 77-
2. That motion makes clear that the records collected in the TrustPoint database were collected as
part of an investigation into a possible Foreign Agents Registration Act violation “involving
Ukrainian individuals, Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch and the office of the U.S. Ambassador to
the Ukraine; a trip by Giuliani to Poland in 2019 and issues involving Franklin Templeton and
funds misappropriated from the Ukraine.” (Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 7.) In that motion, Defendant
Giuliani’s criminal defense counsel requested that the New York court order the Government to
suppress and destroy the majority of records contained in the TrustPoint database, and limit any
remaining records to a time period between 2018 and 2019. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not know the result
of that motion, as the docket remains sealed, or whether anything was ultimately deleted or
suppressed from the TrustPoint database. In all events, it is now undisputed that the records
contained in TrustPoint were collected in response to a search warrant that had nothing to do with
the 2020 election, or Plaintiffs’ claims, and further that Defendant Giuliani attempted not to
preserve the evidence involved in that collection, but instead to have that evidence narrowed and
On June 30, 2023, Defendant made a production of 3,407 documents from TrustPoint. On
the same day, the parties submitted a joint status report. ECF No. 77. As with the production on
June 16, the June 30 production appears to be largely non-responsive junk files, including: 258
- 13 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 18 of 44
“blob” files; 141 Apple information packets in various languages; and more death notices from
On July 6, one day before Plaintiffs were required to file this Motion, counsel for Defendant
Giuliani reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel offering to discuss whether an agreement might be
reached in lieu of Plaintiffs filing this motion. (Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 9.) In response to that outreach,
counsel for each of the Parties negotiated over the course of two days in an effort to reach such an
agreement. (Id.) When it appeared by late afternoon on Friday, July 7 that counsel appeared to
agree upon a set of key principles for that agreement, the Parties filed a motion, ECF No. 80,
seeking a brief extension of time to file this Motion. (Id.) The representations made in that Motion
relied upon representations from Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Giuliani. (Id.) However,
counsel for Defendant Giuliani communicated on the morning of Monday July 10, for the first
time, that Defendant Giuliani did not agree with the key principles referenced above, and
accordingly, the agreement contemplated in ECF No. 80 was not achievable. (Id.) That turn of
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), the Court may sanction a party “[i]f
electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of
litigation is lost because that party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be
restored or replaced through additional discovery.” Rule 37(e)(1) authorizes, upon a finding of
prejudice, sanctions to cure that prejudice, whereas Rule 37(e)(2) authorizes sanctions upon a
finding that a party intended to deprive another party of information. The Court may impose
curative measures such as “forbidding the party that failed to preserve information from putting
on certain evidence, permitting the parties to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding
- 14 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 19 of 44
the loss of information, or giving the jury instructions to assist in its evaluation of such evidence
or argument.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s notes on rules – 2015 Amendment.
“Discovery sanctions serve two purposes: punishing disobedient parties and deterring
others from emulating their behavior.” Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Reliable Limousine
Serv., LLC, 776 F.3d 1, 6–8 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion by
entering default judgment where district court found that defendant willfully refused to participate
in discovery and violated numerous court orders); see also Butera v. District of Columbia, 235
F.3d 637, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Guarantee Co. of N. Am. USA v. Lakota Contracting Inc., No. CV
“When analyzing a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1), courts consider whether (1)
electronically stored information (ESI) should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct
of litigation; (2) a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI; (3) ESI was lost as a
result; and (4) the ESI could not be restored or replaced by additional discovery.” Doe v. District
of Columbia, No. 1:19-CV-01173 (CJN), 2023 WL 3558038, at *12 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2023)
(cleaned up). The party alleging spoliation bears the burden of proof, Borum v. Brentwood Vill.,
LLC, 332 F.R.D. 38, 43 (D.D.C. 2019), and that burden is not onerous. See Vasser v. Shulkin, No.
14-CV-0185 (RC), 2017 WL 5634860, at *4 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2017) (finding the burden was
For sanctions permitted by Rule 37(e)(1), the Court must then determine whether the
moving party suffered prejudice as a result of the failure to preserve and may upon a finding of
prejudice may “impose proportional sanctions upon the finding of prejudice.” Borum, 332 F.R.D.
at 46–47 (D.D.C. 2019). Courts have “discretion to determine how best to assess prejudice in
particular cases.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee’s notes on rules – 2015 Amendment.
- 15 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 20 of 44
And imposing the sanctions necessary to cure prejudice is “entrusted to the court’s discretion.” Id.
Under Rule 37(e)(2), if the Court finds that a party intended to deprive another of
information, “no separate showing of prejudice is required because ‘the finding of intent . . . can
support . . . an inference that the opposing party was prejudiced by the loss of information.’”
Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 48 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s notes on rules – 2015
Amendment). The Court may impose the most severe sanctions, including default judgment and
adverse inferences, where it finds that the party that lost the information acted with the intent to
deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory
committee’s notes on rules – 2015 Amendment; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). The Court of Appeals
reviews the imposition of discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Wash. Metro. Area
ARGUMENT
Defendant Giuliani has not taken any steps, let alone reasonable steps, to preserve
Specifically, Defendant Giuliani has failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, and therefore failed
to produce, any meaningful amount of electronic evidence that surely was contained within his
accounts and devices, including: (1) three personal email accounts (Gmail, iCloud, and
Protonmail); (2) an iCloud account; (3) three phone numbers that he used to send messages via
text and messaging application; (4) three messaging applications (Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram);
(5) five social media handles; (6) and nine devices, two of which were not seized by the FBI
- 16 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 21 of 44
A. Defendant Giuliani Admits That The Electronic Evidence Should Have Been
Preserved In Anticipation Of This Litigation.
Defendant Giuliani conceded that he understands that he has been obligated to preserve
materials relevant to this lawsuit’s claims since before Plaintiffs even filed suit. (Ex. 2 at 67:21–
68:2); see also Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 45 (explaining that the duty to preserve evidence starts when
a party anticipates litigation). And Defendant Giuliani cannot credibly claim that the materials
on his own devices, that he testified to using during the time period at issue in the litigation to
discuss issues relevant to the litigation, do not meet the low-bar for potential relevance. See
Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 45 (explaining that a party “must preserve potentially relevant evidence
Defendant Giuliani admits that he did not take reasonable steps to preserve the Electronic
Evidence because Defendant Giuliani admits that he essentially took no steps to preserve the
Electronic Evidence (apart from his claim to have disabled the auto-delete function on certain
accounts).2 See ECF No. 64 at 12–18; see generally Giuliani Decl. Defendant Giuliani also
1
Plaintiffs note that they are submitting this Motion without having been able to complete a full
review of Defendant Giuliani’s productions from June 16 and 30. It is possible, given the nature
of the productions, that a complete review may require the assistance of a forensics vendor given
the data at issue. Plaintiffs do not object if this Court defers ruling on this Motion in full or in part,
until Plaintiffs have been afforded the opportunity to complete their analysis of Defendant
Giuliani’s productions, and are willing to provide an update to this Court in the form of a
supplement to this Motion.
2
The only effort at preserving Defendant Giuliani’s Electronic Evidence was not his, but rather
the FBI’s, when it seized certain of Defendant Giuliani’s devices in April 2021 and retained some
portion of those electronic materials on the TrustPoint database. Defendant Giuliani may not claim
credit for the FBI’s seizure, not just because it was not a step he took, but also because he has been
- 17 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 22 of 44
admits by omission that he has not taken any steps to recover any Electronic Evidence—whether
via the retention of a forensics company or by contacting various email or social media
Courts routinely find that a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve electronic
evidence where the party made significantly greater efforts at preservation than Defendant
Giuliani’s paltry steps here. See, e.g., Doe, 2023 WL 3558038, at *14 (finding the defendant
“failed to fulfill its obligations by a long shot” where its only preservation effort was a partial
litigation hold and text messages from the relevant time period were lost); Mannina v. District of
Columbia, 437 F. Supp. 3d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2020) (holding a party’s issuance of a litigation hold
three years after it anticipated litigation was unreasonable). The only “effort” Defendant Giuliani
has made was to turn off auto-delete at some period “in late 2020 or early 2021” on his
(undefined) “email, messaging, communication, or other document storage platforms” and his
claim that he refrained from manually deleting “any electronic documents or dispose[] of any
paper files.” Giuliani Decl. ¶ 2. But Defendant Giuliani’s representation lacks the kind of details
that would make it worthy of credit—he has not explained which of his accounts had auto delete
functions on them, how he turned them off (if so) or when, whether he did so or tasked someone
else to do so, and whether he sought to recover any records (from his various online accounts)
confirming these changes. And in any event, as the Court recognized during the Motion to
unable to provide any assurance that TrustPoint contains all electronic evidence from all the Seized
Devices, despite being ordered by the Court to do so. March 21 Minute Order; May 19 Minute
Order; ECF No. 64 at 14–16. Finally, assuming the FBI preserved all materials on TrustPoint’s
database, this effort only preserved materials generated prior to April 2021.
- 18 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 23 of 44
Compel hearing, “not deleting documents is not the same as preserving the information in a
manner that can be retrieved and searched.” (Ex. 2 at 66:1–20; see also id. at 87:9–23.)
Electronic evidence is deemed irremediably lost for purposes of Rule 37 where, as here, a
custodian acknowledges that information has been lost, attempts to recover that information are
unsuccessful, and no amount of discovery will confirm the extent to which information was lost.
Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 46. To combat a finding of loss, “[i]t is not sufficient” for a custodian to
claim that all of relevant emails “must have been preserved and produced through . . . other
custodians’ emails.” Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-2025-K-BN,
2023 WL 2699511, at *20 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2023) (citing Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 46). In Borum,
for example, a company lost its own copies of an employee’s emails. 332 F.R.D. at 46. This Court
held that the evidence should be deemed lost because the employee likely sent emails to only
external parties without copying another employee, such that it was impossible for the custodian
to fully recover all of that employee’s e-mails, and because “no amount of discovery w[ould]
The record here supports a finding that Defendant Giuliani’s electronic evidence is
irretrievable. Defendant Giuliani has repeatedly conceded as much. In an August 12, 2022, email,
Defendant’s counsel represented that Defendant Giuliani had lost access to some of his “icloud,
email accounts, etc.” after the FBI seized his devices. ECF No. 44-5 at 4. In his March 1
deposition, Defendant Giuliani testified that at least some of the devices returned by the FBI had
been wiped. (Ex. 4 at 391:23–392:11.) At the March 21 discovery hearing, Defendant Giuliani
explained that he has lost access to at least one email account. (Ex. 7 at 20:22–21:1.) At the
Motion to Compel hearing, Defendant Giuliani explained that he no longer has access to his iCloud
- 19 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 24 of 44
account for the relevant time period, which would have contained “90 to 95 percent” of his
After reiterating that he cannot access his iCloud account for the relevant period, Defendant
Giuliani himself suggested that that evidence may have been “destroy[ed].” (Ex. 2 at 96:8–18.)
Separately, Defendant has never demonstrated what exactly is on the TrustPoint database,
such that the Court or Plaintiffs may have any degree of confidence that it contains all of
Defendant’s potentially relevant documents from the pre-April 2021 period. See supra at pp. 4–
6, 11. And his searches and productions of that database have failed to yield clearly relevant
evidence, see supra at pp. 12–13, which strongly suggests the TrustPoint database is incomplete
documented effort to recover this allegedly lost evidence. To the contrary, as mentioned above,
on June 29, Defendant’s counsel produced a sealed motion to Plaintiffs’ counsel in which
Defendant’s criminal defense attorneys specifically requested that all evidence outside of a time
period between 2018 and 2019 be destroyed—a motion the resolution of which Plaintiffs do not
know. (Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 7.) Most recently, in the parties’ June 30, 2023, joint status report,
Defendant Giuliani reported that many of the files he produced from the TrustPoint database are
blank or consist of a jumble of text because of “file corruption.” ECF No. 77 at 20. But at no
point, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, has Defendant Giuliani ever claimed to have sought to remedy
these issues—whether by hiring a forensics vendor to examine his devices, by contacting Apple to
determine what if anything might be recovered from his supposedly corrupted iCloud account, or
by contacting various social media platforms to determine what if anything might be recovered
from his Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media accounts. Indeed, to date, Defendant
- 20 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 25 of 44
Giuliani has still not even produced to Plaintiffs the most rudimentary phone records from the
Further, Plaintiffs have been prejudiced in even being able to ascertain the full
still unclear whether Plaintiffs will ever understand what precisely the FBI transferred (or did not
transfer) from Defendant Giuliani’s Seized Devices; nor do Plaintiffs know the actual status of
Defendant Giuliani’s cloud-based accounts. Moreover, at least one third-party, Katherine Friess,
with whom Defendant Giuliani was in close contact when he first began making his claims about
Plaintiffs and was working with Defendant Giuliani in the aftermath of the 2020 election, has
vanished. Despite months of efforts, including extensive investigation and an order from this
Court authorizing Plaintiffs to serve Katherine Friess by alternative service, see ECF No. 34;
December 20, 2022 Minute Order; ECF No. 34-5 (listing Ms. Friess on various privilege log
entries), Ms. Friess has never responded to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas nor provided documentary
evidence, and Defendant Giuliani has declined to say where she might be.
When considered together, (1) Defendant Giuliani’s direct admissions of loss of access to
evidence, (2) Defendant Giuliani’s defiance of multiple court orders requiring him to provide a
meaningful description of what is and is not located in the TrustPoint database, (3) the evidence
Plaintiffs have obtained from other sources but not from Defendant Giuliani, and (4) the
unavailability of key witnesses are more than sufficient to conclude that electronic evidence has
Defendant Giuliani’s failure to preserve the Electronic Evidence has severely prejudiced
Plaintiffs’ ability to learn what he knew or did not know—including what information he
received, and what he did or did not do in response to that information—when he published his
- 21 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 26 of 44
defamatory claims. That information is critical to permit Plaintiffs to evaluate and rebut
Defendant Giuliani’s defense that he did not act with the requisite degree of fault. Rule 37(e)
“leaves judges with discretion to determine how best to assess prejudice in particular cases,”
including how to allocate the burden of proving prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory
committee's notes on rules – 2015 Amendment. In evaluating prejudice, courts should consider
“the information’s importance in the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's notes
on rules – 2015 Amendment. Where it is difficult to determine the content of lost information,
courts must evaluate whether it is fair to place the “burden of proving prejudice on the party that
did not lose the information.” Id; see also Doe, 2023 WL 3558038, at *14–15 (finding plaintiff
was prejudiced by loss of ESI where she came forward with “plausible, concrete suggestions as
to what the destroyed evidence might have been”) (internal citations omitted). In assessing
prejudice, courts may also weigh the time and resources a party spent as a result of the spoliation.
See, e.g., Doe, 2023 WL 3558038, at *15 (finding plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant’s
spoliation by having to spend time conferring with opposing counsel and deposing witnesses on
In this case, Defendant Giuliani argues that because Plaintiffs are public figures (which
Plaintiffs contest), to prove their defamation claim, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendant Giuliani
published his claims with “actual malice.” E.g., ECF No. 26-2 at 8–9, 18–19; ECF No. 33 ¶ 193.
If the actual malice standard applies,3 Plaintiffs will need to prove that Defendant Giuliani knew
his claims were false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. E.g., N.Y. Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964). Because defamation defendants typically do not
3
Plaintiffs do not concede that actual malice is the appropriate standard and, to the contrary, as
Plaintiffs will argue in summary judgment briefing, the negligence standard should apply.
- 22 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 27 of 44
acknowledge an “awareness of falsehood,” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 170 (1979), plaintiffs
in actual malice cases are permitted to discover and “to prove the defendant’s state of mind through
circumstantial evidence.” Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 668
(1989); see also Herbert, 441 U.S. at 165 (acknowledging that plaintiffs may discover and use
“any direct or indirect evidence relevant to the state of mind of the defendant”) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs cannot fairly litigate their claims without access to circumstantial evidence of
Defendant Giuliani’s state of mind—that evidence is vital to Plaintiffs’ ability to rebut Defendant’s
self-serving attestations of good faith belief. The Supreme Court has explained that a defendant’s
unsupported claims of good faith do not resolve the issue of actual malice. St. Amant v. Thompson,
390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968). Instead, good faith defenses can and must be tested through discovery,
including by pursuing evidence that a defendant: fabricated claims out of whole cloth; was aware
that the published claims were false; consciously avoided finding out the truth; relied on wholly
unreliable sources; set out to make facts conform to a preconceived narrative; published their
claims with an ulterior motive; and had economic or other incentives to misrepresent the facts,
among others. See, e.g., Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc., 491 U.S. at 692 (avoidance of the truth);
St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732 (fabrication and unreliable sources); Herbert, 441 U.S. 153, 163–65 &
nn.12, 15 (improper motive); US Dominion, Inc. v. Powell, 554 F. Supp. 3d 42, 60–61 (D.D.C.
2021) (preconceived narrative of election fraud). Through third-party discovery, Plaintiffs have
developed considerable evidence supporting each of these responses to Defendant Giuliani’s claim
of good faith, yet Plaintiffs have been undermined by Defendant’s discovery misconduct at every
turn. Much of this evidence is also relevant to Plaintiffs’ IIED claim, which requires Plaintiffs to
demonstrate that Defendant Giuliani acted intentionally or recklessly. See ECF No. 31 at 23. And
evidence of whom Defendant Giuliani worked with and the extent of those individuals’ acts in
- 23 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 28 of 44
defaming and inflicting emotional distress on Plaintiffs is relevant to Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy
claim. Id.
In this case, Defendant Giuliani’s failure to preserve the Electronic Evidence has severely
prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to test his claim that he believed, and did not recklessly disregard the
falsity of, his false claims about Plaintiffs. The following examples are illustrative.
claims in the hours and days after December 3, discovered that they were false, and broadcast
their falsity to the world in refutations that were amplified by fact checking organizations. ECF
No. 22 ¶¶ 40–56. Every message Defendant Giuliani sent or received about these investigations
is probative of Defendant’s actual malice with respect to all of the challenged statements in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, because they evidence, at a minimum, his knowledge of falsity and
Defendant has failed to produce any records of having received or discussed these
refutations, despite a clear record that such evidence existed. On December 7, 2020, a Fox News
reporter emailed to ask Defendant Giuliani for comment on one of the key rebuttals, the
December 6, 2020 Affidavit of France Watson. ECF No. 64-7. At his deposition, Defendant
Giuliani testified that, at some point prior to December 8, 2020 (and well before the first
actionable statement on December 23, 2020), he learned of (1) a December 7 press conference,
during which Georgia Voting Implementation Gabriel Sterling specifically rebutted his claims
about Plaintiffs, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger re-certified the Georgia
election results after conducting a recount requested by the Trump Campaign; and (2) other,
unspecified actions by Messr. Raffensperger and Sterling “in general.” (Ex. 4 at 328:3–332:4,
376:7–378:11.) Defendant Giuliani testified that this knowledge of the December 7 press
- 24 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 29 of 44
conference was the basis for his December 8 tweet that, “The Georgia video proves now and for
posterity that crooked Democrat officials stole the votes to try to win the state and Republicans
are covering up for them.” (Id. at 377:17–378:9.) But Defendant Giuliani was not able to specify
when he learned of those rebuttals or what exactly he learned. (See id. at 376:7–378:11). Nor
was Defendant Giuliani able to identify whether he discussed these statements with any other
individuals, in person or via email, text, virtual meeting, or otherwise. Without Defendant
Giuliani’s electronic data, Plaintiffs are not able to learn exactly when Defendant Giuliani learned
of which fact checks, what exactly he learned, and what he did (or did not do) with that
information; that is all evidence that would be highly probative of Defendant’s state of mind with
respect to the subsequent statements he made about Plaintiffs and which would permit Plaintiffs
to learn the identities of other individuals who likely discussed the same with him.
