A judge has denied a request by a former model/actress to prevent the re-litigation in her civil suit of Harvey Weinstein's culpability in a 2013 sexual assault, saying Weinstein's appeal of his conviction leaves matters still unsettled.
The plaintiff is identified as Jane Doe No. 1 in the Santa Monica Superior Court lawsuit filed Feb. 9, which alleges sexual battery, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Doe's attorneys filed court papers with Judge Elaine W. Mandel in September asking that a protective order be issued, arguing that California law holds that the producer's criminal case conviction is conclusive for liability purposes in the civil case, even if the criminal case outcome is on appeal. Revisiting the facts surrounding the "horrific event" are irrelevant and will "only serve to intrusively burden plaintiff," Doe's lawyers further argued in their court papers,
But the judge ruled Wednesday that the pending criminal case appeals mean there is not yet finality in Weinstein's criminal case.
"Doe's motion for a protective order is premature until the criminal conviction is no longer subject to appeal," the judge wrote in her Wednesday ruling.
In their court papers, Weinstein's attorneys, who include Bill Cosby lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, stated that Doe's attorneys were "laboring under a serious misapprehension of the law" by bringing a "grossly premature motion ... disguised as a motion for a protective order."
Weinstein denies Doe's "wild allegation that he randomly and without notice busted into her hotel room, a woman he barely knew, and violently raped her," Weinstein's attorneys further stated in their court papers.
Affidavits from three criminal case jurors show Weinstein would not have been convicted had the judge in that case allowed the producer to present evidence showing that Doe was actually with her married lover on the night she claims Weinstein assaulted her, according to Weinstein's attorneys' court papers.
In a separate ruling, the judge granted a motion by Doe's attorneys to probe the producer's financial records in anticipation of a possible finding that she is entitled to punitive damages.
"Based on the fact of the criminal conviction, the court finds a substantial probability Doe will prevail in this action and obtain an award of punitive damages," Mandel wrote.
On Dec. 19, Weinstein, 71, was convicted of three of the seven criminal counts he was facing -- forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object. All three of those counts related to Doe, with the crimes occurring on or about Feb. 18, 2013, in a Beverly Hills hotel room. Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison on Feb. 23.
Weinstein's attorneys previously filed an answer to the plaintiff's civil complaint maintaining that Weinstein's accuser's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that her request for punitive damages is unconstitutional and that her lawsuit should be dismissed.
According to Doe's suit, she attended a film festival and alleges that Weinstein came to her hotel room unexpectedly after she attended events that day.
"After he was done raping her, he acted as if nothing out of the ordinary happened and left," the plaintiff's court papers allege.
Doe did not report the attack until 2017, when she had a talk with her daughter, during a time when Weinstein was at the forefront of the #metoo movement, according to her attorneys' court papers.
Follow KNX News 97.1 FM
Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | TikTok