Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023
EXHIBIT 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023
September 8, 2021
Via Email
Jeanne M. Christensen
Wigdor LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, Fl. 5
New York, NY 10003
JChristensen@wigdorlaw.com
Re: Guzel Ganieva v. Leon Black, Index No. 155262/2021
Dear Ms. Christensen:
By letter dated July 19, 2021, we wrote to inform you that the initial complaint filed
by your client, Guzel Ganieva, contained numerous demonstrably false material
allegations. I need not repeat here the significant sanctionable conduct relating to the initial
complaint in this matter, but that letter served as notice that the false allegations were
sanctionable, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (providing that the Court may impose
sanctions, including costs and attorneys’ fees, on attorneys and parties who engage in
“frivolous conduct,” which includes making claims that are “undertaken primarily. . . to
harass or maliciously injure another” and “assert[ing] material factual statements that are
false.”).
Rather than correct those false material allegations when you filed the Amended
Complaint, you instead doubled down with even more demonstrably and willfully false
allegations. As with the original complaint, by signing the Amended Complaint, you
certified that the claims were not frivolous and had been filed only after a reasonable
inquiry. Id. This was false and is sanctionable. Despite being fully on notice that Ms.
Ganieva’s allegations were belied by Plaintiff’s own written and spoken words, you have
failed to conduct even the most minimal diligence into the truth of the allegations against
Mr. Black, in violation of your ethical obligations.
Your sanctionable conduct only begins, but does not end, with the manufactured
causes of action in this case. The Amended Complaint largely consists of page after page
of purple prose that is not only scandalous, but utterly irrelevant to the claims. This “wild
speculation” and the “plainly irrelevant, absurd, and/or scurrilous statements” in the
Amended Complaint are sanctionable as well. Charles v. Levitt, No. 15 CIV. 9334 (PAE),
2016 WL 3982514, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2016), aff’d and remanded, 716 F. App’x 18
(2d Cir. 2017). We are aware of the “playbook” (to use a word you favor) that your firm
deploys in various lawsuits in which you serve as counsel (and at times as defendants in
your own right) and with which you attempt to import into your cases wholly irrelevant
allegations and characters—including Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and so many
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023
others—in a craven attempt to tar the defendant. You were fully on notice of the
impropriety of the allegations in this case by virtue of our previous motion to strike. In
seeking a stipulation to extend the time to respond to that motion, your firm went so far as
to imply that you would be amending the complaint in a way that might “obviate” these
improper allegations. This was false; instead, you leaned in and exponentially increased
the “plainly irrelevant, absurd, and/or scurrilous statements” in the pleadings.
This failure is all the more egregious, given our offer to provide you with the
evidence proving the falsity of many of the allegations in the Amended Complaint—
evidence that you specifically (and through an improper court filing) requested in
discovery. We have long stood ready to produce these documents under the terms of a
standard protective order. You refused to even meet and confer regarding such an order on
multiple occasions. Your written representation to us that your firm does not enter into
such agreements is simply false, as even a quick docket search confirms. In any event, we
even offered to quickly provide evidence to you absent a protective order, provided only
that you agree not to publicize it pending the negotiation of terms; you rejected this as well.
Had you simply agreed to meet and confer with us, you could have easily and swiftly
received the parties’ confidentiality and release agreement, the recordings, and the text
messages. You refused, and instead barreled ahead and filed claims without doing a shred
of diligence.
You not only pressed the same lies in the Amended Complaint, but you added
allegation after allegation as to which you or your client could not possibly have any
information. To take just one—very serious—example, I refer you to the false statements
in the Amended Complaint regarding an alleged criminal conspiracy amongst Mr. Black
and his attorneys. You have not a lick of evidence, or even a reasonable basis to allege on
information and belief, that Mr. Black’s “posse” (strange italics in original) of lawyers
“‘huddled up’” (strange internal quotations in original) to devise a criminal “scheme” to
“manufacture evidence” against your client. Obviously, neither you nor your client were
in the room with Mr. Black’s attorneys. Nor have you, your client, or anyone else
working with you spoken with Mr. Black’s attorneys about their decision-making. This
was all made up out of whole cloth for dramatic effect, and not for legitimate pleading
purposes.
To the extent that you have communicated or published these allegations
elsewhere, including in press statements and on your firm’s website, they are not only
sanctionable but actionable. See Williams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 599 (1969). As
you are aware, the absolute privilege for publishing a report of a judicial proceeding does
not apply to a “plaintiff who commences an underlying lawsuit as a sham action brought
solely to defame a defendant and never diligently prosecutes her claims.” Haynes v.