Second, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Giuliani published his claims about Plaintiffs to
continued tenure in office. ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 9, 24, 132. As such, every record evidencing his
motives and purpose in publishing claims about Plaintiffs is highly probative of Defendant
Yet again, Defendant Giuliani has failed to produce evidence revealing his purpose in
publishing false claims about Plaintiffs, despite a clear record that such evidence existed. As
noted above, Defendant Giuliani failed to produce a December 7, 2020, text thread where then-
President Trump asked for the “greatest hits” of election fraud examples that didn’t “have to be
proven” but did have to be “super easy to explain,” and Defendant Giuliani responded by
identifying his claims about Plaintiffs. (Ex. 11.) Similarly, Defendant Giuliani failed to produce
an email produced by the January 6th Committee, making clear that he personally signed off on
- 25 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 30 of 44
Trump Campaign ads depicting Plaintiffs and parroting Defendant Giuliani’s false claims about
Plaintiffs. ECF No. 56-7 at 3. Nor are Plaintiffs able to reconstruct the lost records through good
faith testimony from Defendant Giuliani. After learning of this last email (after Defendant’s
deposition), Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Admission to Defendant Giuliani asking him to
admit that he reviewed and consulted some or all of the Trump Campaign ads featuring Plaintiffs
prior to their airing, and that he provided information to the Campaign about Plaintiffs for the
purpose of that information being used in advertisements to undermine faith in the results of the
2020 Presidential election. (Ex. 12.) To all of those requests, Defendant Giuliani responded that
he “does not recall” whether he reviewed, consulted on, or provided information for Trump
Third, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Giuliani conspired with others to carry out his
“Strategic Communications Plan” that plotted to use Defendants’ false claims about Plaintiffs
and others as part of a “[n]ationwide communications outreach campaign” to undermine the 2020
election. ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 9–12, 57–64, 187–91. That plan specifically identified Defendant
Giuliani’s claims about Plaintiffs as key evidence. Id. As such, every record evidencing
Defendant Giuliani’s coordination with his team and his team’s amplification of false statements
Yet, Defendant Giuliani has failed to produce such records, despite clear indications that
such records existed. For example, Defendant Giuliani’s lead investigator, Bernard Kerik,
testified that Defendant Giuliani is a “very hands on” boss, and that during November and
December 2020 Defendant Giuliani was “in charge” and generally aware of everything Mr. Kerik
and the team did, and that Defendant Giuliani directed everything Mr. Kerik did or did not do.
- 26 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 31 of 44
(Ex. 6 at 39:7–10; 65:14–22.) At his deposition, Mr. Kerik testified that Defendant Giuliani and
his team were engaged in “continual discussions” about the allegations in the team’s Strategic
Communications Plan for about “six weeks.” (Id. at 95:7–21.) And Mr. Kerik also tweeted out
a thread with screenshots of the Strategic Communications Plan, including a screenshot of the
Georgia section which specifically names Plaintiffs and repeats Defendant Giuliani’s false claims
about them. (Ex. 13.) Defendant Giuliani, for his part, testified that he “disagree[d] with a lot of
what [was] in” the Strategic Communications Plan, that he was opposed to the plan, and that he
didn’t think it was “worth spending the 5 to 8 million dollars” it would take to execute the plan.
(Ex. 4 at 250:14–20; 259:14–260:14.) He also testified that while Mr. Kerik knew Defendant
Giuliani was opposed to the plan, a lot of his communication about the plan was with Katherine
Friess. (Id. at 258:17–259:11.) As for Mr. Kerik’s tweet of the plan, Defendant Giuliani testified
that he’s “not sure” if he was aware of it, though it “sounds kind of familiar.” (Id. at 261:17–25.)
Yet, Defendant Giuliani has effectively not produced any records of his conversations about the
Strategic Communications Plan with anyone, including Bernard Kerik and Katherine Friess, and
Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Giuliani and his team were the first to publish
claims about Plaintiffs on December 3, 2020, showing a video of Plaintiffs to the world and
initiating their lies. ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 37–39. While Plaintiffs are not suing for defamation over
those initial publications, when Defendant Giuliani learned of the existence of the video, what
exactly he learned, and what he said of the video at the outset is highly probative of his state of
Yet, Plaintiffs still do not even know exactly when Defendant Giuliani first learned of the
video at the heart of this case, or what he learned about that video before he spoke about it in
- 27 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 32 of 44
public. After this Court ordered Defendant Giuliani to supplement his interrogatory responses,
that “Defendant generally recalls that he was made aware of the existence of a video the night
before the [December 3, 2020,] hearing.” (Ex. 8.) Third-party discovery has revealed that Ray
Smith, a Georgia lawyer, obtained that video for the Giuliani team at around 1:00 a.m. on the
morning of December 3. (Ex. 9; Ex. 10 at 104:8–15.) Jacki Pick, the woman who first presented
the video of Plaintiffs to the world at the direction of Defendant Giuliani’s team, testified that
certain individuals working with Defendant Giuliani reviewed the video at Mr. Smith’s office in
Atlanta, but that Defendant Giuliani was not there and that he was not patched into any call about
the video. (Ex. 10. at 105:25–108:22.) Jacki Pick did not communicate with Defendant Giuliani
until the next morning, id. at 137:9–16, and Defendant Giuliani testified that he doesn’t recall any
conversations with Mr. Smith about Plaintiffs or the video. (Ex. 4 at 114:24–115:3.) Taken
together, then, someone must have communicated the video’s existence to Defendant Giuliani in
advance of the December 3, 2020 hearing, and presumably that person made certain
representations to Defendant Giuliani about what that video did or did not show. But Plaintiffs
have no record of that communication ever taking place or who was involved, let alone what
precisely was communicated to Defendant Giuliani including about what the video supposedly
showed or how little of the video Smith’s team had been able to review.
***
assess the full scope of evidence that has been lost. Third-party discovery and testimony from
Defendant Giuliani (and others) suggest there should be a considerable amount of discoverable
evidence—at minimum, that evidence would allow Plaintiffs to document when Defendant
- 28 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 33 of 44
Giuliani learned of key facts relevant to his statements about Plaintiffs. Defendant Giuliani has
admitted that evidence has been wiped and corrupted; and Plaintiffs have received, to date,
numerous sent and received depositories contain concrete evidence acknowledging his lack of
foundation for his claims about Plaintiffs. Former Speaker of the Arizona House of
Representatives, Rusty Bowers, testified to Congress that Defendant Giuliani told him Defendant
Giuliani’s team “just d[idn’t] have the evidence of voter fraud” they alleged occurred in the 2020
election.4
Plaintiffs have also been further prejudiced by Defendant Giuliani’s failure to preserve
the Electronic Evidence in the time and resources expended in uncovering the truth about this
spoliation. Since at least December 21, 2022, Plaintiffs have spent hundreds, if not thousands of
hours, meeting and conferring with counsel for Defendant, briefing the Court, consulting with
discovery experts, and delaying other fact discovery, as a direct result of Defendant Giuliani’s
spoliation and piecemeal admittance of that spoliation. Supra at Relevant Factual Background.
On these facts, the record is clear that Plaintiffs have been severely prejudiced by Defendant’s
The only explanation for why Defendant Giuliani failed to take any steps to preserve the
Electronic Evidence, let alone reasonable steps, is that he did so deliberately to deny Plaintiffs (and
4
See Ximena Bustillo, Arizona Lawmaker Rusty Bowers Details the Pressure Put on Him by
Trump and Giuliani, NPR (June 21, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106413341/arizona-
lawmaker-rusty-bowers-pressure-giuliani.
- 29 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 34 of 44
the scores of other plaintiffs and government entities litigating and investigating his actions during
and after the 2020 Presidential Election) evidence that would be helpful to their case. A party
deliberately fails to fulfill its preservation obligations when, as Defendant Giuliani did here, it acts
“with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(e)(2); see, e.g., Mannina, 437 F. Supp. 3d at 14 (granting motion for sanctions on the basis of
negligence where party failed to issue litigation hold until three years into litigation, but did
otherwise request that documents be preserved); Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., 289 F.R.D.
374, 378 (D.D.C. 2013) (noting that failure “to make any serious effort to recover the data” is
5634860, at *5–6 (granting motion for sanctions where defendants failed to preserve relevant
Defendant Giuliani told this Court that, as an experienced lawyer, he understands his
obligations to take reasonable steps to preserve evidence: “I have been doing this for 50 years; I
understand the obligations.” (Ex. 2 at 68:5–6.) It is hardly a leap from that concession to infer
that Defendant Giuliani also understands what is required to satisfy such obligations.
Understanding one’s obligations yet choosing not to fulfill them is textbook willfulness.
WILLFULNESS, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The voluntary, intentional violation
or disregard of a known legal duty.”) Plaintiffs also specifically asked counsel for Defendant on
both December 21, 2022 and February 6, 2023 whether Defendant Giuliani had fulfilled his
preservation obligations. Plaintiffs also moved to compel Defendant to confirm that he had
fulfilled his preservation obligations on April 17, 2023 and the Court ordered him to do so on May
19, 2023. Despite all of this, Defendant Giuliani failed to take any reasonable preservation steps—
even today, he has not taken any. This Court has more than sufficient evidence to conclude that
- 30 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 35 of 44
Defendant Giuliani’s years-long failure, in light of his personal knowledge of his obligations and
reminders from Plaintiffs and the Court, has been intentional. See, e.g., Vasser, 2017 WL 5634860,
at *6 (ordering sanctions for spoliation where defendant “not only knew or should have known
that these documents were relevant, it knew the Plaintiff had requested them (and ha[d] done so at
every stage of this litigation), yet it failed to preserve them”) (emphasis added).
Although default judgment is the most severe sanction available, Plaintiffs respectfully
submit that a default judgment on liability is warranted on these egregious facts. The D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals has outlined “three basic justifications [to] support the use of dismissal or default
judgment as a sanction for misconduct,” any one of which alone can be the basis for entering
default judgment. Webb v. District of Columbia, 146 F.3d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Here, at
least two of those three justifications apply and therefore warrant default judgment as to Defendant
Giuliani’s liability: (1) Defendant Giuliani’s “behavior has severely hampered” Plaintiffs’ ability
to present their case as to actual malice, and (2) Defendant Giuliani’s conduct, particularly as a
5
Default judgment could also be an appropriate sanction here as Defendant Giuliani’s delay tactics
have not only required Plaintiffs to seek case extensions both past and anticipated, but this Court
has already had to schedule three discovery hearings to address various disputes, many of which
have stemmed from said delay tactics. In spite of the multitudinous hearings and Court orders,
Defendant Giuliani has transparently flouted his discovery obligations at every turn. A default
judgment on liability would therefore also be appropriate due to the degree to which Defendant
Giuliani’s spoliation has stalled discovery and consumed Court resources. See U.S. Bank Nat’l
Ass’n v. Poblete, No. CV 15-312 (BAH), 2017 WL 598471, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2017) (finding
the second element met where “[defendant’s] failure to respond to discovery and penchant for
instead filing irrelevant documents with the Court has stalled this litigation”); Guarantee Co. of N.
Am. USA, 2021 WL 2036666, at *4 (finding the second element met and noting that “[t]ime and
- 31 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 36 of 44
First, as discussed supra, Defendant Giuliani’s deliberate failure to preserve his electronic
evidence has severely hampered Plaintiffs’ ability to fully present their case as to liability. Given
that Defendant Giuliani plainly made false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs, the
crux of Plaintiffs’ case is likely to be whether Defendant Giuliani knew the statements were false
or recklessly disregarded their falsity. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a default judgment on
liability because of Defendant Giuliani’s spoliation and blatant disregard for his discovery
obligations, including with respect to evidence of his state of mind. See Guarantee Co. of N. Am.
USA, 2021 WL 2036666, at *4 (entering default judgment where “Defendants’ wholesale failure
to comply with their discovery obligations and participate in this litigation . . . made it all but
Second, and similarly, Defendant Giuliani—despite being an attorney for over 50 years
and barred in this District—has disrespected this Court by knowingly ignoring his discovery
obligations. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Poblete, No. CV 15-312 (BAH), 2017 WL 598471, at
*6 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2017) (finding third element met where defendant “demonstrated utter
disrespect for the Court’s deadlines and a need to deter further noncompliance” by employing
tactics “plainly intended to do nothing more than delay the resolution of this matter”).6 And
resources the Court has had to spend on Defendants’ contumaciousness can never be recovered
and applied toward resolving other matters”).
6
Certain district courts within this Circuit, as well as other circuits, have determined that the three-
factor test set forth in Section F.2 inrfa also applies with respect to default judgment sanctions.
See Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 44 (applying the three-factor test and noting that “[a]vailable sanctions
include default judgment, fines, and awards of attorneys’ fees and expenses, among others”);
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 521 (D. Md. 2010) (observing that, in
addition to the Fourth Circuit, “District courts in the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuits have identified the same factors for sanction-worthy spoliation”), aff’d in part, modified
in part, No. CV MJG-06-2662, 2010 WL 11747756 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2010).
- 32 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 37 of 44
Defendant Giuliani’s disrespect for this Court evidences a need to deter future misconduct
particularly because Defendant Giuliani is currently litigating several cases with “pending requests
for discovery.” (Ex. 7 at 22:6–12.) Issuing the most severe of sanctions here may dissuade
Defendant Giuliani from employing the same unlawful tactics in his other pending cases.
Short of entering default judgment on liability, the Court should enter adverse inferences
against Defendant Giuliani. Adverse inferences are appropriate where, as here, Plaintiffs have
shown that (1) Defendant Giuliani had control over the Electronic Evidence and had an obligation
to preserve it; (2) the failure to preserve was accompanied by a culpable state of mind; and (3)
the evidence that was destroyed or altered was relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. See Zhi Chen v.
District of Columbia., 839 F. Supp. 2d 7, 13 (D.D.C. 2011) (ordering adverse inferences where
defendant was plainly aware of duty to preserve video evidence and failed to do so).
First, Defendant Giuliani plainly had possession, custody, or control over the Electronic
Evidence such that he could have preserved it at some time since Plaintiffs filed suit. Of the
Electronic Evidence, Plaintiffs understand that Defendant Giuliani has always had control of: his
three personal email accounts, his iCloud account, his three phone numbers, his three messaging
applications, his five social media handles, and two devices. Plaintiffs understand that seven of
Defendant Giuliani’s Devices were seized in April 2021 and returned no later than August 2022—
just three months after Plaintiffs first served discovery in this case. See ECF No. 44-5. And
Defendant Giuliani has admitted that he had an obligation to preserve the Electronic Evidence
For the same reasons set forth in Section F.2, an entry of default as to liability is appropriate
applying the three-factor test: (1) Defendant Giuliani clearly had possession, custody, or control
of the spoliated evidence; (2) Defendant Giuliani deliberately spoliated the evidence (i.e., with a
culpable state of mind); and (3) the evidence was highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
- 33 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 38 of 44
prior to Plaintiffs’ ever filing suit. ECF No. 60 ¶ 2 (acknowledging “receiving notice of potential
litigation issues surrounding my involvement in contesting the 2020 Election in late 2020 or early
Second, as already discussed at length, see supra at pp. 17–19, 30–31, Defendant Giuliani
acted with a culpable state of mind by failing to preserve the Electronic Evidence in light of
Plaintiffs’ repeated requests and his own professional knowledge. See Vasser, 2017 WL
5634860, at *6.
Third, the Electronic Evidence was relevant. While the inquiry of whether unpreserved
documents were relevant is “unavoidably imperfect,” here the evidence Plaintiffs have obtained
from third-parties clearly demonstrates that the Electronic Evidence Defendant Giuliani failed to
preserve was highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for defamation, IIED, and conspiracy. Id.
(explaining that the court may draw an inference of relevance based on a very slight showing that
Therefore, if this Court is not inclined to enter default judgment, it should order the following
1. Defendant Giuliani spoliated significant relevant evidence contained on his personal and
professional devices and personal and professional accounts.
2. Prior to December 23, 2020, Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the truth
by avoiding and ignoring, or knew and understood, the falsity of the following statements:
(1) Ruby Freeman has a criminal history; (2) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss excluded
election observers from State Farm Arena under false pretenses, including but not limited
to, because of a fake water leak; (3) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss locked the doors to
State Farm Arena to keep election observers out; (4) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss
passed each other a USB drive to illegally manipulate the vote count; (5) Ruby Freeman
and/or Shaye Moss counted ballots multiple times; (6) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss
hid suitcases of illegal ballots; (7) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss engaged in voter
fraud (together, the “Defamatory Claims”).
3. Prior to December 23, 2020, Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the truth
by avoiding and ignoring, or knew and understood, that Georgia and federal officials had
investigated and disproved the Defamatory Claims (with the exception of the claims
- 34 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 39 of 44
regarding USB drives), because the investigations and their findings were: (1) widely
published and reported on, (2) sent to Defendant Giuliani, (3) freely and easily accessible
to any member of the public, and (4) directly relevant to the Defamatory Claims.
4. Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the truth by avoiding and ignoring, or
knew and understood, that the Defamatory Claims were false because: (1) Defendant
Giuliani and his team had consciously avoided investigating the purported basis for the
Defamatory claims; (2) Defendant Giuliani and his team had no credible evidence or
sources supporting the Defamatory Claims; and (3) Defendant Giuliani and his team
pursued the Defamatory Claims based on political and public relations objectives rather
than a belief that the Defamatory Claims were truthful in fact.
5. Defendant Giuliani published and spread the Defamatory Claims for his personal benefit,
including his political, professional, and financial interests.
6. Defendant Giuliani knew his actions would cause Plaintiffs emotional distress and
nonetheless intentionally and recklessly proceeded.
7. Defendant Giuliani made an agreement with his then-client, President Donald Trump,
along with other individuals working for or volunteering with President Trump and his
campaign, to publish the Defamatory Claims.
8. Before publishing the Defamatory Claims, Defendant Giuliani knew that each
Defamatory Claim he made on his podcasts, his radio show, during interviews with One
America News Network, on Twitter, and through other mediums, could potentially be
heard by tens of millions of individuals, and intended his Defamatory Claims to be heard
by as many people as possible.
If this Court does not enter default judgment, the Court should, along with the adverse
inferences discussed earlier, preclude Defendant from relying on any of the Electronic
Evidence—he failed to preserve and produce this evidence and therefore he should be precluded
from using it to his benefit. Courts in this District order preclusion where one party’s conduct
has prejudiced the other party’s ability to litigate its case. See, e.g., Klayman v. Judicial Watch,
256 F.R.D. 258 (D.D.C. 2009) (precluding plaintiff, an experienced lawyer representing himself
pro se, from testifying to or admitting any evidence in support of his damage claims or his alleged
- 35 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 40 of 44
evidence and prejudiced the judicial system by failing to comply with court orders regarding
discovery); United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 21, 25 (D.D.C. 2004)
(precluding defendant from calling as fact or expert witnesses at trial any individual who has
failed to comply with its internal data retention program). As already demonstrated, Defendant
Giuliani’s failure to preserve has significantly prejudiced Plaintiffs such that preclusion is
appropriate here.
2. offering evidence, in summary judgment, at trial, or otherwise, about the contents of the
Electronic Evidence, and
3. arguing, in summary judgment, at trial, or otherwise, the reach of the Defamatory Claims,
including, but not limited to, the number of impressions, views, or clicks estimated by
Plaintiffs’ damages expert.7
G. In the Alternative, the Court Could Order Defendant Giuliani to Produce His
Devices to Plaintiffs
Should the Court conclude that adverse inferences or default judgment are not yet
warranted, as an interim step (or in conjunction with any of the sanctions described above), the
Court should compel Defendant Giuliani to make all his devices and accounts available for
collection and inspection by Plaintiffs’ vendors, at Defendant Giuliani’s expense. The Court
should permit Plaintiffs’ discovery vendor to determine whether any evidence was lost and then
7
If the Court declines to preclude Defendant Giuliani from disputing the number of impressions
estimated by Plaintiffs’ expert, Plaintiffs request that the Court permit Plaintiffs to instead submit
an adverse inference based on Plaintiffs’ expert’s report at a later date.
- 36 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 41 of 44
Plaintiffs note that any order along these lines will necessitate a significant delay in this
litigation, prejudicing Plaintiffs ability to move this case to resolution expeditiously. Fact
discovery has closed; the time for Defendant to have carried his discovery obligations is long past.
Undertaking a full forensic review of Defendant Giuliani’s devices at this point would delay this
litigation by many months, at minimum. Accordingly, rather than effectively re-open and
dramatically extend fact discovery, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the more appropriate course
The Court should award Plaintiffs’ fees and costs. The Court may impose monetary
sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1). See Doe, 2023 WL 3558038, at *16 (awarding attorneys’ fees
and costs for Rule 37(e) motion); see also Zhi Chen, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 16 (same). Defendant
Giuliani’s obstructive and bad-faith approach to discovery necessitated this Motion, and therefore
should be required to cover the cost of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with
bringing this motion. See Zhi Chen, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 16–17 (explaining that an “award of fees
and costs serves the remedial purpose of compensating” the movant “for the reasonable costs it
- 37 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 42 of 44
- 38 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 43 of 44
- 39 -
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81 Filed 07/11/23 Page 44 of 44
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 11, 2023, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of the Court
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by using the CM/ECF system, which will
automatically generate and serve notices of this filing to all counsel of record.
