Share and Follow
Former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani at the funeral service for NYPD police officer Wilbert Mora at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on February 2, 2022 in Midtown Manhattan, New York City (zz/NDZ/STAR MAX/IPx 2022 2/2/22).
Rudy Giuliani will not testify about his own conduct at a hearing where a judge will decide whether to hold him in contempt and impose sanctions for his repeated flouting of court orders as the Georgia election workers he defamed litigate the collection of their $148 million judgment awarded in their favor.
The former New York City mayor on Thursday asked the court to let him appear virtually rather than in person at the Manhattan federal courthouse for Friday’s hearing due to “medical issues” and conceded that, should the request be granted, he would be not be providing testimony.
In a letter submitted to U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, Giuliani’s attorney Joseph Cammarata requested that the former New York City mayor be permitted to appear via Zoom or telephone. According to Cammarata, the request stems from Giuliani “having medical issues with his left knee” as well as “breathing problems due to lung issues” that were the result of him “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.”
Attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shay” Moss responded by stating that if Giuliani truly was not going to testify, than they had “no position” on the matter.
“If Defendant were to testify at tomorrow’s hearing, Plaintiffs would insist on the opportunity to cross-examine him in person,” attorney Aaron Nathan wrote. “However, in a written exchange by email shortly after the filing of [Cammarata’s letter], Defendant’s counsel represented that, based on a conferral with his client, Defendant ‘will not be testifying tomorrow if the request [Defendant’s counsel] made to the Court is granted.””
Given the contentious nature of the litigation between the two parties thus far, Nathan also noted that if Giuliani chooses not to testify, he should not “complain” about the proceedings being unjust.
“Based upon that representation, and on the understanding that Defendant will not later be heard to complain that he lacked a full and fair opportunity to testify on his own behalf, Plaintiffs take no position on Defendant’s request to appear virtually — subject to the Court’s views about whether Mr. Giuliani’s live testimony is necessary to the Court’s consideration or decision of any of the issues in dispute,” the letter states.
Liman ordered Giuliani to appear in person for the Jan. 3, hearing on the contempt issue following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his failures in adhering to filing deadlines and court orders regarding turning over his personal property and providing information for discovery.
Liman last week indicated that he was likely to find Giuliani in contempt and possibly impose sanctions on him as he continued to defy an order compelling him to provide the plaintiffs with information requested in pretrial discovery.
“The law imposes consequences on parties who disregard their obligations,” Liman wrote in the four-page order. “The record is now closed on the order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt. The Court will be prepared to announce its decision on the contempt request as early as the hearing on January 3, 2025.”
Liman also noted that the parties should be prepared to address whether, in addition to being held in contempt, Giuliani should also be sanctioned for his conduct.