Bonner and Wigdor LLP, 69 Misc. 3d 1201(A), 130 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)
(internal citations omitted). While you and your firm have managed to avoid liability for
other “sham litigation” claims in the past, the facts are much more egregious in this case
and ultimately you will have to explain them to a factfinder.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023
The four corners of the Amended Complaint, standing alone, make clear that its
sole purpose is to harass, embarrass, and defame Mr. Black. In addition, this singular
purpose is made all the clearer from your consistent efforts to block discovery. As noted,
it is plain enough that you do not want to advance this case from the fact alone that you
have refused to meet and confer with us in order to quickly receive the material you had a
responsibility to review before filing your frivolous Amended Complaint. And, as we have
recited in a number of deficiency letters and emails to you and in two filings with the Court,
your efforts to impede fact discovery in the case is also patent from your refusal to so much
as respond or object to numerous discovery requests and your refusal to so much as meet
and confer with us. Your only response to this has been to scoff at the lack of “urgency”
for Mr. Black in conducting discovery. Your client has brought claims of rape and sexual
sadism that have upended my client’s life; while his interest in clearing his name is indeed
most urgent, the CPLR cares nothing about your own opinion as to urgency. Your refusal
to engage in standard, rules-based discovery betrays this litigation for the sham that it is.
(As an aside, no matter how many times you repeat it, filing a motion to dismiss and issuing
and then bizarrely withdrawing “countless” subpoenas does not evidence forward
movement. To the contrary, it simply is more evidence of obstructionism).
I will note that I cannot recall ever having experienced the kind of unprofessional
comments you have directed toward me personally. You were civil enough until the
moment it became clear that Mr. Black would actually act to defend himself rather than
negotiate with an extortionist. At that point, you immediately began using some of the
language against me and my colleague that you so casually toss around in the pleadings
against my client, including that we have misled you, threatened you, and bullied you (and
even that we attempted to bully the Court, an interesting take indeed). In my nearly 25
years of practice, I have never sent a letter like this one to opposing counsel—let alone two
such letters. I do not do so lightly.
Each of the demonstrably false allegations as detailed in the Amended Answer is
clearly “material” for purposes of Rule 130. The volume and willfulness of the false
statements—together with all the other conduct detailed herein, in various
communications to you, and in Mr. Black’s Amended Answer—make clear that the
Complaint was filed solely to harass and maliciously injure Mr. Black, rather than for any
legitimate purpose. Taken as a whole, this constitutes frivolous, wrongful, and
sanctionable conduct by your client, by you, and by your firm.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023
Although I recognize by now that I am just spitting in the wind, we remain willing
to meet and confer with you, including with respect to this notice. Assuming your
continued refusal to engage, we demand nothing less than withdrawal of the Amended
Complaint.
Very truly yours,
E. Danya Perry
cc: Douglas Wigdor
4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 EXHIBIT 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 September 8, 2021 Via Email Jeanne M. Christensen Wigdor LLP 85 Fifth Avenue, Fl. 5 New York, NY 10003 JChristensen@wigdorlaw.com Re: Guzel Ganieva v. Leon Black, Index No. 155262/2021 Dear Ms. Christensen: By letter dated July 19, 2021, we wrote to inform you that the initial complaint filed by your client, Guzel Ganieva, contained numerous demonstrably false material allegations. I need not repeat here the significant sanctionable conduct relating to the initial complaint in this matter, but that letter served as notice that the false allegations were sanctionable, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (providing that the Court may impose sanctions, including costs and attorneys’ fees, on attorneys and parties who engage in “frivolous conduct,” which includes making claims that are “undertaken primarily. . . to harass or maliciously injure another” and “assert[ing] material factual statements that are false.”). Rather than correct those false material allegations when you filed the Amended Complaint, you instead doubled down with even more demonstrably and willfully false allegations. As with the original complaint, by signing the Amended Complaint, you certified that the claims were not frivolous and had been filed only after a reasonable inquiry. Id. This was false and is sanctionable. Despite being fully on notice that Ms. Ganieva’s allegations were belied by Plaintiff’s own written and spoken words, you have failed to conduct even the most minimal diligence into the truth of the allegations against Mr. Black, in violation of your ethical obligations. Your sanctionable conduct only begins, but does not end, with the manufactured causes of action in this case. The Amended Complaint largely consists of page after page of purple prose that is not only scandalous, but utterly irrelevant to the claims. This “wild speculation” and the “plainly irrelevant, absurd, and/or scurrilous statements” in the Amended Complaint are sanctionable as well. Charles v. Levitt, No. 15 CIV. 9334 (PAE), 2016 WL 3982514, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2016), aff’d and remanded, 716 F. App’x 18 (2d Cir. 2017). We are aware of the “playbook” (to use a word you favor) that your firm deploys in various lawsuits in which you serve as counsel (and at times as defendants in your own right) and with which you attempt to import into your cases wholly irrelevant allegations and characters—including Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and so many 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 others—in a craven attempt to tar the defendant. You were fully on notice of the impropriety of the allegations in this case by virtue of our previous motion to strike. In seeking a stipulation