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Defendant.
1. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to make this
Declaration. The evidence set out in the following Declaration is based on my personal
knowledge.
2. I represent Plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss in the above-
captioned case, and submit this Declaration in support of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 37(e)
Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant Giuliani for Failure to Preserve Electronic Evidence (the
“Motion”).
Giuliani, including: a text thread discussing sending a video of Plaintiffs to Rusty Bowers, then
the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, ECF No. 56-3, and an August 17, 2022,
direct message with Ms. Bobb on Instagram, ECF No. 56-4. Defendant Giuliani never produced
4. The January 6 Committee made public a December 13, 2020, email from
Defendant Giuliani to Boris Epshteyn, an advisor to the 2020 Trump Campaign, approving a draft
statement from the Trump Legal Team, which reiterates Defendant’s false claims about Plaintiffs:
“Georgia has video evidence of 30,000 illegal ballots cast after the observers were removed.”
ECF No. 56-7 at 3. Defendant Giuliani never produced this email. This email was not included
obtained from third parties that were not produced by Defendant Giuliani.
Plaintiffs. Of those files, 3,233 are .txt files. Txt files are generally non-usable, non-readable
raw data, and 2,350 of the .txt files produced by Defendant Giuliani are what are known as
“blobs”—non-readable, non-usable computer code files. The non-text files include non-readable
packets regarding Microsoft updates (in five different languages, articles and memes regarding
the death of George Floyd, and death notices form the Washington Post.
7. On June 29, 2023, Defendant’s counsel provided Plaintiffs with a sealed motion
filed by Defendant Giuliani’s criminal defense counsel in In re Search Warrant Dated April 21,
2021, 21-MJ-4335 (S.D.N.Y.). That motion makes clear that the records collected in the
TrustPoint database were collected as part of an investigation into a possible Foreign Agents
and the office of the U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine; a trip by Giuliani to Poland in 2019 and
issues involving Franklin Templeton and funds misappropriated from the Ukraine.” In that
-2-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 5
motion, Defendant Giuliani’s criminal defense counsel requested that the New York court order
the Government to suppress and destroy the majority of records contained in the TrustPoint
database, and limit any remaining records to a time period between 2018 and 2019.
documents from TrustPoint. As with the prior production on June 16, 2023, the majority of the
production appears to be non-responsive junk files, including at least 248 blob files, 141 Apple
information packets in various languages, and additional death notices form the Washington Post.
9. On July 6, counsel for Defendant Giuliani reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel offering to
discuss whether an agreement might be reached in lieu of Plaintiffs filing this motion. In response
to that outreach, counsel for each of the parties negotiated over the course of two days in an effort
to reach such an agreement. The parties filed a motion seeking a brief extension of time to file
this Motion when it appeared by late afternoon on Friday, July 7 that counsel appeared to be
within reach of key principles on such an agreement. The representations made in that Motion
relied upon representations from Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Giuliani. On the morning
of July 10, counsel for Defendant Giuliani communicated to Plaintiffs for the first time that
Defendant Giuliani had a different view than his counsel regarding the key principles referenced
above, and accordingly, the agreement that had been contemplated and discussed previously was
not achievable.
10. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email chain between counsel
11. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
-3-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 5
13. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
14. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
15. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
16. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, dated March 30, 2023.
18. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an email chain produced by
Ray S. Smith III with redactions dated December 2, 2020 to December 3, 2020.
19. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct excerpted copy of the transcript from
20. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a text exchange produced by
Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of Requests for Admission, dated July 5, 2023.
22. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a tweet by Bernard Kerik,
23. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
-4-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 5
-5-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-2 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-2 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 3
Best, Joe
Joe,
Please find an updated deposition subpoena for Mr. Giuliani attached—as discussed, it lists
the new deposition date as February 23, 2023 and location as Willkie’s New York offices.
As you and my colleague Mike discussed, the postponement of Mr. Giuliani’s deposition
provides us with the opportunity to resolve some of our outstanding disputes.
We are available to meet and confer regarding our letter dated January 13 regarding Mr.
Giuliani’s invocations of privilege.
Please provide times in the next two weeks to meet and confer regarding this issue.
As detailed in our two deficiency letters and discussed on numerous meet and confers, Mr.
Giuliani has not complied with his basic discovery obligations. Specifically, we have asked
for confirmation that Mr. Giuliani has preserved, searched, and produced documents from
his e-mail accounts, devices, social media accounts, messaging applications, or other
electronic devices for documents responsive to our Requests for Production.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-2 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 3
You have previously represented that you are not aware of whether Mr. Giuliani has
preserved his documents from these sources. You have represented that Mr. Giuliani has
not produced documents from these sources.
We are again requesting confirmation of whether Mr. Giuliani has preserved, searched, and
produced documents from his e-mail accounts, devices, social media accounts, messaging
applications, or other electronic devices for documents responsive to our Requests for
Production.
Because Mr. Giuliani has not complied with his discovery obligations, we are requesting to
hold Mr. Giuliani’s deposition open.
Un-Verified Interrogatories
We have also previously noted that Mr. Giuliani has not verified all of his interrogatory
responses. We are again asking that Mr. Giuliani verify all interrogatory responses before
his deposition.
Thanks,
Annie
M.Annie Houghton-Larsen
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
787 Seventh Avenue | New York, NY 10019-6099
Direct: +1 212 728 8164 | Fax: +1 212 728 9164
mhoughton-larsen@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to
receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally
privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally
privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an
intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United
States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of
partners.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 47
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 47 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RUBY FREEMAN, et al., ) Civil Action
Plaintiffs, ) No. 21-3354
vs. )
)
RUDOLPH GIULIANI, ) May 19, 2023
) 11:07 a.m.
Defendant. ) Washington, D.C.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPEARANCES:
JOHN LANGFORD
Protect Democracy
555 W. 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
(919) 619-9819
Email: john.langford@protectdemocracy.org
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 47 8
6 produced.
14 fashion.
24 And then we can take it from there for whether -- you know,
4 already been found there, but the search was not within the
25 the $350,000.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 47 10
19 vendors who may be able to start with the devices and leave
20 Trustpoint out of it, which has been our point and what we
10 little bit over 1,000 documents which were what Mr. Giuliani
19 connection with his D.C. and New York Bar grievances; and
13 much back and forth with Mr. Sibley; that he produced these
25 Trustpoint.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 9 of 47 13
11 Your Honor.
12 that.
19 produced them.
21 Mr. Sibley has been clear that he only searched for email.
11 post seizure.
13 in there.
8 compel.
15 question --
24 to 292.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 14 of 47 50
4 office.
3 devices.
8 laptops, et cetera.
11 good to know.
13 don't know what other devices may have been used prior to
14 the seizure that may not have been seized. And I think that
21 that?
23 Mr. Giuliani.
1 on?
11 probably small ones and not relevant and didn't produce very
16 every device.
20 was exhaustive.
8 iCloud.
22 things out.
5 money on this.
7 Mr. Giuliani.
14 he may know the answer to this more than you, Mr. Sibley.
22 Bob Costello.
5 You need to find out what the data sources are of that data,
10 is preserved.
15 about -- and any other data sources that went into that
3 their dataset.
13 sources.
21 accurate.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 22 of 47 63
5 that basis.
8 proposed order.
12 being one data source for things for which you claim
17 proposed order?
19 repositories.
23 that if this were the only case maybe we could say it's
1 thing.
10 time frame to end January 21, 2022, which was months before
17 documents.
22 something.
7 that.
12 think --
14 is inoperable?
20 But --
23 of that data --
2 frustrating.
6 Honor. I apologize.
18 that was what he meant to say, but I will let him speak.
20 to say?
1 way before their case. And then the FBI took everything, so
16 that in a certification --
18 something, if it helps --
24 it.
15 or interrogatory responses?
19 then the Court will weigh all of the factors that the Court
20 weighs at that point and you will make that call then.
22 appropriate.
24 could have went back and done some things differently, paid
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 31 of 47 85
5 into the social media, and I searched for it. In this case
20 existed but they had, maybe, five uses or six uses, and most
25 went back and checked them to make sure that that was the --
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 32 of 47 86
7 that --
25 them.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 33 of 47 87
6 appropriately done?
11 view?
17 that way.
17 phone records, and it's just fine for him to tell the
24 that he --
9 all online.
19 that have calls and things like that -- I am not sure he can
25 he says --
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 36 of 47
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 37 of 47 92
3 data: One, active online data; two, near line data; three,
7 inaccessible.
11 produce.
15 inaccessible?
21 access to it.
24 Your Honor?
8 cases on which you relied, it's not my view that this data
10 shifting here. I hope you are promptly able to work out the
14 reply.
20 quickly.
25 cloud.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 39 of 47 94
11 be happy to have our vendor let us know what the cost would
16 one second.
1 testified to that.
4 sure where that came from, but he has had problems accessing
5 the cloud with respect to the data that was in the time
6 frame that the FBI did the seizure, which would be the
12 accessed.
16 Proceed.
23 have it, but I don't have access to it. I can't get that
3 your password. But once you do access the accounts you are
7 and a half, and I can get everything on the cloud. It's all
8 there.
13 can't get. The FBI still has that. I can't figure out --
8 with it. I don't know exactly what they did with it.
24 rhhelen. And yet now he's also saying, when he accesses it,
12 from our vendor and have our vendor log into his accounts
17 as mud.
24 the cost. But we would be happy to meet and confer and come
4 don't know what those devices are in terms of: Are they the
12 $10,000.
22 the claims here about how we're asking for the universe and
7 for and that that book specifically talks about the State
11 conversations.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-3 Filed 07/11/23 Page 47 of 47 106
1 today?
3 to keep us here.
EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-4 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 21
Control Number File Name File Extension Master Date Email From Email To Email CC Subject Custodian Author
1B05A_00211993 mes-892.eml eml 4/1/2021 11:51 "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> "Joe Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> Re: Giuliani representation Giuliani
1B05A_00211994 mes-891.eml eml 4/1/2021 11:52 "Joseph Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Re: Giuliani representation Giuliani
"RUDOLPH GIULIANI" 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00211997 mes-888.eml eml 4/1/2021 18:18 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Giuliani.pdf Giuliani
"RUDOLPH GIULIANI" 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00211998 mes-887.eml eml 4/1/2021 22:18 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Giuliani.pdf Giuliani
"RUDOLPH GIULIANI" 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00211999 mes-886.eml eml 4/1/2021 22:18 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Giuliani.pdf Giuliani
"RUDOLPH GIULIANI" 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00212000 mes-885.eml eml 4/2/2021 1:29 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> "Joseph Sibley" <Sibley@camarasibley.com> Giuliani-1 Giuliani
"RUDOLPH GIULIANI" 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00212001 mes-884.eml eml 4/2/2021 5:29 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> "Joseph Sibley" <Sibley@camarasibley.com> Giuliani-1 Giuliani
"rhelen0528@gmail.com"
1B05A_00212019 mes-866.eml eml 4/5/2021 22:12 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> FW: Few more Giuliani
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-4 Filed 07/11/23 Page 13 of 21
1B05A_00212033 mes-852.eml eml 4/9/2021 16:27 "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> BernardKerik <private@bernardkerik.com> Re: Checking in on book Giuliani
"Zafonte, Jo Ann"
<JoAnn.Zafonte@giulianipartners.com>,
"Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com>,
1B05A_00212186 mes-714.eml eml 4/13/2021 13:59 "Joe Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> "Giuliani 3" <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> Fwd: Giuliani representation Giuliani
"Zafonte, Jo Ann"
<JoAnn.Zafonte@giulianipartners.com>,
"Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com>,
1B05A_00212205 mes-695.eml eml 4/13/2021 17:59 "Joe Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> "Giuliani 3" <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> Fwd: Giuliani representation Giuliani
"Rudolph Giuliani"
1B05A_00212335 mes-575.eml eml 4/16/2021 15:02 "Louis Russo" <lrusso@russolaw-llc.com> <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> REMINDER: Please sign this document Giuliani
"rhelen0528@gmail.com" FW: Transfer file from "Epson Connect Scan to
1B05A_00212492 mes-434.eml eml 4/20/2021 19:04 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Cloud" Giuliani
1B05A_00212538 mes-393.eml eml 4/21/2021 17:43 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> "Rudy Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> 2021.04.21 Giuliani LOI Follow-up.pdf Giuliani
1B05A_00212621 mes-317.eml eml 4/23/2021 14:21 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> "Rudy Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Fwd: TrumpMedia...and Direct Giuliani
"Celeste Levindoski"
<clevindoski@scaringilaw.com>,
"jfitzpatrick@donaldtrump.com"
<jfitzpatrick@donaldtrump.com>,
"mike@mikeroman.com"
<mike@mikeroman.com>,
"giuliani.andrew@gmail.com" RE: 20-472 FW: Donald J. Trump for President,
<giuliani.andrew@gmail.com>, Inc. v. Secretary Commonwealth of
"Marc A. Scaringi Esq." "acannon@donaldtrump.com" "rhelen0528@gmail.com" Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371 (3d Cir.) [IWOV-
1B05A_00212878 mes-81.eml eml 4/27/2021 13:43 <marc@scaringilaw.com> <acannon@donaldtrump.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> HASP1.FID136687] Giuliani
RUDOLPH GIULIANI 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00394319 Extra Files eml 4/1/2021 22:18 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> Rudolph Giuliani <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Giuliani.pdf Giuliani
RUDOLPH GIULIANI 4-1-21 Russo Law Engagement Letter - Rudolph
1B05A_00394325 Extra Files eml 4/2/2021 5:29 <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> Joseph Sibley <Sibley@camarasibley.com> Giuliani-1 Giuliani
1B05A_00452195 thumbnail_14.jpeg jpg 10/3/2020 20:08 Giuliani
1B05A_00452197 thumbnail_50.jpeg jpg 10/3/2020 20:08 Giuliani
1B05A_00452218 thumbnail_3.jpg jpg 10/3/2020 20:08 Giuliani
1B05A_00452220 thumbnail_1.jpg jpg 10/3/2020 20:09 Giuliani
1B05A_00455764 5005_4.JPG jpg 11/16/2020 4:24 Giuliani
1B05A_00456593 5005_3641.JPG jpg 11/29/2020 9:36 Giuliani
1B05A_00456594 5005_4101.JPG jpg 11/29/2020 9:36 Giuliani
9762EBD9-3676-4A18-9121-
3E1EBEF90181.01da20805f124309c5adc9bc944
1B05A_00470444 2c255736f6e3975 jpg 3/22/2021 15:18 Giuliani
1B05A_00776943 1.2_11.emlxpart html 3/1/2021 14:17 Giuliani
1B05A_00776946 1.2_13.emlxpart html 3/1/2021 15:11 Giuliani
1B05A_00842209 2_28.emlxpart html 4/16/2021 19:02 Giuliani
(owner) Unknown +19179513862 Rudy Giuliani
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123637 Chats_3100 txt 11/16/2020 12:46 '+15169870213 Bob Costello (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown +19179513862 Rudy Giuliani
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123638 Chats_3101 txt 11/16/2020 14:00 '+15169870213 Bob Costello (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123668 Chats_3727 txt 12/6/2020 2:59 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123669 Chats_3728 txt 12/6/2020 3:00 (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown +19179513862 Rudy Giuliani
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123701 Chats_3104 txt 12/22/2020 21:51 '+15169870213 Bob Costello (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123706 Chats_3742 txt 12/23/2020 2:58 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123707 Chats_3743 txt 12/23/2020 3:20 (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown +19179513862 Rudy Giuliani
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123715 Chats_3115 txt 12/24/2020 23:36 '+15169870213 Bob Costello (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown +19179513862 Rudy Giuliani
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123736 Chats_3120 txt 12/27/2020 5:19 '+15169870213 Bob Costello (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123760 Chats_3771 txt 1/1/2021 16:08 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123769 Chats_3779 txt 1/1/2021 23:00 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123776 Chats_3786 txt 1/3/2021 22:39 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123777 Chats_3787 txt 1/4/2021 1:54 (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123780 Chats_3790 txt 1/4/2021 13:46 (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown rhelen0528@gmail.com
1B09A_00123781 Chats_3791 txt 1/4/2021 13:50 '+18282002544 Mark Meadows Rudolph Giuliani (owner) Giuliani
(owner) Unknown rhelen0528@gmail.com
1B09A_00123791 Chats_3799 txt 1/6/2021 13:01 '+18282002544 Mark Meadows Rudolph Giuliani (owner) Giuliani
'+18282002544 Mark Meadows
rhelen0528@gmail.com Rudolph Giuliani
1B09A_00123803 Chats_3803 txt 1/8/2021 18:27 (owner) Giuliani
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-4 Filed 07/11/23 Page 16 of 21
1B09A_00131846 mes-672.eml eml 4/1/2021 11:51 "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> "Joe Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> Re: Giuliani representation Giuliani
1B09A_00131847 mes-671.eml eml 4/1/2021 11:52 "Joseph Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> "Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Re: Giuliani representation Giuliani
"rhelen0528@gmail.com"
1B09A_00131856 mes-662.eml eml 4/5/2021 22:12 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> FW: Few more Giuliani
"Maria Ryan" Rhelen0528 <rhelen0528@gmail.com>, Sibley
1B09A_00131888 mes-631.eml eml 4/10/2021 14:58 <Maria.Ryan@giulianipartners.com> <sibley@camarasibley.com> Ruby and daughter passing USB Giuliani
"Rudy Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com>,
"Maria Ryan"
<Maria.Ryan@giulianipartners.com>,
"Christina Bobb" "sibley@camarasibley.com"
1B09A_00131901 mes-620.eml eml 4/10/2021 16:21 <christina@cgbstrategies.com> <sibley@camarasibley.com> Original Antrim County Report Giuliani
"Zafonte, Jo Ann"
<JoAnn.Zafonte@giulianipartners.com>,
"Rudolph Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com>,
1B09A_00132009 mes-523.eml eml 4/13/2021 17:59 "Joe Sibley" <sibley@camarasibley.com> "Giuliani 3" <rudolphgiuliani@icloud.com> Fwd: Giuliani representation Giuliani
"Maria Ryan"
"Christina Bobb" <Maria.Ryan@giulianipartners.com>, "Rudy "John Leventhal"
1B09A_00132022 mes-510.eml eml 4/13/2021 21:50 <christina@cgbstrategies.com> Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> <judgeleventhal@aidalalaw.com> FW: Manual Giuliani
"rhelen0528@gmail.com" FW: Transfer file from "Epson Connect Scan to
1B09A_00132241 mes-318.eml eml 4/20/2021 19:04 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Cloud" Giuliani
1B09A_00132267 mes-296.eml eml 4/21/2021 17:43 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> "Rudy Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> 2021.04.21 Giuliani LOI Follow-up.pdf Giuliani
1B09A_00132328 mes-240.eml eml 4/23/2021 14:21 "Costello, Robert J." <rjc@dhclegal.com> "Rudy Giuliani" <rhelen0528@gmail.com> Fwd: TrumpMedia...and Direct Giuliani
"Celeste Levindoski"
<clevindoski@scaringilaw.com>,
"jfitzpatrick@donaldtrump.com"
<jfitzpatrick@donaldtrump.com>,
"mike@mikeroman.com"
<mike@mikeroman.com>,
"giuliani.andrew@gmail.com" RE: 20-472 FW: Donald J. Trump for President,
<giuliani.andrew@gmail.com>, Inc. v. Secretary Commonwealth of
"Marc A. Scaringi Esq." "acannon@donaldtrump.com" "rhelen0528@gmail.com" Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371 (3d Cir.) [IWOV-
1B09A_00132527 mes-64.eml eml 4/27/2021 13:43 <marc@scaringilaw.com> <acannon@donaldtrump.com> <rhelen0528@gmail.com> HASP1.FID136687] Giuliani
1B09A_00442319 5005_3664.JPG jpg 11/29/2020 3:13 Giuliani
1B09A_00442320 5005_3156.JPG jpg 11/29/2020 3:13 Giuliani
1B10_00001533 cellebrite-im-d26d9bd0-2019-04-26.rsmf RSMF Giuliani Giuliani Cellebrite IM: [Giuliani] - 2019-04-26 Giuliani Giuliani
196BD033-C7FF-4C1C-B193-
1B10_00001533.0001 CE8762E00837.pluginPayloadAttachment png Giuliani
496159D2-CA9A-42DF-8D85-
1B10_00001533.0002 489DCEB0ADB7.pluginPayloadAttachment png Giuliani
Cellebrite IM: [Rudolph Giuliani
(09172979169),Giuliani (19172979169)] - 2019-
1B8_00000455 cellebrite-im-dc71efca-2019-04-08.rsmf RSMF Rudolph Giuliani (09172979169) Giuliani (19172979169) 04-08 Giuliani Rudolph Giuliani (09172979169)
1B8_00000455.0001 Obstruction Notes.docx docx Giuliani
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 95
Page 1
1
2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
4 -------------------------------x
5 RUBY FREEMAN and
6 WANDREA MOSS,
7 Plaintiffs,
8 v. Civil Action No.
