Michael Avenatti's Attorney Says He'll Subpoena Nike in Defense Against Extortion Case
The lawyer who has represented foes of President Donald Trump is facing a November 12 trial date on charges he tried to shake down the shoe company.
August 22, 2019 at 04:54 PM
5 minute read
A criminal defense attorney for Michael Avenatti said Thursday that he planned to subpoena Nike Inc. over claims that the athletic apparel giant had improperly paid college basketball recruits and asked for more time to mount a defense to extortion and related charges.
Avenatti, who has represented foes of President Donald Trump, is facing a Nov. 12 trial date on charges he tried to shake down the shoe company.
Scott Srebnick, Avenatti's lawyer, told a Manhattan federal judge that he wanted to access documents and other materials to prove that the youth basketball coach Avenatti represented had a legitimate claim for wrongdoing by the company.
The argument has so far been central to Avenatti's defense, which claims that the embattled lawyer was acting within his rights when he threatened to go public with damaging information unless the company agreed to pay his client a large settlement and name Avenatti to head an internal investigation at the firm.
According to Srebnick, the process would require extensive motion practice and require U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of the Southern District of New York to push the trial until at least early January.
"I do believe Nov. 12 is a little ambitious," Srebnick said at the Thursday afternoon status conference. "I believe the legal issues in this case are somewhat complex, unique."
Gardephe said he would entertain briefs on Avenatti's requests but did not commit to changing the Nov. 12 trial date in the case.
Avenatti, who attended the hearing, declined to comment afterward.
Avenatti has filed two motions to dismiss the government's four-count indictment for conspiracy and extortion, claiming in part that he had been the victim of a political witch hunt because of his representation of Stormy Daniels, an adult film star who said she had an extramarital affair with Trump—a claim the president has repeatedly denied.
In his most recent filing Monday, Avenatti's attorneys argued that he was trying to settle claims by his client, California basketball coach Gary Franklin Sr., who professed to have evidence that Nike had funneled money to recruits in violation of the rules of the NCAA, college sports main governing body. Avenatti's demand, they said, was protected under the First Amendment because the information he threatened to release at a news conference was true and related to Franklin's litigation claims.
On Thursday, Srebnick said he would pursue Rule 17(c) subpoenas of Nike and other individuals to support Franklin's allegations of misconduct, as well as other motions to challenge the scope of the government's case. He said he was seeking evidence of player payments and as a way of showing that the money Avenatti demanded was conservative, if not "maybe a low estimate."
If witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Srebnick said that he wanted them to do so in front of the jury.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky told the court that Avenatti's attempts to put on a "civil trial within a criminal trial" should "raise questions" about the defense's use of Rule 17(c), and pushed back against the idea of a continuance.
"They seem like speculative arguments," he said. "We don't see any basis today to adjourn the trial."
Gardephe, meanwhile, did not take a position on the subpoenas, but noted that the types of discovery available to defendants in criminal cases are narrower than in civil suits, and encouraged Avenatti's team to tee up the issue sooner rather than later.
As for witnesses having to plead the Fifth Amendment in front of a jury, the judge said: "That would be a first for me."
"You'll have an uphill battle convincing me it's appropriate in this case," he said.
A letter from Srebnick laying out the legal issues raised in Thursday's hearing is due by Aug. 30, with the government set to respond the following week. Prosecutors are set to respond to Avenatti's motions to dismiss the indictment next month.
In addition to the alleged extortion plot against Nike, Avenatti is also accused in Manhattan federal court of stealing $300,000 from Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, by diverting two payments she received on a book deal.
Meanwhile, Avenatti also faces charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where he is accused of embezzling millions of dollars from other clients. An attorney for Avenatti had asked to have those two cases combined in federal court.
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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Judge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
'A Regressive Institution': SDNY Judge Rakoff Delivers Pointed Remarks on SCOTUS in Recent Appearance
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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