Judge orders Michael Ovitz to finish deposition in Julia Ormond case
A New York judge ordered CAA co-founder Michael Ovitz to complete a deposition in Julia Ormond's lawsuit, which Ovitz walked out of on June 1 when asked about Jeffrey Epstein. The judge declined to issue an arrest warrant or find Ovitz in contempt.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Left · 2On Thursday, Judge Adam Silvera ordered CAA co-founder Michael Ovitz to complete his deposition in Julia Ormond's sexual assault lawsuit, which Ovitz had left during questioning about Jeffrey Epstein. VarietyLC “A judge on Thursday ordered CAA co-founder Michael Ovitz to complete his deposition in the Julia Ormond sexual assault lawsuit” Read at Variety ↗ The Hollywood ReporterLC “New York state court justice Adam Silvera found on Thursday that Ovitz shouldn’t be held in contempt of court, though he was ordered to complete the questioning.” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗ Left · 1Variety reports the deadline for finishing is Dec. 18. VarietyLC “Judge Adam Silvera ordered Ovitz to complete his deposition by Dec. 18.” Read at Variety ↗ Left · 1Ormond is suing CAA over a December 1995 meeting the agency arranged with Harvey Weinstein, after which Weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted her; Ovitz had already left the agency by then, but Ormond's lawyers want to question him about CAA's relationship with Weinstein and its handling of sexual misconduct issues. VarietyLC “Ormond is suing CAA for arranging a meeting for her with Harvey Weinstein in December 1995, after which Weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted her.”“Ormond’s lawyers have sought to question him about the agency’s relationship with Weinstein and about how it handled sexual misconduct issues.” Read at Variety ↗
Left · 2At the June 1 deposition, Ovitz was asked about Epstein, said "What does this got to do with Harvey Weinstein?", took off the microphone and left; The Hollywood Reporter adds that Ovitz stood, pointed at Ormond's lawyer and said "I'm done with this. OK? You are out of line." VarietyLC ““What does this got to do with Harvey Weinstein?” Ovitz asked, before taking off his microphone and storming out.” Read at Variety ↗ The Hollywood ReporterLC “He stood up from his chair, pointed at Ormond’s lawyer and said, “I’m done with this. OK? You are out of line.”” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗ Left · 1Ormond's lawyers had asked for an arrest warrant and a contempt finding, while Ovitz asked to be excused from further questioning, saying the questions were harassing and irrelevant. VarietyLC “Ormond’s lawyers asked the judge in the case to issue an arrest warrant and to hold Ovitz in contempt.”“Ovitz, meanwhile, asked to be excused from further questioning on the grounds that Ormond’s lawyers were trying to harass him with irrelevant questions.” Read at Variety ↗ Left · 2The judge denied the warrant and contempt requests and did not rule out further Epstein questions; he found the deposition was "inappropriately terminated" by Ovitz and warned that proper procedures must be followed. VarietyLC “He denied the requests for an arrest warrant and a contempt finding, but also refused to rule out further questions about Epstein.” Read at Variety ↗ The Hollywood ReporterLC ““Ovitz is warned that proper deposition procedures must be followed,” Silvera wrote.” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗
Left · 1According to The Hollywood Reporter, the judge declined a bench warrant because Ormond's lawyers were not sufficiently impaired by Ovitz leaving early. The Hollywood ReporterLC “the judge stopped short of issuing a bench warrant since Ormond’s lawyers weren’t sufficiently impaired by Ovitz leaving the deposition before it ended.” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗ Left · 2Ormond's lawyers Kevin Mintzer, Meredith Firetog and Effie Blassberger welcomed the ruling, saying Ovitz "is not above the law" and that they trust Ovitz "will behave himself." VarietyLC “The decision makes clear that Mr. Ovitz was not entitled to storm out of the deposition, and that he is not above the law.” Read at Variety ↗ The Hollywood ReporterLC “We look forward to resuming the deposition and trust that Mr. Ovitz will behave himself.”” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗ Left · 2Ovitz's lawyer Jeffrey Mitchell said Ovitz has nothing to do with the case and left because Mintzer was being intentionally abusive and trying to smear Ovitz's name; CAA, which is paying Ovitz's legal fees, also says the case does not concern Ovitz and argued Ovitz was ambushed with material meant to smear. The Hollywood ReporterLC “it was [Ovitz’s] view that Ormond’s lawyer Kevin Mintzer was being intentionally abusive and trying to smear his name and he left as a result.”“CAA has also maintained that the case doesn’t concern Ovitz, whose legal fees are being paid for by the agency.” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗ VarietyLC “CAA’s lawyers argued that Ovitz had been ambushed with material designed to smear his character rather than reveal anything relevant to the case.” Read at Variety ↗
Left · 2Friendly emails between Ovitz and Epstein, including plans to meet at Epstein's Manhattan home and at St. Barts, emerged earlier this year in the Epstein files released by the Justice Department. VarietyLC “Emails between Ovitz and Epstein were disclosed earlier this year as part of the Epstein files.” Read at Variety ↗ The Hollywood ReporterLC “The emails from 2012 showed that the pair planned to meet at Epstein’s Manhattan home and off the coast of St. Barts.” Read at The Hollywood Reporter ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left2 outlets
- Framing
- Both trade outlets lead with the judge's order and Ovitz storming out over Epstein questions, giving the ruling a mixed result: Ovitz must return, but no contempt or warrant.