9 21-3354 (BAH)
10 RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
11 Defendant.
12 ------------------------------x
13
14 DEPOSITION OF RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI
15 March 1, 2023
16
17
18
19 Reported by:
20 MARY F. BOWMAN, RPR, CRR
21 JOB NO. 5786854
22
23
24
25
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5 March 1, 2023
6 9:30 a.m.
7
8
9 Deposition of RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
10 held at Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP, 787
11 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York, before
12 Mary F. Bowman, a Registered Professional
13 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
14 Notary Public of the States of New Jersey
15 and New York.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
4 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6 1875 K Street, NW
7 Washington DC 20006
8 BY: MICHAEL J. GOTTLIEB, ESQ.
9 M. ANNIE HOUGHTON-LARSEN, ESQ.
10 MAGGIE MacCURDY, ESQ.
11 MERYL GOVERSKI, ESQ. (Via Zoom)
12 JOHN KNOBLETT, ESQ. (Via Zoom)
13 -and-
14 DUBOSE MILLER LLC
15 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2110
16 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
17 BY: VON A. DUBOSE, ESQ. (Via Zoom)
18 -and-
19 UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY, INC.
20 82 Nassau Street, #601
21 New York, NY 10038
22 BY: JOHN LANGFORD, ESQ. (Via Zoom)
23
24
25
Page 4
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
4 CAMARA & SIBLEY
5 Attorneys for Defendant
6 1108 Lavaca Street, Suite 110263
7 Austin, TX 78701
8 BY: JOE SIBLEY, ESQ.
9 -and-
10 DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP
11 605 Third Avenue
12 New York, New York 10158
13 BY: ROBERT J. COSTELLO, ESQ.
14
15
16
17
18 Also Present:
19 Deverell Write, Legal Videographer
20
21
22
23
24
25
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 7 of 95
Page 15
1 Giuliani
2 A. He has since been pardoned and
3 he's been reinstated as an official
4 investigator.
5 Q. Fair enough.
6 As a general matter, he is
7 somebody you believe as credible --
8 A. Yeah, as a general matter, he is
9 as credible as anybody I know that I would
10 consider credible.
11 Q. You say he doesn't use email
12 often, is that right?
13 A. Yeah, he is more -- he is prone
14 to short messages, I guess, is the point
15 I'm trying to get across.
16 Q. Understood.
17 So sometimes he provides you with
18 information in person. Sometimes he sends
19 you a text.
20 If he has a video or an article
21 to share with you, would he typically do
22 that by text, by email? Do you have any
23 recollection of him ever sharing videos or
24 links to news articles?
25 A. Yeah, I should -- this particular
Page 16
1 Giuliani
2 case, this is not a case that he worked on
3 very heavily, or I worked on with him very
4 heavily. Occasional situation here and
5 there. So I can't -- it doesn't
6 necessarily apply to this case.
7 If you are asking as a general
8 practice, the general practice is, it would
9 depend on how sensitive the document or the
10 video was. If it wasn't that sensitive, he
11 would send it. I would watch it
12 electronically. If it was sensitive, he
13 would come to my house, I would go to his
14 house, or we would meet in an office and he
15 would show it to me.
16 Q. Okay.
17 In terms of texting, do you --
18 A. I don't think that -- what I just
19 told you -- applies to this case.
20 Q. Okay. I understand.
21 In terms of texting, do you have
22 one phone, more than one phone?
23 MR. COSTELLO: At what point in
24 time?
25 A. Right now?
Page 17
1 Giuliani
2 Q. Let's start with right now and
3 we'll work backwards.
4 A. Right now, I really have
5 officially one phone. I have a bunch of
6 inoperative phones. I was able to get one
7 of those operative and it has a single
8 phone number on it. And I don't use it
9 other than to take calls on my radio show.
10 So it's a call-in number for a radio show.
11 But it's a single cell phone that
12 you plug in, so I can take it anywhere with
13 me. So I really have one phone right now.
14 Typically, I had two phones.
15 That goes back to when I was mayor, almost
16 since they had phones. And one phone, it
17 wasn't divided between business and
18 pleasure. It was divided between good
19 people and bad people.
20 The people I wanted to talk to
21 were on one phone. The people that I were
22 trying to avoid or have somebody else talk
23 to were on another phone, as best as I
24 could do it, so that I knew which phone had
25 the priority of answering.
Page 18
1 Giuliani
2 And that hasn't always been the
3 case, but when I had positions of intense
4 hours and calls and, let's say, mostly
5 government positions, that's what I did.
6 When I was in private law
7 practice, I didn't do that.
8 Q. When was the last time that you
9 had two phones that you were using?
10 A. When the FBI took it from me.
11 Q. When was that?
12 A. It would be in 20 -- was it 2021,
13 Bob?
14 MR. COSTELLO: Do you want the
15 date?
16 THE WITNESS: Bob would know the
17 day.
18 Q. I'm just interested in what you
19 remember.
20 A. I don't remember the exact date.
21 It was about two years ago.
22 Q. So since whatever that point in
23 time was that the FBI took your phone, you
24 had one phone?
25 A. They kept those phones, and I
Page 19
1 Giuliani
2 went and bought a new iPhone and I set it
3 up, and that's been my -- that iPhone has
4 been my only phone really until now.
5 Q. And what is the number for that
6 phone number for that iPhone that you have
7 had since the FBI took your phone?
8 A. 347-735-0426.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you.
10 And then apart from that
11 iPhone -- it is an iPhone, is that right?
12 A. Um-hm.
13 Q. Apart from that iPhone --
14 A. To be absolutely precise, I would
15 have to check that number. Because I don't
16 really remember my number.
17 Q. All right.
18 A. Bob could check it right this
19 minute.
20 Q. We will ask your counsel to check
21 it and then we will come back to this
22 question.
23 A. I don't want to --
24 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. I
25 appreciate it.
Page 20
1 Giuliani
2 So you have your iPhone. You
3 have the phone that you use only for
4 call-ins to the radio show.
5 A. Yeah, and I had that about a
6 month.
7 Q. Do you have email accounts that
8 you use to correspond with people?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. What -- can you tell us what
11 those email accounts are?
12 A. I currently have only one email
13 account for me personally. My businesses
14 have emails accounts, but I have one
15 personally.
16 And that -- want me to give it to
17 you?
18 Q. Yes, please.
19 A. It's truth, lower case, and,
20 spelled out, justice, number 4, letter U
21 @protonnow.com.
22 Q. Is that now your principal email
23 account?
24 A. Yeah, that's my -- it's the only
25 one that functions that I know of.
Page 21
1 Giuliani
2 Q. How long have you had that?
3 A. Since a few days after the FBI
4 seized my electronics.
5 Q. Prior to the seizure of your
6 electronics, did you have a different email
7 account?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And what was that?
10 A. There was a main one and then
11 several others.
12 Q. What is the principal email
13 account you used?
14 A. The main one was -- if I can
15 remember it.
16 I can't remember -- the Gmail
17 account, I would have to look it up.
18 Q. For present purposes, we can say
19 you had a Gmail account?
20 A. It was a Gmail account and then
21 there were several offshoot accounts, like
22 RudyGiuliani@me.com, and I have no idea how
23 they got set up, what they were for, but
24 occasionally, I had about three of those
25 like that.
Page 22
1 Giuliani
2 But the main account that would
3 carry I think every significant email would
4 be the Gmail account.
5 Q. Okay. So if we are talking about
6 the period of time around the 2020
7 election, so call it November 2020 --
8 A. That would be -- that would be --
9 that would be the account that I would be
10 using.
11 Q. Okay.
12 So whatever the handle is on that
13 Gmail account, to the extent you were using
14 email --
15 A. Yeah, I'll get that for you, when
16 you want me to look.
17 Q. Okay.
18 Would you send and receive emails
19 from your phone from that Gmail account?
20 A. Um-hm. Yes, sir.
21 Q. Same for your ProtonMail account
22 currently?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Let's stick in the period of time
25 around the 2020 election.
Page 23
1 Giuliani
2 You had social media accounts, is
3 that right?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. Twitter account?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. Did you ever receive direct
8 messages on the Twitter account?
9 A. Probably. I didn't use it for
10 that purpose.
11 Q. Did you ever send any direct
12 messages from your Twitter account?
13 A. I may have but never -- I can't
14 exclude the possibility that I did that,
15 but that wasn't a practice that I followed.
16 It would have come up because of some
17 interchange or -- I can't remember saying
18 I'm going to go to Twitter and send a
19 direct message.
20 Q. What about did you have any
21 so-called ephemeral message platforms
22 around the time of the 2020 election, so
23 Signal, Telegram?
24 A. I had all of those and used them
25 rarely. I had Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp.
Page 24
1 Giuliani
2 Everybody telling you those are more --
3 those are more secure than others and then
4 other people come along and tell you they
5 aren't.
6 I was in the cyber security
7 business, which I left to represent
8 President Trump, and my view was that they
9 were only marginally better, and if it was
10 going to be any serious inconvenience, not
11 worth it.
12 Q. So you mentioned Signal?
13 A. I used Signal. I used --
14 probably WhatsApp --
15 Q. WhatsApp?
16 A. -- I used more often.
17 I was mostly guided by the people
18 I was communicating with. I didn't have a
19 favorite one. So if they said, I want to
20 communicate with you on WhatsApp. I said,
21 Fine, let's do WhatsApp.
22 And then I would ask my staff --
23 but this is a while back when I would say
24 Go check them out, and they would say, Two
25 others are really better. So I probably
Page 25
1 Giuliani
2 had about four of those.
3 Q. And do you still have access to
4 any of those accounts?
5 A. I do, but I can't remember the
6 last time I used it.
7 Q. But you -- as of today, you still
8 are able to access, should you want to,
9 your WhatsApp account?
10 A. I think so, unless you have to --
11 unless you have to renew it because I don't
12 remember renewing it in a long, long time.
13 Q. All right. So you may have --
14 you may have access to these messaging
15 platforms, but you're not certain?
16 A. Right. I mean, I basically have
17 to go on my phone and see if they're still
18 active.
19 Q. Have you done that in the course
20 of responding to discovery in this case?
21 A. Not recently.
22 Q. Have you ever?
23 A. Maybe way back when we first had
24 to make requests. I did a quick look at
25 those at one time.
Page 26
1 Giuliani
2 I don't know if it was just this
3 case or I lumped a group of cases together
4 and went through them because I knew it
5 wouldn't contain a lot. I didn't find
6 anything on there that related either to
7 this case or maybe let me say this group of
8 cases.
9 Q. Okay. Specifically with respect
10 to this case, we have served discovery
11 requests, requests for production,
12 interrogatories.
13 And my question to you, sir, is,
14 do you have any recollection, after
15 receiving the requests for production in
16 this case of having searched through your
17 devices or having had somebody else search
18 through your devices and accounts for
19 responsive documents?
20 A. I do recall going through them.
21 I'm trying to remember when I did it
22 because I didn't have them for a long time.
23 So those were the apps that were
24 with the FBI, and I didn't know -- I didn't
25 know how to get them on my new phone. So
Page 27
1 Giuliani
2 when I got my new phone, for the longest
3 time, those apps were unavailable.
4 When I got them back, I did a
5 search of them. One of the cases I had in
6 mind was this one, and I didn't find
7 anything on it.
8 Q. Okay. Is there a person who
9 assists you with IT-related issues with
10 your phone or tech issues with your phone?
11 A. Different people at different
12 times.
13 Q. Okay. So since -- when you
14 restored the social media apps or messaging
15 apps to your phone, was there a specific
16 person who was assisting you?
17 A. No. I did that myself.
18 Q. Do you have any recollection of
19 when that happened?
20 A. I don't.
21 Q. Returning to the Gmail account
22 for just a moment, is the Gmail account
23 RHelen0528@gmail.com familiar to you?
24 A. That's it.
25 Q. That was the Gmail account you
Page 28
1 Giuliani
2 used?
3 A. That was my main Gmail account
4 of -- since I had Gmail. And somehow
5 others were created for specific purposes,
6 but that would cover 95 percent of any
7 email I had and probably every important
8 one.
9 Q. Do you -- have you ever gone back
10 to WhatsApp or Signal, not your apps but
11 the companies, to ask them for a pull of
12 any of your data?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. You don't have any recollection
15 of doing that?
16 A. I don't.
17 Q. So you -- I want to make sure I
18 understand your testimony.
19 You believe at some point in time
20 after getting your new phone and putting
21 the messaging apps back on it, that you
22 went through some number of those apps to
23 look for responsive materials?
24 A. Yes, sir, to see what was on
25 there in case there were things that were
Page 29
1 Giuliani
2 on there that I didn't remember.
3 I mean, I didn't remember
4 anything of significance being on there.
5 But since I -- my memory is not anywhere
6 near 100 percent with all the data
7 involved.
8 But I didn't find anything of any
9 significance, anything relating to this
10 case or any of the others that you regard
11 in the election law case category.
12 Q. So you didn't find anything on
13 any of those apps or your email or anything
14 else that was on your phone --
15 A. Related to this.
16 Q. -- related to the 2020 election
17 generally?
18 A. Particularly this, right.
19 Q. Okay.
20 You have a number of -- well,
21 I'll withdraw that.
22 You currently have podcasts, is
23 that right?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And a radio show?
Page 30
1 Giuliani
2 A. I do.
3 Q. And I believe you also have
4 different accounts on different social
5 media platforms --
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. -- that distribute those shows,
8 is that right?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. I know you have one podcast
11 called "Common Sense," is that right?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Do you have others?
14 A. Well, I sort of -- you could say
15 so.
16 Want me to describe them all to
17 you?
18 Q. Yes, please.
19 A. I have a list. It might be
20 easier.
21 I have a podcast -- really, it's
22 a video podcast because it's television and
23 audio, and it's done twice a week, put out
24 on a Wednesday and a Friday. And it's put
25 out on -- if not all, most of the video --
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 24 of 95
Page 111
1 Giuliani
2 who led it or participated in it, but she
3 participated in getting the people out so
4 that at some point around 10, the arena was
5 only -- the arena was closed, the public
6 gallery was empty, and the only people left
7 were four or five election workers who had
8 told the others that no more counting would
9 take place.
10 Q. Okay. And we are going to go
11 through each piece of this, so you will
12 have an opportunity to talk about each
13 different piece of it. That, I assure you.
14 Right now, I'm just focused on
15 the allegation that my clients, when you
16 have said they threw out the Republican
17 election observers, made up a phony excuse
18 about a water main break.
19 And what I am trying to
20 understand is two things. Let me start
21 with number one.
22 Number one is, as we sit here
23 today, years after this has happened, do
24 you believe that my clients made up an
25 excuse about a phony water main break in
Page 112
1 Giuliani
2 order to force the Republican election
3 observers to leave State Farm Arena on
4 November 3rd?
5 A. I believe that she participated
6 in the phony story of the water main break,
7 but I can't tell you that that was the
8 proximate cause of her having the people
9 removed because it conflicts with other
10 evidence that she told them that they had
11 to leave because they were not going to
12 count votes anymore, and there is a time
13 gap between the two that's the quite
14 substantial.
15 Q. So as you sit here today, you
16 don't know -- you do not know one way or
17 the other whether my clients, in forcing
18 the Republican observers to leave State
19 Farm Arena, said, You need to leave because
20 there is a water main break?
21 A. Correct. If I were doing it in a
22 complaint, I would allege it in the
23 alternative.
24 Q. Okay.
25 Now going back in time to after
Page 113
1 Giuliani
2 the election, late November, early December
3 of 2020, where did you learn the
4 information that -- or where did you hear
5 the information that Ms. Freeman or
6 Ms. Moss had told Republican observers that
7 they needed to leave on the night of the
8 election because there was a water main
9 break?
10 A. Well, I heard it from local
11 counsel, from -- I heard it from some of
12 the Republican officials.
13 I believe I had read some
14 newspaper articles about this water main
15 break or -- when I say, "read," I was shown
16 some newspaper articles about this water
17 main break. And over time, the water main
18 break seemed to change from a water main
19 break into something less serious and not
20 proximate to the exclusion of the public.
21 So it was very confusing as to
22 exactly how it was utilized.
23 Q. When you say -- sorry to
24 interrupt, I just want to clarify.
25 When you say, "It was very
Page 114
1 Giuliani
2 confusing," do you mean at that time, in
3 December of 2020, it was very confusing how
4 the water main break played into the
5 departure of the officials?
6 A. Correct. There is false
7 allegation of a water main break, some time
8 goes by, people are escorted out. That
9 would seem to me that those are the facts
10 that you know and that your client played a
11 major role in that.
12 Exactly what she said, when she
13 said it, whether it was said by others in
14 her presence, was it a collective thing, I
15 may have known that at that time. I don't
16 recall right now.
17 Q. When you say, "local counsel,"
18 are you referring to Ray Smith?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Anybody else?
21 A. Well, the people that work with
22 him.
23 Q. Okay.
24 Do you have a specific
25 recollection of talking to Ray Smith about
Page 115
1 Giuliani
2 this issue?
3 A. I don't.
4 Q. Okay. Is there any specific
5 person that you remember talking to about
6 the allegation that our clients had forced
7 Republican election officials out on the
8 grounds of a phony water main break?
9 MR. COSTELLO: Can I stop you for
10 one second?
11 You constantly say "Republican
12 officials," and his testimony was it
13 was the public, it was Democrats and
14 Republicans.
15 If we can stipulate to that, you
16 can continue to refer to them --
17 A. And it would help if you --
18 MR. COSTELLO: But it is not just
19 Republicans.
20 A. -- if you told me what it is that
21 I said.
22 Q. Let's mark an exhibit. Binder 2,
23 Volume 2, Tab 49. This will be Exhibit 8.
24 (Exhibit 8, transcript of an
25 excerpt from YouTube, dated December
Page 116
1 Giuliani
2 25, marked for identification, as of
3 this date.)
4 Q. Mr. Giuliani, the court reporter
5 has handed you what has been marked
6 Exhibit 8, which is a transcript of a
7 YouTube video that you released on
8 December -- on Christmas Day, December 25,
9 2020. The title is, "Who will be our
10 President? The current state of our
11 country."
12 And do you have a recollection of
13 doing an episode of Common Sense on
14 Christmas Day?
15 A. I do, I do. Yes.
16 Q. If you turn to page 19 of this
17 transcript, I direct your attention to the
18 first full paragraph on the page, lines 5
19 through 13, and specifically, starting on
20 line 8, you say, "Let's watch the Democrats
21 steal the election, and there you see it,
22 Ruby Freeman and her crew getting everybody
23 out of the center" --
24 A. This is page 19?
25 Q. Yes, sir. Page 19, and I am now
Page 117
1 Giuliani
2 on line 10.
3 "Ruby Freeman and her crew
4 getting everybody out of the center,
5 creating a false story that there was a
6 water main break. No water main break,
7 they get everybody out."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. So you are alleging here that
11 Ms. Freeman and her crew were creating a
12 false story that there was a water main
13 break?
14 A. Correct. And I still believe
15 that's true, and that was told to me and at
16 the time, I -- at the time -- I don't know
17 if I was aware of the timing -- that the
18 false story about the water main break and
19 the conclusion that there was no water main
20 break was much earlier in the day than when
21 Ruby Freeman and her crew got everybody
22 out.
