In Nike Extortion Trial, Avenatti Seeks to Exclude Evidence of Personal Finances
Avenatti claims he was merely doing his job as an advocate for his client, and said he plans to subpoena Nike over its payment practices. Trial in the case is set to begin Jan. 21.
December 10, 2019 at 05:26 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Lawyers for Michael Avenatti asked a Manhattan federal judge to exclude evidence of his finances from an upcoming criminal trial on charges that the embattled attorney tried to extort Nike Inc. for about $25 million.
In a motion filed late Monday, Avenatti's defense team said that federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York wanted to use Avenatti's debts—on a Ferrari, a Porsche and an airplane—to establish his motive in carrying out the alleged scheme.
The attorneys argued that the evidence was irrelevant to the government's case, and would only serve to "distract the jury" at trial.
Also among the evidence they sought to exclude was a $5 million personal judgment against Avenatti, as well as a loan he had taken from fellow attorney Mark Geragos, who was identified as a co-conspirator but was not charged in the case.
"The probative value of Mr. Avenatti's financial spending prior to the alleged conduct and his financial condition at the time of that conduct, is far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," attorneys Scott A. Srebnick and Jose M. Quinon wrote in the 11-page filing.
Prosecutors have alleged in a revised indictment that Avenatti, who rose to prominence representing adult film star Stormy Daniels in a failed lawsuit against President Donald Trump, tried to shake down the sports apparel giant while representing a youth basketball coach who claimed to have damaging information about the company.
According to the indictment, Avenatti threatened to go public with the allegations unless Nike agreed to pay $25 million and hire Avenatti and Geragos to conduct an internal investigation. Prosecutors last month dropped conspiracy charges against Avenatti but added one count of honest services wire fraud related to his representation of coach Gary Franklin.
Avenatti claims he was merely doing his job as an advocate for his client, and has said he plans to subpoena Nike over its payment practices. Trial in the case is set to begin Jan. 21.
Avenatti's attorneys said they plan to focus their case on whether Franklin had a legitimate claim against Nike, claiming that he was well within his rights as an attorney to pursue a resolution.
"The evidence of luxury items and Mr. Avenatti's financial condition will serve no purpose other than to distract the jury from the central issues in the case. It will not bear on whether Mr. Avenatti's conduct was wrongful under the law," Srebnick wrote on Monday. "Yet, based on the volume and type of discovery that has been provided, it certainly seems as though the government intends to make Mr. Avenatti's financial condition a substantial feature of the trial."
Avenatti is facing separate indictments in California and New York for allegedly stealing settlements and other funds from former clients, including Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250