to extend the time to respond to that motion, your firm went so far as to imply that you would be amending the complaint in a way that might “obviate” these improper allegations. This was false; instead, you leaned in and exponentially increased the “plainly irrelevant, absurd, and/or scurrilous statements” in the pleadings. This failure is all the more egregious, given our offer to provide you with the evidence proving the falsity of many of the allegations in the Amended Complaint— evidence that you specifically (and through an improper court filing) requested in discovery. We have long stood ready to produce these documents under the terms of a standard protective order. You refused to even meet and confer regarding such an order on multiple occasions. Your written representation to us that your firm does not enter into such agreements is simply false, as even a quick docket search confirms. In any event, we even offered to quickly provide evidence to you absent a protective order, provided only that you agree not to publicize it pending the negotiation of terms; you rejected this as well. Had you simply agreed to meet and confer with us, you could have easily and swiftly received the parties’ confidentiality and release agreement, the recordings, and the text messages. You refused, and instead barreled ahead and filed claims without doing a shred of diligence. You not only pressed the same lies in the Amended Complaint, but you added allegation after allegation as to which you or your client could not possibly have any information. To take just one—very serious—example, I refer you to the false statements in the Amended Complaint regarding an alleged criminal conspiracy amongst Mr. Black and his attorneys. You have not a lick of evidence, or even a reasonable basis to allege on information and belief, that Mr. Black’s “posse” (strange italics in original) of lawyers “‘huddled up’” (strange internal quotations in original) to devise a criminal “scheme” to “manufacture evidence” against your client. Obviously, neither you nor your client were in the room with Mr. Black’s attorneys. Nor have you, your client, or anyone else working with you spoken with Mr. Black’s attorneys about their decision-making. This was all made up out of whole cloth for dramatic effect, and not for legitimate pleading purposes. To the extent that you have communicated or published these allegations elsewhere, including in press statements and on your firm’s website, they are not only sanctionable but actionable. See Williams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 599 (1969). As you are aware, the absolute privilege for publishing a report of a judicial proceeding does not apply to a “plaintiff who commences an underlying lawsuit as a sham action brought solely to defame a defendant and never diligently prosecutes her claims.” Haynes v. Bonner and Wigdor LLP, 69 Misc. 3d 1201(A), 130 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) (internal citations omitted). While you and your firm have managed to avoid liability for other “sham litigation” claims in the past, the facts are much more egregious in this case and ultimately you will have to explain them to a factfinder. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 The four corners of the Amended Complaint, standing alone, make clear that its sole purpose is to harass, embarrass, and defame Mr. Black. In addition, this singular purpose is made all the clearer from your consistent efforts to block discovery. As noted, it is plain enough that you do not want to advance this case from the fact alone that you have refused to meet and confer with us in order to quickly receive the material you had a responsibility to review before filing your frivolous Amended Complaint. And, as we have recited in a number of deficiency letters and emails to you and in two filings with the Court, your efforts to impede fact discovery in the case is also patent from your refusal to so much as respond or object to numerous discovery requests and your refusal to so much as meet and confer with us. Your only response to this has been to scoff at the lack of “urgency” for Mr. Black in conducting discovery. Your client has brought claims of rape and sexual sadism that have upended my client’s life; while his interest in clearing his name is indeed most urgent, the CPLR cares nothing about your own opinion as to urgency. Your refusal to engage in standard, rules-based discovery betrays this litigation for the sham that it is. (As an aside, no matter how many times you repeat it, filing a motion to dismiss and issuing and then bizarrely withdrawing “countless” subpoenas does not evidence forward movement. To the contrary, it simply is more evidence of obstructionism). I will note that I cannot recall ever having experienced the kind of unprofessional comments you have directed toward me personally. You were civil enough until the moment it became clear that Mr. Black would actually act to defend himself rather than negotiate with an extortionist. At that point, you immediately began using some of the language against me and my colleague that you so casually toss around in the pleadings against my client, including that we have misled you, threatened you, and bullied you (and even that we attempted to bully the Court, an interesting take indeed). In my nearly 25 years of practice, I have never sent a letter like this one to opposing counsel—let alone two such letters. I do not do so lightly. Each of the demonstrably false allegations as detailed in the Amended Answer is clearly “material” for purposes of Rule 130. The volume and willfulness of the false statements—together with all the other conduct detailed herein, in various communications to you, and in Mr. Black’s Amended Answer—make clear that the Complaint was filed solely to harass and maliciously injure Mr. Black, rather than for any legitimate purpose. Taken as a whole, this constitutes frivolous, wrongful, and sanctionable conduct by your client, by you, and by your firm. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 Although I recognize by now that I am just spitting in the wind, we remain willing to meet and confer with you, including with respect to this notice. Assuming your continued refusal to engage, we demand nothing less than withdrawal of the Amended Complaint. Very truly yours, E. Danya Perry cc: Douglas Wigdor 4