23 Q. Just so I understand it, what is
24 your view --
25 A. But except for the timing of
Page 118
1 Giuliani
2 this, that would be accurate.
3 Q. What is your view of whether or
4 not there was a -- at any time during the
5 day on November 3, a water leak or break or
6 whatever you described it, do you have an
7 understanding today of what happened with
8 respect to the water?
9 A. The only understanding I have is
10 that there was -- there was statements made
11 that there was a water main break, people
12 would have to leave the building.
13 When they examined it, it turned
14 out to be nothing more than a toilet that
15 had overflowed.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And that occurred -- and that --
18 now, I'm putting a lot of facts together
19 that come in later, and that occurred at a
20 similar time to when people were excluded
21 in Pennsylvania, Detroit -- Pennsylvania,
22 Detroit, several other places.
23 Q. As you sit here today, do you
24 have an understanding of whether the water
25 leak or the overflowing toilet or whatever
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 33 of 95
Page 232
1 Giuliani
2 November 4, 2020 at 2:27 p.m.
3 A. 2:27?
4 Q. Yes.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. It's daytime obviously. You can
7 see the light.
8 Q. So whatever this exchange was
9 happened on the day after the election at
10 around 2:27 p.m.?
11 A. Were you telling me -- were you
12 giving me the top one?
13 Q. The date is attached to the
14 bottom screen.
15 MR. COSTELLO: Where is it here?
16 It's here.
17 A. That's the one he is talking
18 about.
19 Q. We are happy to play just a clip
20 from the State Farm --
21 A. And that date was what?
22 Q. November 4th at 2:27 p.m.
23 A. Fair enough.
24 I mean, it doesn't mean very much
25 because I don't recognize it.
Page 233
1 Giuliani
2 Q. I understand that, sir.
3 But whatever this event was that
4 happened, we can agree that it happened the
5 day after the election, not the day before
6 the election --
7 A. Whatever it was, yeah.
8 Q. -- is that correct? Okay.
9 All right. You have alleged -- I
10 think you just said in your testimony that
11 Ms. Moss had participated in -- previously
12 in voter fraud activities with an
13 algorithm, is that right?
14 Just a few minutes ago?
15 A. I was told -- I wasn't told that.
16 I was told that she -- this is the
17 daughter, right?
18 Q. Ms. Moss is Ms. Freeman's
19 daughter.
20 A. Yup. That she -- this passing of
21 the -- of the thumb drives was more in her
22 area of expertise.
23 I don't think they said that she
24 was involved in algorithms or -- but that's
25 the end result of what they do.
Page 234
1 Giuliani
2 But the way her expertise was
3 described is, she had done this in prior
4 elections, passed these thumb drives.
5 Q. Fair enough. So your testimony
6 is you were told and believed that Ms. Moss
7 had in previous elections passed thumb
8 drives that could manipulate voter
9 machines?
10 A. Someone told me she had been
11 working for them for about ten years and
12 that she -- she was a lot more expert in
13 this than her mother and that she brought
14 her mother into it and that she -- and when
15 we were looking at that stuff, they said,
16 This is her real area of expertise, these
17 thumb drives.
18 Q. Okay. You've also alleged that
19 Ms. Freeman has a history of voter fraud
20 participation, is that correct?
21 A. Yes, I was told that she had some
22 history of it also.
23 Q. And who told you that?
24 A. People on -- people on the legal
25 team. Either in that case or -- either in
Page 235
1 Giuliani
2 that case or in the case that was being put
3 together on Raffensperger.
4 Q. Were you told that Ms. Freeman or
5 Ms. Moss had a criminal record? Or were
6 you told that they had participated in
7 prior voting fraud? Or something else?
8 A. I was told Ms. -- I was told that
9 one of them, I think the older of the two,
10 had an arrest record.
11 Q. Okay. And they live in Georgia,
12 right?
13 A. At that point, yeah.
14 Q. Did you or anyone on your team
15 run a criminal records check or criminal
16 history check?
17 A. I didn't. She wasn't involved in
18 any case we were going to bring, so I
19 didn't run -- I wasn't going to use her as
20 a witness.
21 Q. You didn't think it was important
22 to do that before you accused them of
23 having a criminal background?
24 A. I just repeated what I was told.
25 Q. Okay. So you don't -- as you sit
Page 236
1 Giuliani
2 here today, you don't have any knowledge
3 one way or the other whether Ms. Freeman or
4 Ms. Moss has a criminal record or
5 criminal --
6 A. Just what I was told.
7 Q. And do you have a specific
8 recollection of the person who told you
9 that?
10 A. It was more than one.
11 Q. Such as?
12 A. I would have to really -- right
13 now, I don't, but I would have to narrow it
14 down.
15 Q. If a -- do you have any specific
16 names of people who told you that?
17 A. I don't.
18 Q. Do you have notes or records of
19 conversations about this from which you
20 would be able to reconstruct who told you
21 this information?
22 A. I have to look at them to tell
23 you that. I don't think so, but I might.
24 Q. Well, in this litigation, you
25 have admitted, I think, or at least in your
Page 237
1 Giuliani
2 motion to dismiss papers, that allegations
3 that Ms. Freeman or Ms. Moss had a criminal
4 record are "apparently false."
5 So what is it that has led you to
6 the belief today that that allegation is
7 apparently false?
8 A. Because there are no such -- we
9 can't find any such records.
10 Q. So at this point in time, you or
11 someone on your team has performed such a
12 search?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And identified that, in fact,
15 Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss have no criminal
16 record to speak of?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. So in late December of 2020,
19 there was a document that I know you have
20 given some testimony about before that was
21 prepared called a "Strategic Communications
22 Plan of the Giuliani Presidential Legal
23 Defense Team."
24 Are you familiar with that
25 document?
Page 238
1 Giuliani
2 A. Only after the fact.
3 Q. Okay. Let's mark this as the
4 next exhibit, Exhibit 19. This is
5 Volume 1, Tab 12.
6 (Exhibit 19, document entitled,
7 "Strategic Communications Plan of the
8 Giuliani Presidential Legal Defense
9 Team," marked for identification, as of
10 this date.)
11 Q. Do you -- as you sit here today
12 and you looked at what has been marked as
13 Exhibit 19, do you recognize this document?
14 A. I should clarify how I recognize
15 it though.
16 Q. Please do.
17 A. I recognize it as something given
18 to me after this litigation began.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. I hadn't seen this before.
21 Q. So, Mr. Giuliani, you produced
22 this document to us in this litigation. So
23 how did you receive it?
24 A. I believe, I believe --
25 MR. SIBLEY: Object to form.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 41 of 95
Page 248
1 Giuliani
2 article from Snopes.com dated December 18,
3 2020, entitled "Ruby Freeman was not
4 arrested by the FBI." And this is, again,
5 an article that is cited in your motion to
6 dismiss.
7 And if you look at page 4 --
8 sorry. I apologize, not page 4. If you
9 look at page 2, this article that you have
10 cited says, third paragraph down, "There
11 was no truth to this rumor that FBI did not
12 arrest Ruby Freeman for election fraud and
13 this person was not suspected outside of
14 conspiracy-minded circles of any illegal
15 activity related to the 2020 election."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. Do you see that there is a
19 description of how this viral message --
20 there is a viral message that started this
21 rumor that were part of Twitter threads?
22 MR. COSTELLO: Talking about the
23 next paragraph, right?
24 MR. GOTTLIEB: Yes.
25 A. Okay.
Page 249
1 Giuliani
2 Q. So this article that you cited
3 references Facebook posts and Twitter posts
4 that began a viral theory that Ruby Freeman
5 had been arrested.
6 Are you aware of any other source
7 of information, apart from the ones
8 mentioned in this article, that
9 substantiate an allegation that Ruby
10 Freeman had been arrested?
11 A. Do I know any more sources for
12 this allegation?
13 Q. Correct.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you ever do anything to
16 investigate whether or not Ruby Freeman had
17 been arrested and was providing testimony
18 about Stacey Abrams and the DNC?
19 A. I asked Bernie Kerik to look into
20 it.
21 Q. Did he?
22 A. I only did that a few days ago.
23 Q. So you asked Bernie Kerik a few
24 days ago to look into whether Ms. Freeman
25 had been arrested?
Page 250
1 Giuliani
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Did he come back to you --
4 A. No.
5 Q. -- with any information on it?
6 Mr. Kerik, I assume, knows how to
7 do criminal background checks, is that
8 right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you expect that if Ms. Freeman
11 had a criminal record, that Mr. Kerik would
12 be able to find it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you expect if Ms. Freeman
15 had been arrested --
16 A. I imagine she doesn't, but I just
17 thought he should check to be sure.
18 I don't know what this is. This
19 doesn't seem -- I mean, I disagree with a
20 lot of what's in here.
21 Q. Mr. Giuliani, when we were
22 looking at the strategic communications
23 plan, you had a reaction on the -- back on
24 the suitcase gate paragraph. I think you
25 still have it open there on your table.
Page 251
1 Giuliani
2 That's Exhibit 19?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. You seemed to have a reaction to
5 the text here that I wanted to ask you
6 about that says, "Need confirmation of
7 arrest and evidence."
8 Do you see that in writing?
9 A. Yeah. Well, it seemed to me,
10 it's going to get to the point of giving it
11 to the White House, you should confirm it
12 in advance.
13 Q. Before providing information like
14 this to the White House?
15 A. Right. You are getting to a
16 different stage now.
17 Q. You can see how it would be
18 problematic to --
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. -- tell the White House that
21 someone had been arrested --
22 A. Yeah, and I don't know if they
23 did. I mean, I wasn't there.
24 This is so confusing, I don't
25 know what they told the White House.
Page 252
1 Giuliani
2 Q. Okay. So you're not sure whether
3 they told the White House this but --
4 A. I was not at the meeting, by
5 design.
6 Q. If this was provided to the White
7 House, you would find that troubling?
8 A. Yeah, I would have corrected it.
9 In investigations, in things like
10 this, things change all the time.
11 Q. So just to be clear, when -- is
12 the only time that you asked Mr. Kerik to
13 look into Ms. Freeman's background in this
14 last week or so, that you can recall?
15 A. Gosh, I may have done it a long
16 time ago.
17 Q. Do you have a recollection of
18 doing it a long time ago?
19 A. I don't. I don't. I just don't
20 want to exclude it.
21 Q. So the only understanding that
22 you don't want to exclude that it could
23 have happened before is the only
24 recollection you have, as you sit here
25 today, of having looked into --
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 47 of 95
Page 256
1 Giuliani
2 would be careful in representations that he
3 would make to the White House Chief of
4 Staff?
5 A. I would think so.
6 Q. And particularly given that you
7 testified Mr. Kerik doesn't use email all
8 that often?
9 A. Yeah, he's very reliable.
10 Q. An email sent to the White House
11 Chief of Staff is one that goes into the
12 White House archives, is that right?
13 A. Um-hm.
14 Q. And so in this email, Mr. Kerik
15 has sent to Mr. Meadows on December 28,
16 2020, can you see that there is an
17 attachment on this email?
18 It's in the header of the email.
19 There is something that says "attachments"?
20 A. I'm sorry, I don't see the
21 attachment.
22 Q. Okay. I'm just asking in the
23 header of the email, there is a "From," a
24 "Sent," a "To," a "Subject" and an
25 "Attachments."
Page 257
1 Giuliani
2 Do you see those?
3 MR. COSTELLO: The fourth line
4 down, fifth line down.
5 A. One, two, three, four. Is that
6 what all those numbers mean?
7 I don't see attachment --
8 external --
9 MR. COSTELLO: No, two more lines
10 underneath that.
11 A. Giuliani Team Strategic --
12 MR. COSTELLO: That's the
13 attachment.
14 A. Are you saying he attached this
15 to this?
16 Q. Yes.
17 And I'm just saying the subject
18 line and the attachments line here say the
19 same thing, right? "Giuliani Team
20 Strategic Communications Plan Version 1"?
21 A. Got it.
22 Q. Do you see how in the title of
23 the attachment, or the title of Exhibit 22,
24 is the strategic communications plan, a
25 version of which we looked at in
Page 258
1 Giuliani
2 Exhibit 19, is that right?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. Do you see Mr. Kerik has written
5 to Mr. Meadows saying, "Dear Mark, I know
6 the Mayor sent this to you last evening but
7 just wanted to emphasize the importance of
8 timing"?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. Was Mr. Kerik, safe to say,
11 referring to you when he refers to the
12 "Mayor"?
13 A. Um-hm.
14 Q. So he is saying, at least, that
15 you sent this to Mr. Meadows last evening,
16 which would have been December 27?
17 A. Yeah. But he was wrong.
18 My communication on this mostly
19 was with Katherine Friess, and it may be
20 that this is too ships passing in the
21 night, but Bernie -- Bernie may have
22 assumed that I did, but he certainly didn't
23 know that I did.
24 And we have talked about it since
25 then, so...
Page 259
1 Giuliani
2 Q. And so in talking about it since
3 then --
4 A. He -- he knows that I remained
5 opposed to it.
6 I've been opposed to it
7 throughout. And the question at the very
8 end was, would we take a chance in doing
9 it? And I decided no.
10 I guess he wasn't there when I
11 did.
12 Q. Right. So -- I'm sorry,
13 Mr. Giuliani.
14 A. I think this is a matter of
15 confusion rather than what you might make
16 of it, which is that he was misrepresenting
17 my position.
18 Q. And I think you've made very
19 clear in your January 6 testimony and here
20 today that you were opposed to this
21 strategic communications plan.
22 A. Right.
23 Q. So that's not really my question.
24 My question is, you were -- you
25 have testified that Mr. Kerik was wrong
Page 260
1 Giuliani
2 that you sent this plan along to the White
3 House or to Mr. Meadows?
4 A. Correct. I didn't -- I didn't --
5 I certainly didn't send it.
6 Now -- and Bernie wouldn't have
7 been the one to do it either. Would
8 somebody else played a game with it and
9 made it look like it was sent from my
10 office? That's possible.
11 But Mark knew my position on this
12 independently. So he knew that I thought
13 it wasn't worth spending the 5 to 8 million
14 dollars.
15 Q. I believe you testified before
16 the January 6 Commission that you were
17 aware that some members of the team or this
18 communications firm wanted to make a
19 presentation of this plan to the White
20 House, is that right?
21 A. Right. I let them do it.
22 Q. And you let them do it, is that
23 right?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. So you were aware ahead of time
Page 261
1 Giuliani
2 that they would make the presentation, you
3 were opposed to it, but you also didn't
4 stand in the way of it being presented?
5 A. 100 percent, and I knew it was
6 going to happen, but sometimes people don't
7 listen.
8 Q. And you were 100 percent certain
9 as you sit here today that you didn't send
10 this along but say, for example, to
11 Mr. Meadows, I'm opposed to this, but I'm
12 sending it to you because these other
13 people want to present it to the President?
14 A. I don't -- I doubt it. I doubt
15 it. I mean, it's always possible I
16 forgot -- no, I don't think so.
17 Q. Okay.
18 Are you aware that the same day
19 that Mr. Kerik sent this email to
20 Mr. Meadows, he tweeted out some of the
21 content of this document, the strategic
22 communications plan?
23 A. I don't -- I'm not sure if I am.
24 It sounds kind of familiar but not -- no,
25 I'm not aware of it, no.
Page 262
1 Giuliani
2 Q. Let's mark Exhibit 23.
3 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: That's
4 Tab 53 in Binder 2.
5 (Exhibit 23, Tweets from Bernie
6 Kerik, marked for identification, as of
7 this date.)
8 Q. So, Mayor Giuliani, I've handed
9 you what has been marked as Exhibit 23.
10 And this is a tweet -- the bottom part of
11 the screen is -- of the exhibit on the
12 first page is a tweet that Mr. Kerik has
13 sent out, and if you flip to the next page,
14 you can see the date and the time at the
15 bottom of the content of the tweet, which
16 is listed at --
17 A. This looks like the summary page
18 from their memo.
19 Q. Just so we have a clear record,
20 the time and date on the bottom of the
21 tweet says 3:57 p.m. on December 28, 2020.
22 Do you see that on the second
23 page, sir?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And if we take now Exhibit 22,
Page 263
1 Giuliani
2 which is the version 1, Giuliani team
3 strategic communications plan, and if we
4 open it back up to the page that says
5 "Georgia" on the top, which is --
6 A. The same as that, right?
7 Q. Well, that's what I wanted to ask
8 you.
9 A. It looks the same.
10 Q. It looks like this is ten pages
11 into that document. It looks like
12 Mr. Kerik has tweeted out the content from
13 the strategic communications plan on the
14 same day as he sent it to Mr. Meadows, is
15 that right?
16 A. Well, actually, what he-- this is
17 not so much the communications plan as it
18 is the state of the case or of the evidence
19 in Georgia according to them.
20 I wouldn't say it's -- well, I
21 guess it's part of the communications plan
22 to put that out.
23 Q. This was a page of the supporting
24 documents --
25 A. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 56 of 95
Page 325
1 Giuliani
2 uncomplicated --
3 MR. SIBLEY: Let him finish the
4 question.
5 A. -- I don't know what to believe.
6 MR. COSTELLO: Let him finish the
7 question.
8 Q. Do you believe, sitting here
9 today -- we will go one by one.
10 Do you believe, sitting here
11 today, that Attorney General Barr wanted
12 President Trump to lose the election?
13 A. I don't know what he wanted.
14 Q. Okay. Do you believe -- do you
15 have any reason to believe that the U.S.
16 Attorney for the Northern District of
17 Georgia wanted President Trump to lose the
18 election?
19 A. I don't have any basis to believe
20 one way or the other what he believed. I
21 do know what he did.
22 When we brought him allegations
23 that there were ballots being burned 15
24 miles outside of -- outside of Atlanta, he
25 took two days to send anybody there, and by
Page 326
1 Giuliani
2 that time, they were all burned, and we
3 have affidavits from ATF agents explaining
4 that and preserving some of those ballots.
5 So I don't know who he was
6 working for. It didn't seem to me like he
7 was working for the United States.
8 Q. Okay. But you are accusing them
9 in participating in a coverup of evidence
10 that, in your view, showed that
11 President Trump should have won the
12 election?
13 A. You are darn right I am.
14 Q. You believe Attorney
15 General Barr -- sorry, sir.
16 A. This would be a small part of the
17 coverup. The major part of the coverup was
18 having a hard drive delivered to you that
19 any law enforcement agent would have begun
20 investigating immediately instead of
21 sitting on it for two-and-a-half years, let
22 allegations swirl around that it's Russian
23 disinformation, get 51 so-called
24 intelligence agents to say it's Russian
25 disinformation when they had no knowledge
Page 327
1 Giuliani
2 at all, and then find out that that was all
3 a complete lie and that they knew it from
4 the very beginning.
5 Q. And so I understand it, sir, in
6 your view --
7 A. So you want me to take these
8 people seriously?
9 Q. So I understand it, sir, in your
10 view, were the elected --
11 A. It was a danger to my country.
12 Q. So I understand it, sir. If I
13 could finish my question.
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. The Republican election officials
16 in Georgia, the Governor, Secretary of
17 State, and those who work for him, were
18 also in on this plot to get Donald Trump to
19 lose the election?
20 A. I didn't say that. I didn't say
21 they were involved in this. They -- as far
22 as I know, they weren't involved with the
23 hard drive and with the allegations of
24 Russian agents and turning down witnesses
25 who had evidence. I can't say that.
Page 328
1 Giuliani
2 In fact, I don't think they were.
3 Q. Are you aware that in early
4 December, the Secretary of State in
5 Georgia, who is a Republican, Secretary
6 Raffensperger, and Governor Kemp, along
7 with other officials, held some press
8 conferences in which they discussed the
9 count in Georgia and the process that was
10 going on at the time?
11 MR. COSTELLO: That's 2020,
12 right?
13 Q. Sorry, in 2020.
14 A. Yes, sure, sure.
15 Q. I assume you followed some of
16 that since you were --
17 A. Of course I did.
18 Q. Let's mark this exhibit,
19 Exhibit 28.
20 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: Binder 1,
21 Tab 32.
22 (Exhibit 28, transcript of a
23 press briefing, marked for
24 identification, as of this date.)