- Emphasis
- Ovitz's walkout, the judge's warning, Ormond's lawyers' statement, and the Epstein emails. The Hollywood Reporter adds detail on the deposition exchange, Ovitz's lawyer's response and CAA paying the fees.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Variety gives Ovitz's side only through CAA's lawyers' argument; neither outlet reports Ovitz's own comment after the ruling.
- Charged language
- “storming out”“Stormed Out”“notorious sex criminal”“disgraced financier”
- For example
-
“Ovitz grew irate when Ormond’s lawyers asked him if he was friendly with Epstein, the notorious sex criminal.” — Variety
“Court Warns Michael Ovitz After He Stormed Out of CAA Deposition During Epstein Questions” — The Hollywood Reporter
Centre0 outlets
No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Right0 outlets
No right outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
What every side reports
- Judge Adam Silvera ordered Ovitz to complete the deposition he left in June.
- The judge denied the requests for an arrest warrant and contempt finding.
- The court found Ovitz 'inappropriately terminated' the deposition.
- Ormond's lawyers welcomed the ruling.
- Emails between Ovitz and Epstein surfaced earlier this year in released Epstein materials.
Where accounts differ
-
Why Ovitz left the deposition and whether Epstein questions are relevant
- Left
- Ormond's lawyers say Ovitz was not entitled to storm out; Ovitz's lawyer and CAA say the questions were abusive, a smear attempt, and irrelevant to a case about events after Ovitz left CAA. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter relay both accounts.
Michael Ovitz person
Through lawyer Jeffrey Mitchell, Ovitz says he has nothing to do with the case and left because Ormond's lawyer was intentionally abusive and trying to smear him; at the deposition he said he would not discuss Epstein.
“has nothing to do with the Ormond case, her claims or events that happened after he left CAA in 1995.” — The Hollywood Reporter
““I’m not going to discuss anything about Jeffrey Epstein,” he said.” — The Hollywood Reporter
Julia Ormond person
Ormond, through her lawyers, says CAA ignored Weinstein's misconduct and welcomes the ruling as showing Ovitz is not above the law.
“had claimed that CAA’s top brass turned a blind eye to Weinstein’s crimes and failed to warn her about him” — The Hollywood Reporter
““We are pleased that the Court has held that Michael Ovitz ‘inappropriately terminated’ the deposition” — Variety
Jeffrey Epstein person
Epstein is not a party; his past relationship with Ovitz, shown in released emails, is the subject of the disputed questions.
“In one email, Ovitz states that he was looking forward to seeing Epstein at St. Barts” — Variety
Left2 articles
-
Neutral Straight news report of the ruling, setting out both sides' positions with a descriptive lean against Ovitz's walkout.
-
Court Warns Michael Ovitz After He Stormed Out of CAA Deposition During Epstein Questions
Neutral Detailed account of the deposition and ruling, including Ovitz's and CAA's defence and the judge's reasoning on the warrant.
Centre0 articles
No coverage yet.
Right0 articles
No coverage yet.
- 9 Oct 01:56 First VarietyLC Michael Ovitz Ordered to Complete Deposition in Julia Ormond Case After Storming Out Over Jeffrey Epstein Questions
- 9 Oct 20:09 +18h 13m The Hollywood ReporterLC Court Warns Michael Ovitz After He Stormed Out of CAA Deposition During Epstein Questions
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.