Eliot Spitzer and Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg Ordered to Split $265K Discovery Cost
The former New York governor must pay $133,000 to cover 47 million pages of documents.
February 28, 2019 at 04:37 PM
5 minute read
Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was ordered to pay nearly $133,000 by a state judge this week for half the reproduction cost of discovery in a defamation lawsuit brought against him by former American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg.
Supreme Court Justice Victor Grossman in Putnam County said in a decision published this week that Spitzer must pay half the cost of 47 million pages he asked Greenberg to reproduce as part of discovery, or material to be used during proceedings.
Grossman likened the lawsuit and the conflict on discovery to an episode of HBO's “Game of Thrones,” and said both Spitzer and Greenberg have deep enough pockets to share the cost until the litigation is resolved.
“The Court presumes each party has sufficient resources to cover these expenses as no claim is made on the contrary,” Grossman wrote. “Finally, while the parties' dispute has taken on the appearance of an episode of Game of Thrones, to each of them, there is much at stake.”
Spitzer did not return a call seeking comment Thursday. Robert Dwyer, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner in Manhattan, who represents Greenberg, said his team was pleased with the decision and didn't plan to appeal.
Greenberg is also represented by John Gardiner, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Manhattan.
Jay Ward Brown, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Manhattan, deferred comment to a Spitzer spokeswoman. The spokeswoman did not immediately offer comment on the decision.
The lawsuit was brought against Spitzer by Greenberg in 2013 over public remarks the former governor and state attorney general made in 2012. Those statements stem from allegations Spitzer brought as the state attorney general against Greenberg for financial services misconduct.
Greenberg alleged in the suit that Spitzer made defamatory statements against him both in his book “Protecting Capitalism,” which was published in Putnam County in 2013, and in public statements. Those statements were made within days of each other during two different appearances by Spitzer on CNBC's “Closing Bell With Maria Bartiromo” and his own show, “Viewpoint.”
The lawsuit quoted Spitzer at several different points, but attorneys for Greenberg have generally objected to his use of the word “fraud” in statements. Greenberg settled a civil fraud case in 2017 that was previously brought by the New York Attorney General's Office.
“Hank Greenberg at AIG committed fraud,” Spitzer said on CNBC. “The record on that is indisputable.”
Greenberg sued Spitzer over the public remarks, after which discovery in the lawsuit was scheduled to begin. According to Grossman, Spitzer requested that Greenberg's attorneys reproduce any and all documents to show that his public remarks were “materially false.”
That prompted Greenberg's attorneys to reproduce millions of documents from past proceedings against Greenberg over financial services crimes. AIG had been involved in lawsuits filed by the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the state AG's office years earlier.
The result was the reproduction of more 47 million pages, which were copied digitally onto disks, hard drives and other storage media. The price for reproducing that content, according to Greenberg's attorneys, came to $265,454.57.
Grossman acknowledged two cases decided by appellate courts in New York that differ on who should pay for discovery reproduction costs in civil litigation. Rubin v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, decided in 1993 by the Appellate Division, Second Department, said the person seeking the discovery should pay the cost, according to Grossman. That would be Spitzer in this case.
But the decision in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Greenpoint Mtge. Funding Inc., decided in 2012 by the Appellate Division, First Department, said the cost should fall on the party producing the documents, according to attorneys for Spitzer. The Court of Appeals hasn't addressed the issue.
Grossman declined to have either party pay the full cost of reproduction, instead leaving it to be decided when the lawsuit is resolved.
“At this stage of the proceedings, recognizing the enormity of the expense (which was not known at the time of the discovery demands or Preliminary Conference), the Court will require [Spitzer] to reimburse [Greenberg] to the extent of one-half of the production costs of $265,454.57, or the amount of $132,727.29, subject to a further determination and award of disbursements at the conclusion of the action,” Grossman wrote.
He also opined that the state Legislature has not yet set guidelines on how courts should evaluate these issues while the technological applications of discovery continue to advance.
“Ultimately, the state trial courts are left to their best efforts and discretion to address the emerging issues,” Grossman said.
READ MORE:
Judge Denies Spitzer Delay in Libel Case
Litigation Between Spitzer, N.Y. Senate Faulted as 'Shameful' Waste of Resources
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
© 2025 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 AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
Trending Stories
- 1GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 2Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 3Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
- 4Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 5How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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