25 Q. So you have been handed what has
Page 329
1 Giuliani
2 been marked as Exhibit 28, which is a
3 transcript of a press briefing held by
4 Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in
5 Georgia on December 7, 2020.
6 And if you can turn to page 7 of
7 this document, do you see on page 7 --
8 well, actually, let me ask you this first.
9 Are you aware, do you know who
10 Gabriel Sterling is?
11 A. No, not offhand. Gabriel
12 Sterling?
13 Q. Gabe Sterling, Gabriel Sterling?
14 A. I don't think so.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. If you could help me a little,
17 maybe.
18 Q. If I told you that he worked for
19 Secretary Raffensperger and was regularly
20 giving briefings on the election --
21 A. I remember seeing him. I
22 remember the person who substituted for
23 him, yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. But I don't put a name to it.
Page 330
1 Giuliani
2 Q. Do you remember ever seeing
3 someone like that at a press conference
4 talking about what happened at State Farm
5 Arena and what happened on election night?
6 A. I think I -- yeah. I mean, I've
7 seen him giving press conferences. Whether
8 it was about that or about the conversation
9 or --
10 Q. Okay.
11 So on page 7, Mr. Sterling is
12 talking and briefing the press about the
13 goings on in the election, and if you see
14 at the very top, starting on line 2, he
15 says that Justin Gray from WSB spent hours
16 with us going over this video to explain to
17 people that what you saw, the secret
18 suitcases with magic ballots, were actually
19 ballots that had been packed into those
20 absentee ballot carriers by workers in the
21 plain view of the monitors and the press.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Okay. I see that.
24 Q. Do you dispute the accuracy of
25 that?
Page 331
1 Giuliani
2 A. Pardon me?
3 Q. Do you dispute the accuracy of
4 Mr. Sterling's statement?
5 A. I would dispute the accuracy of
6 anyone from that office. Since they
7 never -- if that office wanted to -- didn't
8 have anything to hide, they would have
9 allowed a forensic audit of the paper
10 ballots that were at the core of the fraud
11 that they allowed to happen.
12 Q. Mr. Giuliani, you understand the
13 distinction between a lie and a motive to
14 lie, don't you?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. So I'm not asking about the
17 office's motive. I'm asking about the
18 simple truth or falsity of the factual
19 statement that Mr. Sterling has made here.
20 And the factual statement that he
21 has made here is that the ballots that were
22 alleged to have been secret in the
23 suitcases or pulled out surreptitiously
24 were actually ballots that had been packed
25 into absentee ballot carriers by the
Page 332
1 Giuliani
2 workers in the plain view of the monitors
3 and the press.
4 A. I never saw that.
5 Q. Well, my question to you is, do
6 you dispute the accuracy of that assertion?
7 A. I have -- I'm not going to accept
8 the accuracy of that statement given the
9 source.
10 Q. Do you have any reason, apart
11 from your distrust of the source, to
12 believe that it is not accurate that the
13 ballot carriers that were underneath the
14 table at State Farm Arena on that night
15 were packed in plain view of the monitors
16 and the press?
17 A. Yes, I have a lot of reasons to
18 disbelieve that.
19 Q. Such as?
20 A. Well, such as if they did, where
21 is the video of it? If they did, where are
22 the witnesses who will say that? If they
23 did, why didn't they also release the
24 document they were hiding about the
25 discrepancies in the election that they had
Page 333
1 Giuliani
2 been hiding for two months that had to be
3 pulled out of their office? If they -- if
4 they did have such concern about the
5 accuracy of the election, why wouldn't they
6 allow an examination of the key evidence,
7 which would have been the phony ballots?
8 All those things say to me that
9 you cannot believe or give any credit to
10 what they're saying because, you know, once
11 you lie, you got to continue to lie to
12 cover it up.
13 Q. That is a tricky problem indeed.
14 If I were to show you video of
15 the ballot boxes being packed up in the
16 plain view of the monitors and the press,
17 would that change your view?
18 A. Sure. It would change my view if
19 I saw that. It wouldn't change my view of
20 the whole situation. The allegation isn't
21 how they were packed up, the allegation is
22 that they were counted and the public
23 wasn't present, which is illegal.
24 Q. We are going to -- we will come
25 back to that before the end of the day.
Page 334
1 Giuliani
2 A. There would be nothing -- there
3 would be nothing wrong or right about this.
4 This would be kind of like six of one, half
5 dozen of the other.
6 Q. I believe that you have, in fact,
7 alleged that there was a problem with where
8 these ballots came from, that they were --
9 I think that you have alleged they were
10 sitting under this table for hours, they
11 were brought in improperly, and they were
12 pulled out when no one was around to see
13 it. Is that right?
14 A. I think my -- what I said was
15 they were brought in -- if I said that, it
16 would have been very early because I
17 quickly saw the video. I saw them brought
18 in about 11 o'clock in the morning. I saw
19 them put under the table. I saw the black
20 blanket put over it. So it covered all of
21 the boxes, and then everything proceeded
22 for the rest of the day without any
23 reference to that area or anything else
24 done there.
25 And that area wasn't approached
Page 335
1 Giuliani
2 again until the public was eliminated,
3 weren't there, and the only people there
4 were the five people that we identified
5 earlier, and if you watch their -- the rest
6 of it then can become interpretation, but
7 if you watch their actions, their actions
8 appear like very, very suspicious people in
9 the way they are doing it and pulling it
10 out and -- but in any event, the minute
11 they start counting without the public
12 there, those votes are invalid.
13 That's -- that's the critical
14 part of it. I don't recall alleging where
15 they came from. By that time, where they
16 came from was somebody walked in at 11
17 o'clock and put them under a table.
18 Q. Let's take a look at the tape.
19 So we are going to look at some
20 clips from the State Farm video, and why
21 don't we start with the morning clip.
22 This will be Exhibit 29.
23 (Exhibit 29, video clip, marked
24 for identification, as of this date.)
25 Q. We have got a few clips from
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 68 of 95
Page 350
1 Giuliani
2 again at the bottom?
3 A. I see we have now moved ahead to
4 9:57.
5 Q. We have got the same -- that same
6 camera angle showing at the top of the
7 screen where you see the table there that
8 we saw Ms. Moss move into that location
9 around 8:20 in the morning?
10 A. Yeah, yeah. It --
11 MR. COSTELLO: Which picture are
12 you referring to, top or bottom?
13 Q. The top angle is the angle we
14 were looking at previously, and do you
15 see --
16 A. The bottom angle is a new angle.
17 It's a little confusing.
18 Q. That is correct. So, remember,
19 there are four cameras --
20 A. That's why they look different.
21 If you look at it, they look --
22 Q. Yeah. There are four camera
23 angles from the State Farm video, and we
24 can -- the software program in which this
25 was produced allows you to toggle between
Page 351
1 Giuliani
2 one screen or four screens.
3 A. So we are looking at the two
4 extreme ends.
5 Q. And now we are looking at two
6 screens, and why don't we press "Play" and
7 we can watch this video.
8 (Video playing.)
9 Q. And you see in the back of the
10 room on the bottom screen, Mr. Giuliani, do
11 you see the observers and the press in that
12 back corner?
13 A. I do. I do see them.
14 Q. And do you see now on the top
15 screen these ballot boxes that are to the
16 side of the table, of the black table that
17 Ms. Moss moved previously?
18 Do you see crates there that are
19 being moved by the black table?
20 A. By -- moved by the table?
21 MR. COSTELLO: You are talking
22 about here?
23 A. Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking down
24 there.
25 Q. On the top screen, do you see
Page 352
1 Giuliani
2 some crates there?
3 A. Yes, I see they're moving crates
4 and putting ballots in.
5 Q. Does it look like those boxes are
6 being packed up?
7 A. It looks like they are putting
8 ballots in or putting papers in.
9 Q. And you see observers and press
10 are still back there in the back of the
11 room?
12 MR. COSTELLO: Can I just ask
13 you, when you say, "Do you see," just
14 point to which one of these two views.
15 Q. Very good point.
16 On the bottom screen, do you see
17 the observers and press in the back of the
18 room?
19 A. I see observers way far away who
20 couldn't possibly have any understanding of
21 what was going on.
22 Q. You haven't talked to them, have
23 you, sir?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So you don't know what
Page 353
1 Giuliani
2 understanding they may or may not have had
3 about these events, right?
4 A. I have talked to people there who
5 said they couldn't see a damn thing. I
6 even have seen affidavits that say that.
7 Q. Who did you talk to that was
8 there at 10 p.m.?
9 A. One of the affidavits you showed
10 me --
11 Q. Those are different points, sir.
12 So --
13 A. -- said that they couldn't see
14 anything from that area.
15 Q. Did you talk to anyone --
16 A. I talked to many people who said
17 that.
18 Q. Such as?
19 A. I don't -- I don't -- whoever was
20 there. Whoever would talk to me. There
21 were constant complaints about that.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. And it's almost obvious you can't
24 see anything.
25 Q. All right. We can press "Play."
Page 354
1 Giuliani
2 (Videotape playing.)
3 Q. So you see -- in that clip, we
4 saw the boxes that were put underneath that
5 table being packed up, and they were being
6 packed up with ballots at around 10 p.m.,
7 is that right?
8 A. Correct. It looked like two
9 crates were put under there. Was it two or
10 one?
11 Q. We can go back and --
12 A. Let's go back for a minute.
13 (Videotape playing.)
14 MR. COSTELLO: Which one are we
15 focused on, top or bottom?
16 Q. Top screen will show you the
17 crates and the table.
18 MR. COSTELLO: Talking about
19 here?
20 MR. GOTTLIEB: You can press
21 "Play," Maggie. We will look at it
22 again.
23 (Videotape playing.)
24 Q. So the point being, it's 10 p.m.,
25 and the crates with the ballots in them are
Page 355
1 Giuliani
2 being packed up and put under the table.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. And let's go back to where you
5 can see them again.
6 Do you see Post-It notes on top
7 of those crates? Or something that appears
8 to be a Post-It note -- a Post-It note-like
9 object?
10 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: We can
11 enlarge the top view, if you want.
12 MR. GOTTLIEB: Let's enlarge the
13 top view.
14 A. I see two different -- a smaller
15 note and a larger note.
16 Q. So there are two sort of labels
17 of some kind there --
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. -- that have writing and we can't
20 see --
21 A. We can't see the writing.
22 Q. We can't see what it is.
23 Why don't we press "Play" on the
24 large view here.
25 (Videotape playing.)
Page 356
1 Giuliani
2 Q. So these crates, they have
3 ballots in them. They are packed up around
4 10 p.m. and put underneath this table, is
5 that right?
6 A. That's what it shows, yes.
7 Q. And at this time, the press and
8 observers -- I understand you say that you
9 don't think they were able to see anything
10 or perceive anything, but they are
11 physically in the room, is that right?
12 They haven't been kicked out?
13 A. Whatever that is worth, they are
14 physically in the room, yeah.
15 Q. So these ballots were not hidden
16 under this table in the morning, is that
17 right?
18 Whatever ballots were in those
19 boxes that you now see on that table --
20 A. Yeah, sure, they were hidden. I
21 mean, unless you happen to be there, if you
22 walk in later, you are going to have no
23 idea that there were ballots there.
24 Exactly why they were put under a table
25 with a -- it looks like a casket.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 76 of 95
Page 373
1 Giuliani
2 "those people," are you referring to
3 the people depicted here?
4 MR. GOTTLIEB: I'm talking about
5 the people that Mr. Giuliani observed,
6 I think --
7 A. You said they were packing up.
8 MR. GOTTLIEB: -- astutely
9 observed were not packing up at 11
10 o'clock but, in fact, were still
11 working.
12 Q. And my question is, do you have a
13 recollection in reviewing this video, which
14 I know you have, at any point between
15 10 o'clock, when we saw the table being --
16 the ballots being packed up and put on the
17 table at 11 o'clock of these people in the
18 back row --
19 A. I can't remember.
20 Q. -- who you observed were still
21 working, packing up their stuff and
22 leaving?
23 A. I can't remember.
24 Q. Is it possible they were sitting
25 there the whole time between 10 and 11
Page 374
1 Giuliani
2 working?
3 A. Well, since I can't remember what
4 they were doing, it's possible, yes.
5 Q. As you sit here today, you don't
6 know one way or the other?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Now we can press "Play."
9 (Videotape playing.)
10 Q. Now, this section here of
11 11 o'clock with people taking ballots out,
12 is this the section of the video that sort
13 of begins the section that you and Ms. Pick
14 focused on in early December of people
15 moving suitcases of ballots out from under
16 tables?
17 A. It's part of it.
18 Q. And are these black objects that
19 have a handle and some labels that the
20 gentleman in red is carrying, are those the
21 objects that you and Miss Pick referred to
22 as "suitcases" in early December?
23 A. Pardon me?
24 Q. You see that the gentleman in the
25 red shirt has got a box there and it's got
Page 375
1 Giuliani
2 a handle, he's carrying it?
3 A. I can see him, yeah.
4 Q. Is that one of the objects that
5 you and Ms. Pick referred to in early
6 December as a "suitcase"?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. And as you think about it sitting
9 back here today, as you -- as you think
10 about the allegation that there were
11 suitcases full of ballots pulled out from
12 underneath the table, am I right that these
13 are the objects that were being referred to
14 as the "suitcases" -- that you all were
15 referring to as "suitcases"?
16 A. Well, that's one, that's one of
17 them.
18 Q. Fair enough. Let's finish
19 playing this.
20 (Videotape playing).
21 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: That is the
22 end of this clip.
23 Q. Okay. That is the end of this
24 clip.
25 You were aware of Mr. Sterling's
Page 376
1 Giuliani
2 press conference and this press conference
3 with Governor Kemp at the time,
4 Mr. Giuliani, were you not?
5 A. Which one now? Because there
6 were --
7 Q. The Exhibit 28, the transcript we
8 were looking at, this press conference with
9 Secretary --
10 A. What was it in reference to? Was
11 it answering some question or other. Was
12 this about the presidential call?
13 Q. Sorry. This is the press
14 conference on December 7, 2020 where
15 Mr. Sterling -- I was reading from before
16 where Mr. Sterling was giving an
17 explanation of what happened.
18 A. So this was a press conference to
19 explain the --
20 Q. What happened on the video.
21 A. Got you. Okay.
22 Q. And you were aware of this press
23 conference when it happened, were you not?
24 A. I was aware of it. I can't say
25 for sure I was aware of it when it happened
Page 377
1 Giuliani
2 and watched it live, but I did watch it.
3 Q. Do you recall tweeting about this
4 press conference --
5 A. I don't.
6 Q. -- the day after?
7 A. I may have, but I don't.
8 Q. Why don't I just show you quickly
9 one of those tweets.
10 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: It's Binder
11 1, Tab 38.
12 MR. GOTTLIEB: No, that's 34.
13 MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN: And it will
14 be 34.
15 (Exhibit 34, tweet, marked for
16 identification, as of this date.)
17 Q. You will be handed what has been
18 marked as Exhibit 34.
19 This is a tweet that you sent on
20 December 8, 2020, at 9:49 p.m.
21 December 8 is the day after the
22 December 7 press conference that we were
23 reading from the transcript from before.
24 And you say here in your tweet,
25 "The Georgia video proves now and for
Page 378
1 Giuliani
2 posterity that crooked Democrat officials
3 stole the votes to try to win the state and
4 Republicans are covering up for them."
5 Are you referring to the
6 statements by Mr. Sterling and
7 Mr. Raffensperger in this tweet here?
8 A. I -- I'm sort of referring to
9 that and to them in general, yeah.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. Their actions in general.
12 Q. Let me show you --
13 A. Remember, it was the Governor who
14 made the deal with Stacey Abrams to allow
15 all of this illegal voting with no basis in
16 legislation.
17 Q. That's Governor Kemp?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. I'll ask you the same question
20 that I asked about the Attorney General, do
21 you believe Governor Kemp wanted Joe Biden
22 to win the election?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. You do?
25 A. I think he hates Donald Trump.
Page 379
1 Giuliani
2 Q. And you believe that his
3 Secretary of State also wanted --
4 A. That, I don't know. That, I
5 don't know.
6 Q. -- Joe Biden to win the election?
7 A. I don't know the Secretary of
8 State or his motives as well, but I do know
9 his actions were very corrupt.
10 (Exhibit 35, declaration of
11 Frances Watson, marked for
12 identification, as of this date.)
13 Q. We will mark -- and this is
14 Volume 1, Tab 24. This will be Exhibit 35.
15 So are you familiar with some
16 litigation that was going on in Georgia by
17 the name of Pearson versus Kemp?
18 A. I don't think so.
19 Q. Do you know who CJ Pearson is?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. Who is CJ Pearson?
22 A. Pardon me?
23 Q. Who is CJ Pearson?
24 A. She's an activist.
25 Q. An activist.
Page 380
1 Giuliani
2 So were you aware that CJ Pearson
3 filed a lawsuit in Georgia against
4 Governor Kemp relating to the 2020
5 election?
6 A. I can't say that I -- it's a
7 stupid answer. I can't say that I am or
8 not. It just doesn't --
9 Q. So this --
10 A. -- her bringing a lawsuit just
11 doesn't click in my head.
12 Q. Understood.
13 You were working with Sidney
14 Powell by December 6, 2020, is that right?
15 A. I may have fired her by then --
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. -- for the first time.
18 Q. All right. Well, in any event,
19 let's take a look at this declaration.
20 This is a declaration by a Frances Watson
21 that was submitted in this Pearson versus
22 Kemp litigation on December 6, 2020, that
23 looks like it is actually executed on the
24 5th of December 2020.
25 Do you know who Frances Watson
Page 381
1 Giuliani
2 is?
3 A. Sure rings a bell, but you are
4 going to have to fill in a little for me.
5 Q. Well, if you see in paragraph 2
6 of this declaration, Ms. Watson says, "I am
7 the Chief Investigator in the Office of the
8 Georgia Secretary of State" --
9 A. Yeah, that's probably how I know
10 the name. I don't know her though.
11 Q. So in this affidavit, which is
12 also sworn under penalty of perjury,
13 Ms. Watson, if you look at paragraph 6,
14 says, "My investigators have interviewed
15 witnesses and security footage of State
16 Farm Arena between November 3 and November
17 4. Our investigation discovered that
18 observers and media were not asked to
19 leave. They simply left on their own when
20 they saw one group of workers whose job was
21 only to open envelopes and who had
22 completed that task also leave."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Had you ever seen or heard any
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 86 of 95
Page 388
1 Giuliani
2 A. It sure doesn't look like it,
3 yes.
4 Q. Okay. Who would we ask to find
5 the video that you believe you saw?
6 I should probably rephrase that
7 so you are not giving me advice.
8 Who could we ask to find the
9 video that you believe you saw?
10 A. Well, we can start with the
11 lawyers there. I would -- I would -- I
12 mean, I usually start these searches with
13 either Christina Bobb or Colonel Waldron.
14 They have got the -- they have
15 got the sort of -- even though they aren't
16 involved in everything, they have the best
17 overview of where everything is.
18 Smith.
19 Q. Sorry, Smith is who?
20 A. What?
21 MR. COSTELLO: The first name of
22 Smith.
23 A. No, the lawyer.
24 Q. The local counsel in Georgia --
25 A. Yeah, local counsel.
Page 389
1 Giuliani
2 Q. -- Mr. Smith?
3 A. Now, I'm not -- he was more
4 involved in the other.
5 Q. Have you -- in -- since receiving
6 discovery requests in this litigation, have
7 you searched through or had any kind of a
8 forensic search done of your email accounts
9 or hard drives to locate things like this
10 video?
11 MR. SIBLEY: Hang on, locate
12 what?
13 A. Things like this video.
14 I mean, we have gone through the
15 whole thing with Trustpoint and with the
16 U.S. Attorney's Office. Didn't come up
17 with this.
18 Q. Okay. So there was a production
19 made to the U.S. Attorney's Office --
20 A. Of everything.
21 Q. -- previously.
22 Apart from that, have you done
23 any searching of devices to --
24 A. Yeah. We have done individual --
25 I would have to go back and look at --
Page 390
1 Giuliani
2 yeah, we have done sporadic searches either
3 when asked to produce something or when we
4 needed to answer a question.
5 So we could try something like
6 that, I guess.
7 Q. Did you get your devices back
8 from the government?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. And since getting those devices
11 returned to you, have you done forensic
12 searches of those devices for the
13 purpose --
14 A. Yeah. They were pretty much
15 wiped out.
16 Q. So let me just make sure I
17 understand your answer.
18 Have you had a forensic -- have
19 you had a forensic evaluation done of those
20 devices since they were returned to you by
21 the U.S. Government?
22 A. Through the iCloud.
23 Q. So the answer is, Yes -- so who
24 performed that search through the cloud?
25 MR. COSTELLO: I -- can we go off
Page 391
1 Giuliani
2 the record for a second?
3 I think your question is
4 inarticulate, but only because you
5 don't know the facts.
6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time on
7 the video monitor is 6:11 p.m. We are
8 off the record.
9 (Discussion off the record.)
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the
11 video record. The time on the video
12 monitor is 6:12 p.m.
13 BY MR. GOTTLIEB:
14 Q. Mr. Giuliani, do I understand
15 correctly that the steps that have been
16 taken to preserve and produce documents in
17 this case are steps that have been taken by
18 a third-party provider?
19 A. Yes. As Bob described, yeah.
20 Q. And that third-party provider is
21 called Trustpoint?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. And apart from what Trustpoint
24 has done, do I understand correctly that
25 you have not yourself gone back through
Page 392
1 Giuliani
2 devices or accounts to search for
3 documents?
4 A. Sure, I have, but it hasn't
5 helped because what they gave back to me
6 seems to be wiped out. I can't get
7 anything -- I can't get anything off it.
8 Maybe if I had someone with more
9 expertise, I could. But it doesn't seem
10 that it's -- it was much easier to do it
11 the other way.
12 Q. Have you provided your physical
13 devices to either your attorney or to
14 Trustpoint to perform searches?
15 A. I don't think so, no.
16 Q. So you know, we -- well, you may
17 know, you may not. I'll ask you.
18 We have agreed in correspondence
19 with Mr. Sibley that we will be holding
20 this deposition open based on documents
21 that haven't been produced such that if
22 there are further documents produced to us
23 from searches, that we would reserve the
24 right --
25 A. Talk a little bit louder.
Page 393
1 Giuliani
2 Q. If there are further documents
3 that would be produced after searches, we
4 would reserve the right to recall you to be
5 able to ask you questions about those
6 documents.
7 Do you understand that we have
8 reached that agreement with Mr. Sibley?
9 A. I do.
10 MR. SIBLEY: Objection to form.
11 Q. And last sort of cleanup point on
12 this, I noticed throughout this deposition,
13 you have done some drawing and written some
14 things down. I'm not really interested in
15 seeing -- not really interested in seeing
16 them because I understand you are just kind
17 of doodling.
18 A. Yeah, Russia, boxes, things I
19 have to do.
20 Q. Fair enough.
21 Here is my question for you
22 though, as you sit in meetings, do you
23 typically take notes?
24 A. Not always. Sometimes I do.
25 Sometimes I don't.
Page 394
1 Giuliani
2 Q. Do you have anywhere saved
3 handwritten notes or lying around an office
4 somewhere, are there legal pads or other
5 books in which you might have taken notes
6 on any of the work that you did relating to
7 the 2020 election?
8 MR. SIBLEY: Objection.
9 A. Whatever we've -- I've turned
10 those over, whatever I have on this.
11 I took very -- I didn't have time
12 to take many notes in this particular
13 situation. It wasn't like a -- and other
14 people took the notes.
15 Q. Okay. I understand that may be
16 the case.
17 At some point in time, did you
18 search your files to look for notes that
19 you may have taken about meetings in the
20 November to December 2020 time period?
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. And is it your testimony that
23 what you found relating to the 2020
24 election was turned over to the U.S.
25 Attorney's Office?
Page 395
1 Giuliani
2 A. I believe so.
3 Q. Okay.
4 And I gather when you said you
5 weren't the one taking notes, that other
6 people on your team would sometimes be
7 taking notes of meetings that you would be
8 in when you were not taking notes?
9 A. Yeah, during this period,
10 particularly, because I was so busy, that
11 was much more prevalent, although even they
12 weren't taking copious notes.
13 Q. Okay. Some people took notes
14 sometimes? Some people didn't take notes?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. But would you expect that in the
17 November to December 2020 time period,
18 covering all of the different meetings you
19 had, all of the different work you were
20 doing, that during that period of time,
21 that some members of your team did take
22 handwritten notes?
23 A. Sure.
24 Q. Okay.
25 We talked a little bit before
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-5 Filed 07/11/23 Page 95 of 95
Page 429
1 Giuliani
2 CERTIFICATE
3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
)ss:
4 COUNTY OF UNION )
5 I, MARY F. BOWMAN, a Registered
6 Professional Reporter, Certified
7 Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public
8 within and for the State of New Jersey,
9 do hereby certify:
10 That RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, the
11 witness whose deposition is
12 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn
13 by me and that such deposition is a
14 true record of the testimony given by
15 such witness.
16 I further certify that I am not
17 related to any of the parties to this
18 action by blood or marriage and that I
19 am in no way interested in the outcome
20 of this matter.
21 In witness whereof, I have
22 hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of
23 March, 2023.
24
25 <%9329,Signature%>
MARY F. BOWMAN, RPR, CRR
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-6 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 14
Page 1
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
3
LAURO & SINGER
4 400 North Tampa Street
15th Floor
5 Tampa, Florida 33602
BY: GREG SINGER, ESQ.
6 BY: JOHN LAURO, ESQ. (viz Zoom)
BY: FILZAH PAVALON, ESQ. (via Zoom)
7 gsinger@laurosinger.com
8
On behalf of Defendant:
9
UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY
10 555 West 5th Street
35th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90013
BY: CHRISTINE KWON, ESQ.
12 christine.kwon@protectdemocracy.org
13 and
14 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP
1875 K Street, Northwest
15 Washington, DC 20006-1238
BY: MAGGIE MACCURDY
16 mmacurdy@willkie.com
17 and
18 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP
787 Seventh Avenue,
19 New York, New York 10019
BY: MERYL GOVERNSKI, ESQ.
20 mgovernski@willkie.com
21
22 ALSO PRESENT:
Sara Stout (Videographer)
23 Suzanne Vitale (Court Stenographer)
24
25
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-6 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 14
Page 37
1 A. Maria's son.
2 Q. Did he have a role on the Giuliani legal
3 team?
4 A. Yes. He would help Maria out and he did,
5 like, the technical, like printing and like -- I
6 mean, I don't want to diminish his role, but I think
7 of him as a printer. Like if we needed something
8 printed, he would print it and help you do that.
9 Q. He assisted Ms. Ryan with the admin work
10 she did?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Do you know who John Eastman is?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did he have a role on the Giuliani legal
15 team?
16 A. Yes. He obviously was an expert brought
17 in for consultation and he consulted with the mayor.
18 Q. An expert?
19 A. Yes, he's a constitutional law scholar.
20 Q. What was your relationship with
21 Mr. Eastman?
22 A. I did not know him. I got to know him a
23 little bit at that time, but certainly he was
24 working directly with Rudy. He did not need to go
25 through me.
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
1 "coordinating"?
2 A. I worked with the local counsel there and
3 relayed what the intent was for litigation. I was
4 kind of like in-house counsel communicating with
5 local counsel.
6 Q. So you were communicating with local
7 counsel in those states.
8 What else did you do in coordinating?
9 MR. SINGER: I'm going to object to this.
10 It's outside the scope of the Court's order.
11 Her activities in states other than Georgia
12 don't pertain to the allegations in other
13 states.
14 MS. KWON: Are you directing Ms. Bobb not
15 to answer?
16 MR. SINGER: Yes, you don't need to answer
17 that.
18 BY MS. KWON:
19 Q. Will you be following your counsel's
20 instruction?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You previously testified before the House
23 Select Committee to investigate the January 6th
24 attack on the United States Capitol?
25 A. Yes.
Page 43
Page 44
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-6 Filed 07/11/23 Page 14 of 14
Page 159
1
2 CERTIFICATE
3
4 STATE OF FLORIDA )
5 COUNTY OF BROWARD )
6
7 I, SUZANNE VITALE, R.P.R., F.P.R., do
8 hereby certify that I was authorized to and did
9 stenographically report the foregoing deposition
10 of CHRISTINA BOBB; that a review of the
11 transcript was requested; and that the transcript
12 is a true record of my stenographic notes.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a
14 relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any
15 of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee
16 of any of the parties' attorney or counsel
17 connected with the action, nor am I financially
18 interested in the action.
19 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2023.
20
<%3249,Signature%>
21
SUZANNE VITALE, R.P.R., F.P.R.
22 My Commission No. DD179981
Expires: 5/24/2024
23
24
25
EXHIBIT 6
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 32
Page 1
Page 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Via Zoom)
2 On behalf of Plaintiffs:
M. ANNIE HOUGHTON-LARSEN, ESQUIRE
3 Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
4 New York, New York 10019-6099
(212) 728-8000
5 mhoughton-larsen@willkie.com
6 MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, ESQUIRE
MAGGIE MacCURDY, ESQUIRE
7 Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP
1875 K Street, Northwest
8 Washington, D.C. 20006-1238
(202) 303-1000
9 mgottlieb@willkie.com
10
On behalf of Witness:
11 TIMOTHY C. PARLATORE, ESQUIRE
Parlatore Law Group
12 One World Trade Center, Suite 8500
New York, New York 10007
13 (212) 603-9918
timothy.parlatore@parlatorelawgroup.com
14
15 Also Present:
Glen Fortner, Video Technician
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 32
Page 37
17 time.
Page 38
7 election.
Page 39
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. How is he as a boss?
7 Q. Is he hands on?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Yeah.
Page 40
7 that time?
9 Tower.
13 Or...
Page 41
6 A. On the phone.
11 A. Yeah.
17 Q. Fair enough.
19 e-mail?
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 11 of 32
Page 44
14 the line?
17 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
Page 45
6 transcript.)
7 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
9 A. No.
13 A. I see it.
20 line 16.
Page 46
Page 47
2 A. Yes.
11 A. Right.
Page 48
Page 49
15 appreciate --
17 non-privileged issue.
Page 50
11 transcript.)
12 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
14 A. I think so.
18 January 6 Commission.
19 A. Right.
22 second page.
Page 51
1 A. Okay.
4 hired."
6 A. Yes.
10 election fraud."
12 A. Right.
15 A. No.
17 your work?
18 A. No.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 20 of 32
Page 63
3 transcript.)
5 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
9 A. Okay.
14 should be good --
15 A. Okay.
17 concerns.
Page 64
2 Q. Okay.
22 their job.
Page 65
2 about.
12 Q. Okay.
16 Q. Right.
22 wouldn't do it.
Page 66
3 so --
4 A. Right.
8 A. Right now?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. No.
12 practice?
13 A. Normally.
14 Q. Normally?
15 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay.
Page 67
2 A. Right.
5 A. Right.
7 A. Right.
15 A. Right.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 26 of 32
Page 93
1 is.
2 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
3 Q. Okay.
6 head...
7 BY MS. HOUGHTON-LARSEN:
11 A. Don't know.
14 this thing?
Page 94
3 Q. Understood.
6 A. No.
8 A. Phil Waldron.
14 Q. Okay.
16 maybe.
17 Q. Okay.
Page 95
5 Q. Okay.
18 Q. Right.
21 the plan.
Page 96
5 A. Yes.
12 to be involved. Right?
22 Q. I see.
Page 97
4 A. Yeah.
10 A. Right.
15 legislatures?
16 A. No.
17 Q. No.
20 Q. Right.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-7 Filed 07/11/23 Page 32 of 32
Page 212
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
16
17
18
19
20
21 <%14615,Signature%>
EXHIBIT 7
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 22 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RUBY FREEMAN, et al. ) Civil Action
Plaintiffs, ) No. 21-3354
vs. )
)
RUDOLPH GIULIANI, ) March 21, 2023
Defendant. ) 9:42 a.m.
) Washington, D.C.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPEARANCES:
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 22 7
1 thought.
4 returned.
7 of that data --
18 taken by the DOJ was put onto a server, all of it. So what
3 the request.
8 been produced.
12 are some things like that that I don't think he's fully
16 that need to be turned over and looked under, and that needs
17 to be done.
1 Mr. Sibley?
4 issues; and there just isn't -- there just aren't very many
11 Mr. Giuliani even created that -- that was out there. But
12 that's really it. I mean, that was the only document that I
15 seems surprising given how much of this was out there, how
17 I think that's just the way it is. There's just not that
4 wasn't. But it's -- that's just the way -- that's the way
18 and there were only a handful that even did. And I produced
21 documents.
16 sure that he has -- I'm not sure that he has done that.
23 Mr. Gottlieb.
25 what the data source was when the search was executed, or
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 9 of 22 12
6 devices.
8 know what the DOJ collected and put onto that database. So
10 were fully pulled, for what time period, what -- and we also
12 emails.
12 cases.
21 afterwards.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 13 of 22 17
1 needs to be searched.
6 to the Court that it has all been done because I need him to
7 certify to that.
14 case.
19 DOJ took everything from these devices, like, every file was
1 to the emails.
3 what?
12 files that were extracted were put onto one server, which we
2 some devices that were returned pretty early on, which were,
9 that -- that you searched so that you can figure out what is
12 that make me think you really don't have any idea what has
22 Mr. Giuliani.
17 Mr. Giuliani?
12 more.
21 there was no case and closed the case, they returned -- they
9 pending requests for discovery, much like this one, that had
14 interrupt you.
20 would be surprised.
24 because it's a little late in the day for you to not know
1 formats were put on that database, what the date range was
3 You need to confer with Mr. Gottlieb about what else you
4 need to search.
10 searched so far --
16 lawsuit.
20 documents.
25 had conversations with the special master about it, and they
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 20 of 22 24
8 Judge Jones serving as special master, did you say that was
9 Mr. Costello?
19 forms.
21 this Friday, the 24th, and confer with Mr. Gottlieb about
22 it, and provide notice to the Court that that has been done
23 so that you know what you have left to search and what the
25 appropriate records.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 21 of 22
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-8 Filed 07/11/23 Page 22 of 22 47
1 searched.
7 Thank you.
11 * * * * *
12 CERTIFICATE
23
Dated this 30th day of March, 2023.
24
/s/ Elizabeth Saint-Loth, RPR, FCRR
25 Official Court Reporter
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 8
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 9
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify and describe in detail all evidence on which You relied to support any and all Statements attributed
to You in the Complaint, including but not limited to evidence that Plaintiffs engaged in any form of election
fraud or illegal conduct during the 2020 Presidential Election, and the attempts, if any, You took to examine
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and calling for a narrative answer.
Defendant reviewed the video of Plaintiffs in Fulton County that is referenced in the Complaint.
Defendant also became aware of stories circulating that Plaintiff Freeman had been arrested on allegations
AMENDED ANSWER:
Defendant reviewed the videos of Plaintiffs in Fulton County that are referenced in the Complaint and other
videos of Plaintiffs’ election-related activities, which speak for themselves. The Statements attributed to
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 9
Defendant in the Complaint, as they relate to the video footage, are Defendants subjective interpretation
and opinion regarding what the video footage shows and is, therefore, an opinion based on disclosed facts.
Defendant also became aware of stories circulating that Plaintiff Freeman had been arrested on allegations
relating to voter fraud and several publications that agreed with his subjective interpretation of the video.
Defendant does not recall any further specifics but reserves the right to supplement if his recollection is
refreshed.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
Defendant may have also relied on information from Bernard Kerik as to Plaintiffs’ backgrounds and arrest
records over the phone as discussed in his deposition. Defendant also relied on interviews with GOP
election observers and recalls seeing their affidavit/declaration testimony as discussed in his deposition.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify and describe in detail all evidence of which You are or have been aware that contradicted and/or
discredited the Statements attributed to You in the Complaint, and provide details regarding the attempts,
if any, You took to examine such evidence. Your answer to this Interrogatory should specifically address,
but not be limited to, whether and how You considered: statements by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation;
statements by Voting Implementation Manager for the State of Georgia, Gabriel Sterling; the Watson
Affidavit; and the December 7, 2020 recertification of Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia; the articles and
publications by Lead Stories, PolitiFact, and Georgia Public Broadcasting referenced in the Complaint; the
January 12, 2021, report by Mr. Carter Join, State Election Board Report – Post-Election Executive
Summary, Seven Hills Strategies (Jan. 12, 2021), https://perma.cc/7U3Z-DX2J; the decision in In re
Giuliani, 197 A.D.3d 1, 146 N.Y.S.3d 266 (1st Dep’t 2021); the May 5, 2021, deposition of James Calloway
in Jeffords v. Fulton County, No. 2020-cv-343938 (Ga. Super. Ct. May 5, 2021), available at
https://perma.cc/PYU3-G5K4; the Georgia Secretary of State’s October 12, 2021, filing in Favorito v. Wan,
No. 2020-cv-343938 (Ga. Super. Ct. Oct. 12, 2021) and the exhibits thereto, available at
https://perma.cc/PYU3-G5K4; and statements by former Attorney General William Barr in One Damn
2
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 9
Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General (2022) or otherwise made by Mr. Barr around the
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as assuming facts not in evidence. An interrogatory cannot create
a “reading list” for Defendant. Defendant eventually became aware of claims that his statements regarding
Plaintiffs were disputed but he does not have a specific recollection of what documents/evidenced he
reviewed to this effect or when this occurred. Defendant interviewed John Solomon—over a year after the
original event in question—who indicated that he did not agree with the veracity of certain allegations in
AMENDED ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as assuming facts not in evidence, namely that the answer “should
include” a discussion of materials for which a predicate has not been laid. The interrogatory seeks to answer
Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Defendant eventually became aware of claims that his
statements regarding Plaintiffs were disputed but he does not have a specific recollection of what
Defendant is aware of allegedly contradictory evidence in the Complaint and in this Interrogatory but has
Defendant also interviewed John Solomon—over a year after the original event in question—who indicated
that he did not agree with the veracity of certain allegations in Defendants’ statements regarding Plaintiffs,
but Solomon did agree that protocols were not properly followed such as closing the vote counting to the
public.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify and describe in detail any conversations You had, participated in, or are aware of with former
3
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 9
ANSWER:
Defendant does not have a specific recollection of conversations regarding Plaintiffs with former President
Trump. Defendant does not have specific recollection of conversations with the Trump Campaign
regarding Plaintiffs but does not deny that conversations must have occurred at some level because the
video of Plaintiffs counting ballots was utilized in various proceedings in which Defendant represented the
Trump Campaign.
AMENDED ANSWER:
Defendant does not have a specific recollection of conversations regarding Plaintiffs with former President
Trump but believes that there may have been discussions regarding the videos in which Plaintiffs appear.
Should Defendant’s recollection be refreshed on this subjection matter, this would be protected by attorney-
client privilege. Defendant also does not have specific recollection of conversations with the Trump
Campaign regarding Plaintiffs but does not deny that conversations must have occurred at some level
because the video of Plaintiffs counting ballots was utilized in various proceedings in which Defendant
represented the Trump Campaign. However, once again, to the Defendant’s recollection be refreshed on
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
Defendant generally recalls that he was made aware of the existence of a video the night before the hearing
before the Georgia Senate Election Hearing on December 3, 2020. Defendant did not see the video until it
was played at the hearing. Defendant generally recalls that after the hearing he was shown what he believes
was the same video shown in the hearing room (and some additional segments showing what appeared to
be thumb drives being passed and were described that way by the people in the viewing room) in the
presence of Jackie Pick, William Smith, Burt Jones, unknown Burt Jones associates, and unknown GOP
operatives who were present in Atlanta, GA when he reviewed the videos. See also Deposition Transcript
testimony. Defendant does not recall the specifics of the conversations. These conversations would not be
4
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 9
privileged because they were not in anticipation of litigation. Defendant does not recall the specific videos
he watched.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Describe in detail the Giuliani Communications Plan, including but not limited to its formation, its
author(s), all of the individuals identified as members of the “Giuliani Presidential Legal Defense Team”
and/or the “Giuliani Team,” all of the individua ls identified as “Key Team Members,” whether or not listed
by name or acronym, including but not limited to “BK,” KF,” “SB,” “BE,” “CR,” “SP,” “TF,” “PW,”
“Media Advisors,” “Serrano Public Relations Team,” “Research Team,” “Tech Team,” “Peter Navarro
Team,” “Local Legal Teams in AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI,” the “Identified Legislative Leaders in each
swing state,” and the “Freedom Caucus Members,” the basis or facts supporting the “Voter Fraud
Highlights” for the State of Georgia listed on pages 9, 10, and 11 of the Giuliani Communications Plan, the
basis or facts supporting the “Suitcase Gate” and “Water Leak” “Fraud Incidents” listed on pages 20 and
21 of the Giuliani Communications Plan, and all individuals You are aware were intended to receive copies
of the Giuliani Communications Plan and/or who were intended to assist in its implementation..
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information regarding a document that Defendant
is not the author of. Defendant does not have personal knowledge of the questions asked by this
Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant will supplement this answer
with non-personal knowledge as he further looks into the document as discovery progresses.
AMENDED ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information regarding a document that Defendant
is not the author of. Defendant does not have personal knowledge of the questions asked by this
Interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant has learned that this document was authored
by Katherine Friess. Defendant was not involved in the creation of the document. Defendant did not
5
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 7 of 9
approve the document or the proposals/statements therein. Defendant did not approve his name being used
in connection with the document. Defendant does not even recall specifically seeing the document in the
2020-time frame. Defendant was aware that Friess wanted to make a proposal to implement the substance
of the document to the White House but did not support the plan in its particulars or support it. In short, it
was Defendant’s opinion that the White House would not fund the proposal. Defendant had nothing to do
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify and describe in detail all individuals with whom you have ever discussed either of the Plaintiffs
and describe what You said about the Plaintiffs in these conversations.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Other than the statements
itemized in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which speak for themselves as to what was said and who they were said
to, Plaintiff does not have a specific recollection of discussing Plaintiffs with any particular individuals.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
Defendant generally recalls that he was made aware of the existence of a video the night before the hearing
before the Georgia Senate Election Hearing on December 3, 2020. Defendant did not see the video until it
was played at the hearing. Defendant generally recalls that after the hearing he was shown what he believes
was the same video shown in the hearing room (possibly some additional segments) in the presence of
Jackie Pick, William Smith, Burt Jones, unknown Burt Jones associates, and unknown GOP operatives who
were present in Atlanta, GA when he reviewed the videos. See also Deposition Transcript testimony.
Defendant does not recall the specifics of the conversations. These conversations would not be privileged
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
6
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 8 of 9
Describe in detail Your role, official or unofficial, with the Trump Campaign and/or any engagement you
had or continue to have with former President Donald J. Trump from November 3, 2020 to the Present, at
the time you made each of the various Statements about Plaintiffs described in Paragraphs 57–101 of the
Complaint. If Your role with the Trump Campaign and/or your engagement with former President Donald
J. Trump changed or varied over this time period, describe in detail the exact dates on which your role
ANSWER:
Defendant served as head of the Trump Campaign’s legal team shortly after the 2020 Election and remained
involved in that position until January 2021 when the legal challenges to the election reached their
conclusion. Defendant has also served as personal legal advisor to former President Trump on and off
throughout the years and did so in the 2020-21 timeframe on miscellaneous matters.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph D. Sibley IV
DC Bar ID: TX0202
1108 Lavaca St.
Suite 110263
Austin, TX 78701
7
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-9 Filed 07/11/23 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of March, 2023, I served the foregoing via email.
8
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 9
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 4
Thanks- can you tell me the t ime stamps and view that you used?
The link and Charles Gore's email shall serve as the response to subpoenas in Wood vs.
Raffensberqer, Schmitz, et.al vs Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, et. al.,
and Pearson et al. v. Kemp, as well as other governmental administrative
claim/complaint related requests.
If you plan to release any portion of the videos to the med ia, I would appreciate a
heads-up so we can respond, if needed.
Best,
Scott
Hi,
RSS000001
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 4
You all should have a link in your email directing you to a location where the video files
are stored . You will need to download the "AvigilonPlayerStandAlone.exe" as well as the
video files to view the content. Let me know if you have any issues with the process.
Best,
Charles
At 95%!!!
Still going... you will have it minutes after it is finally completed. The email may come
directly from my IT VP, Charles Gore, copied here.
Last large file is only at 10% as of now, will shoot for 1 pm with all files. Decided not to
do piecemeal. Sorry. Doing the best we can.
Video is still loading from the transfer of data from the Arena Avigilon
system to OneDrive. It may not be completed by noon. I may send the
player and a few smaller files that are already downloaded and send the
others when the overall download is complete.
3
RSS000002
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 4
Everyone -
My staff is still loading video and will test the Onedrive links so this is
easy - we are still aiming for sending to you all around 12 noon. Please
limit update requests until then . We are working as fast as we can.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Wilkinson
EVP & Chief Legal Officer
Atlanta Hawks & State Farm Arena
101 Marietta Street Suite 1900, Atlanta, GA 30303
T: 404-878-35251 F: 404-878-3541
scott.wilkinson@hawks.com
Atlanta Hawks / College Park Skyhawks / Hawks Talon GC I State Farm Arena
RSS000003
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-11 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 27
EXHIBIT 10
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-11 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 27
Page 1
Page 2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 (Appearing Remotely)
3
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
4
Ms. Meryl Governski
5 Ms. Logan Kenney
Ms. Maggie MacCurdy
6 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
1875 K Street
7 Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-1000
8 Email: MGovernski@willkie.com
Lkenney@willkie.com
9 Mmaccurdy@willki.com
10
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
11
Mr. William G. Whitehill
12 CONDON TOBIN SLADEK THORNTON NERENBERG PLLC
8080 Park Lane
13 Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75231
14 Phone: (214) 265-3862
Email: Bwhitehill@condontobin.com
15
- and -
16
Mr. Brett Tolman
17 THE TOLMAN GROUP
13827 Sprague Lane
18 Suite 220
Draper, Utah 84020
19 Phone: (801) 639-9840
Email: Brett@tolmangroup.com
20
ALSO PRESENT:
21 Mr. Gus Phillips, Videographer
22
23
24
25
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-11 Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 27
Page 101
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Great.
4 when you came to learn about the State Farm Arena video?
6 Smith Liss.
14 Q. Okay.
22 it.
24 A. I don't know.
Page 102
Page 103
1 that.
16 Q. Okay.
21 4th?
25 A. I am not.
Page 104
6 file.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And when was the first the first time that you
11 Q. On --
12 A. -- December 3rd.
14 on December 3rd?
15 A. At Smith Liss.
25 a Wednesday.
Page 105
2 don't remember.
5 that hour?
12 about earlier?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay.
17 download?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay.
23 specifically.
Page 106
3 A. Yeah.
5 problem.
7 think, around 1:00, and told us all that the video was
9 been told. I believe his words were "the busy bees came
Page 107
4 think.
13 Q. And of --
20 time.
21 Q. I understand. I understand.
Page 108
10 A. No.
11 Q. Ms. Ellis?
12 A. No.
18 Q. Understood?
22 A. No.
Page 109
3 Q. That's fair.
8 A. Yes.
11 at that point?
14 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay.
Page 110
8 time?
15 Q. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Yes.
20 matched.
Page 111
2 referencing?
7 the press were in the same little area that was roped
16 good recall now about what ABC said versus what NBC said
21 video.
25 affidavits?
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-11 Filed 07/11/23 Page 18 of 27
Page 134
1 A. Yes.
5 Q. No?
6 I --
13 and so --
24 Q. Got it.
Page 135
14 people what was what because it was all in the same room
16 Q. Right.
19 haven't discussed?
24 was that?
Page 136
2 Q. And --
3 A. And --
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Okay.
19 But go ahead.
20 A. I don't remember.
23 of the firm between 1:00 a.m. and the time you presented
24 at 1:00 p.m.?
Page 137
3 the firm between 1:00 a.m. and the time that you
13 was.
15 statehouse?
16 A. Uh-huh.
20 discussed earlier?
24 Mr. Giuliani about the State Farm Arena video before you
Page 138
5 her.
10 hearing?
12 related to Georgia?
14 anything.
16 A. Yes.
Page 139
12 Q. And --
14 know.
21 December 3rd.
Page 140
7 A. Yes.
13 different.
Excerpted
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-11 Filed 07/11/23 Page 26 of 27
Page 332
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
3 RUBY FREEMAN and )
WANDREA MOSS, )
4 )
Plaintiffs, )
5 )
V. ) C.A. NO.: 21-3354
6 ) (BAH)
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, )
7 )
Defendants. )
8
9
10 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
DEPOSITION OF JACKI PICK
11 May 9, 2023
12 That the deposition transcript was delivered
13 to Ms. Meryl Governski.
14 That a copy of this certificate was served on
15 all parties and/or the witness shown herein on
16 ________________.
17 I further certify that pursuant to FRCP
18 Rule 30(f)(1) that the signature of the deponent:
19 ____ was requested by the deponent or a party
20 before the completion of the deposition and that
21 signature is to be before any notary public and returned
22 within 30 days from date of receipt of the transcript.
23 If returned, the attached Changes and
24 Signature Page contains any changes and the reasons
25 therefore:
Page 333
EXHIBIT 11
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-12 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 4
Coordinat Attachme
Direction Source Type Time stamp (New York) Text From To Details EXIF XMP IPTC Metadata VCard
es nl
Incoming App le iMessage 12(7(2020 12:54 Team - Boris Epshteyn + 16095299982, N/A Source fil e:
Messages < +16095299982> +1303720937,t, / p rivate/var/mobile/Li
+12023301661 , b rary/SMS/sms d b
+13472371202, Source fil e size: 325
+ 19172979169, MB
+ 12022567940 Source table
< iMessage; +;chat3978805 Message, Chat
54613687051 > Read (New York):
12/ 07(2020 12:54:28
PM (UTC-5)
Status: Read
Remote party:
+ 16095299982,
+ 13037209374,
+12023301661,
+ 13472371202,
+19172979169,
• •• •o o c , , . , .
Incoming App le iMessage 12(7/2020 12:54 Urgent POTUS request need best examples of "electio n Boris Epshteyn +16095299982, N/A Source fil e:
Me ssages fraud" that we've a lleged that 's rnper easy to ex plain < +16095299982> +13037209374, / private/var/mobile/Li
+12023301 661, b rary/SMS/sms db
Doesn't necessa rily have to be proven, but does need to -t- 13472371202, Source fil e size: 325
be easy to und erstand +19172979169, MB
+12022 567940 Source table
Is the re any sort of •g reat est hits• clearingho use that < iMessage; +;chat3978805 Message, Chat
anyone has for best examples? 54613687051 > Read (New York)·
12/07(2020 12:54:28
Thank you! !! PM (UTC-5)
Status: Read
Remote party:
+ 16095299982.
+ 13037209374,
t· 12023301661,
+ 13472371202,
+ 19172979169,
• ' "'" " ' -•
Incoming Ap ple iMessage 12(7/2020 12:54 (Orig inal text fro m Jason, add ing him ) Boris Epshteyn + 16095299982, N/A Source fil e:
Messages < +16095299982 > +13037209374, / p rivate/var/ mo bile/Li
+12023301661, brary/SMS/s111s d b
+ 13472371202, Source fil e size: 325
+19172979769, MB
+ 12022567940 Source table
< iMessage;+;chat3978805 Message, Chat
54613687051 > Read (N ew York)'
12/ 07/2020 12:54:38
PM (UTC-5)
Status: Read
Re mote party:
+ 16095299982,
+13037209374,
+ 12023301661,
+ 13472371 2 02,
+19172979169,
• - • • • c • - ••
BOBB FM 0352.001
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-12 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 4
Coordinat Attachme
Direction Source Type Time stamp (New York) Text From To Details EXIF XMP IPTC Metadata VCard
es nl
Incoming App le iMessage 12/7/2020 12:54 N/A Boris Epshteyn + 16095299982, N/A Source file:
Messages < + 16095299982 > + 1303720937,t, / private/var/mobile/Li
+12023301661, brary/SMS/sms db
+13472371202, Source file size: 325
+ 19172979169, MB
+12022567940 Source table
< iMessage; +;chat3978805 Message, Chat
54613687051 > Status: Un read
Rem ote party:
t- 16095299982,
+ 13037209374,
+ 1202330166 1,
-
+ 13472371202,
+19172979169,
BOBB FM 0352.002
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-12 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 4
Coordinat Attachme
Direction Source Type Time stamp (New York) Text From To Details EXIF XMP IPTC Metadata VCard
es nl
Incoming App le iMessage 12/7/2020 12:57 The sec urity camera in Atlanta alo ne captu res theft of a Rudy Giuliani + 16095299982, N/A Source file:
Messages minimum of 30,000 votes which alone wo uld chang e < +19172979169> +1303720937,t, / private/var/mobile/Li
result in Georgia Re mem ber it will live in history as the +12023301661, brary/SMS/sms db
theft of a state if it is not corrected by Sta te Legislature +13472371202, Source file size: 325
+ 19172979169, MB
+ 12022567940 Source table
<iMessage; +;chat3978805 Message, Chat
54613687051 > Read (New York):
12/07/2020 12:57:48
PM (UTC- 5)
Status: Read
Remote party:
+ 16095299982,
+ 13037209374,
+1 2023301661,
+ 13472371202,
+19 172979169,
+ 12022567940
lnconuna App le iMessage 12/7/2020 13:22 Rudy Giuliani +16095299982, NIA Source fil e:
Messages <+1 9172979169> + 13037209374, / private/var/mobile/Li
+12023301661, brary/SMS/sms db
+13472371202, Source tile size: 325
+19172979169, MB
+ 12022567940 Source table:
GA, the state recorded <iMessage; +;chat3978805 Message, Chat
54613687051 > Read (New York)·
12/07/2020 01 :22:30
PM (UTC-5)
Status: Read
Rem ot e party:
+ 16095299982,
+ 1303720937"'1,
+12023301661,
+13472371202,
+ 19172979169,
+ 12022567940
BOBB FM 0352.003
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 12
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 6
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Defendant.
Defendant serves his Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fifth (Corrected) Requests for Admission as follows:
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall exactly which version of these videos he was referring to in his deposition.
RFA 116 Admit that You reviewed at least one Trump Campaign Advertisement prior to it
being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he viewed any such Advertisement before airing or posting.
RFA 117 Admit that You reviewed some of the Trump Campaign Advertisements prior to them
being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he viewed any such Advertisements before airing or posting.
RFA 118 Admit that You reviewed all of the Trump Campaign Advertisements prior to them
being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 6
not recall whether he viewed any such Advertisements before airing or posting.
RFA 119 Admit that You Consulted On at least one Trump Campaign Advertisement prior to it
being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 120 Admit that You Consulted On some of the Trump Campaign Advertisements prior to
them being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 121 Admit that You Consulted On all of the Trump Campaign Advertisements prior to
them being aired or posted online in December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 122 Admit that You reviewed at least one Trump Campaign Advertisement that used footage
of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to it being aired or posted online in December
2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 123 Admit that You reviewed some of the Trump Campaign Advertisements that used footage
of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to them being aired or posted online in December
2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 124 Admit that You reviewed all of the Trump Campaign Advertisements that used footage
of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to them being aired or posted online in December
2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 125 Admit that You Consulted On at least one Trump Campaign Advertisement that used
footage of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to it being aired or posted online in
December 2020.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 6
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 126 Admit that You Consulted On some of the Trump Campaign Advertisements that used
footage of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to them being aired or posted online in
December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 127 Admit that You Consulted On all of the Trump Campaign Advertisements that used
footage of Plaintiffs at State Farm Arena, prior to them being aired or posted online in
December 2020.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 128 Admit that You reviewed the Trump Campaign Advertisement available at this link
(https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1341760977470062597), or versions of that
advertisement, prior to it being aired or posted online.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 129 Admit that You Consulted On the Trump Campaign Advertisement available at this link
(https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1341760977470062597), or versions of that
advertisement, prior to it being aired or posted online.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 130 Admit that You reviewed the Trump Campaign Advertisement available at this link:
(https://twitter.com/i/status/1341825401371430913), or versions of that advertisement,
prior to it being aired or posted online.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
RFA 131 Admit that You Consulted On the Trump Campaign advertisement available at this link:
(https://twitter.com/i/status/1341825401371430913), or versions of that advertisement,
prior to it being aired or posted online.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not recall whether he was consulted on any aired or posted Advertisements before
airing.
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 6
RFA 132 Admit that You and/or Your legal team provided examples of alleged election fraud to
the Trump Campaign to be used in Campaign advertisements.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not know what all information his legal team for the Trump Campaign provided to the
Campaign and what information provided was used in advertisements. Defendant
denies that he provided information to the Trump Campaign for the purpose of using
the information in advertisements.
RFA 133 Admit that You and/or Your legal team provided information about the Plaintiffs to the
Trump Campaign to be used in Campaign Advertisements.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not know what all information his legal team for the Trump Campaign provided to the
Campaign and what information provided was used in advertisements. Defendant
denies that he provided information to the Trump Campaign for the purpose of using
the information in advertisements.
RFA 134 Admit that You and/or Your legal team provided information about State Farm Arena to
the Trump Campaign to be used in Campaign Advertisements.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not know what all information his legal team for the Trump Campaign provided to the
Campaign and what information provided was used in advertisements. Defendant
denies that he provided information to the Trump Campaign for the purpose of using
the information in advertisements.
RFA 135 Admit that one of the motivations of the Trump Campaign Advertisements available at
these links (https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1341760977470062597;
https://twitter.com/i/status/1341825401371430913) was to put pressure on state officials
to recall electors and delay Congress from certifying the results on January 6, 2021.
Response: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as he does
not have personal knowledge of the motivations of the Trump Campaign or its
utilization of advertisements.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph D. Sibley IV
DC Bar ID: TX0202
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-13 Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of July, 2023, I served the foregoing via email.
2
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-14 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 13
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-14 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-14 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-14 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-15 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 3
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Defendant.
Giuliani’s liability with respect to all of Plaintiffs’ claims, leaving only the issue of the quantum
2. Prior to December 23, 2020, Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the
truth by avoiding and ignoring, or knew and understood, the falsity of the following
statements: (1) Ruby Freeman has a criminal history; (2) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye
Moss excluded election observers from State Farm Arena under false pretenses,
including but not limited to, because of a fake water leak; (3) Ruby Freeman and/or
Shaye Moss locked the doors to State Farm Arena to keep election observers out; (4)
Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss passed each other a USB drive to illegally
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-15 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 3
manipulate the vote count; (5) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss counted ballots
multiple times; (6) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss hid suitcases of illegal ballots;
(7) Ruby Freeman and/or Shaye Moss engaged in voter fraud (together, the
“Defamatory Claims”).
3. Prior to December 23, 2020, Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the
truth by avoiding and ignoring, or knew and understood, that Georgia and federal
officials had investigated and disproved the Defamatory Claims (with the exception of
the claims regarding USB drives), because the investigations and their findings were:
(1) widely published and reported on, (2) sent to Defendant Giuliani, (3) freely and
easily accessible to any member of the public, and (4) directly relevant to the
Defamatory Claims.
4. Defendant Giuliani acted with reckless disregard for the truth by avoiding and ignoring,
or knew and understood, that the Defamatory Claims were false because: (1) Defendant
Giuliani and his team had consciously avoided investigating the purported basis for the
Defamatory claims; (2) Defendant Giuliani and his team had no credible evidence or
sources supporting the Defamatory Claims; and (3) Defendant Giuliani and his team
pursued the Defamatory Claims based on political and public relations objectives rather
than a belief that the Defamatory Claims were truthful in fact.
5. Defendant Giuliani published and spread the Defamatory Claims for his personal
benefit, including his political, professional, and financial interests.
6. Defendant Giuliani knew his actions would cause Plaintiffs emotional distress and
nonetheless intentionally and recklessly proceeded.
7. Defendant Giuliani made an agreement with his then-client, President Donald Trump,
along with other individuals working for or volunteering with President Trump and his
campaign, to publish the Defamatory Claims.
8. Before publishing the Defamatory Claims, Defendant Giuliani knew that each
Defamatory Claim he made on his podcasts, his radio show, during interviews with
One America News Network, on Twitter, and through other mediums, could
potentially be heard by tens of millions of individuals, and intended his Defamatory
Claims to be heard by as many people as possible; and it is
-2-
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 81-15 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 3
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded reasonable costs associated with the
filing of the Motion, that Plaintiffs shall submit an accounting of such costs within fourteen (14)
days of this Order, and that such costs be paid within fourteen (14) days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________ _____________________________________________
Date Beryl A. Howell, Judge
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
-3-