Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
In the Matter of the Application of : Index No. 652945/2023
:
CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, : Hon. Andrea Masley (Part 48)
:
Petitioner, : Motion Sequence Nos. 002 & 003
:
For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, Staying a : NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pending Arbitration and Disqualifying Arbitrator, :
:
-against- :
:
JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG, :
:
Respondents. :
------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner Christopher Cuomo hereby appeals to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, from the
order of the New York County Supreme Court (Honorable Andrea Masley) entered on March 12,
2024 (the “Order”), and served with Notice of Entry on March 21, 2024, Dkt. #129 & #130,
denying Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery and granting Respondents’ motion for
summary judgment dismissing the Petition, Dkt. #127 & #128, and Petitioner appeals from each
and every part of said decision and Order and the whole thereof. A copy of the Order, with notice
of entry, is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. An informational statement is annexed as Exhibit B.
Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
New York, New York
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
/s/ Tina Glandian______
Tina Glandian, Esq.
256 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10001
(213) 625-3900
tina@geragos.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Christopher Cuomo
1 of 57
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
EXHIBIT A
2 of 57
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
03/21/2024 03:20
09:40 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131
129 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
03/21/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
In the Matter of the Application of : Index No. 652945/2023
:
CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, : Hon. Andrea Masley (Part 48)
:
Petitioner, : Motion Sequence Nos. 002 & 003
:
For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, Staying a : NOTICE OF ENTRY
Pending Arbitration and Disqualifying Arbitrator, :
:
-against- :
:
JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG, :
:
Respondents. :
------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true and correct copy of the Order of the
Honorable Andrea Masley of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
entered on March 12, 2024, denying Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery (Motion
Sequence No. 002) and granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the
Petition (Motion Sequence No. 003).
Dated: March 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
New York, New York
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
/s/ Tina Glandian______
Tina Glandian, Esq.
256 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10001
(213) 625-3900
tina@geragos.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Christopher Cuomo
1 of 57
3 50
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20b PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
MI RECEIVED Y (
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
1
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 48
2 ------------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of
CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, Index No.:
Petitioner(s) 652945/2023
For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the
6 CPLR, Staying a pending Arbitration and
Disqualifying Arbitrator,
-against-
8
JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG,
9
Respondent(s).
10 ------------------------------------------x
Microsoft Teams
11 New York, New York
January 23, 2024
B E F O R E:
13 HONORABLE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.,
LEY
14 A P P E A R A N C E S: . p()N
15 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
Attorneys for Petitioner
16 256 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10001
17 BY: TINA GLANDIAN, ESQ.
18 ELMAN FREIBERG PLLC
Attorneys for Respondents
19 950 Third Avenue - Suite 1600
New York, New York 10022
20 BY: HOWARD I. ELMAN, ESQ.
21 O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
Attorneys for Respondents
22 7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036
23 BY: NATASHA W. TELANU, ESQ.
DANIEL PETROCELLI, ESQ.
24
Reported by:
25 Daisy Vazquez, SCR
Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter
Daisy
3 af AO
24 ofof 50
57
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
RECEIVED NYSCE : 02/01 2024
NYSCEF DOC. . NO. . 131 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
03/22/2024
2
Proceeding
1 THE COURT: In the matter of Christopher Cuomo
2 against JAMS. Who is speaking for petitioner?
3 MS. GLANDIAN: Good morning, your Honor. I am,
4 Tina Glandian.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Who is speaking for
6 JAMS?
7 MR. ELMAN: I am, your Honor. Howard Elman from
8 Elman Freiberg for JAMS and Arbitrator Sonnenberg.
9 THE COURT: Okay. And I see that there are some
10 other people us. I ask that -- to record your
joining
11 representation on the record please e-mail Ms. Vazquez when
12 we're done with your names, law firm affiliation, and
13 everyone that is joining you. Okay.
14 So we have a motion for summary judgment and a
15 motion for discovery. We'll go in the order that they were
16 filed which is the discovery motion came first, that's
17 Motion No. 2 and that would be Ms. Glandian.
18 MS. GLANDIAN: Thank you, your Honor. As the Court
19 will recall at the last hearing, the Court expressly
20 declined to dismiss the petition and indicated that some
21 discovery would be appropriate. Pursuant to CPLR 408 since
22 this is a special proceeding, we are required to obtain
23 leave of court to obtain disclosure in this proceeding.
24 We timely following the hearing on the preliminary
25 injunction which was in July, the following month we timely
Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter
Daisy
35 ofof 89
57
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 652945/2023
652945/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Proceeding
1 filed our motion seeking leave to conduct such discovery
2 along with eight exhibits which were the discovery requests
3 that we prepared that we were to propound --
proposing
4 THE COURT: Can we just cut to your request and
5 explain to me why you're asking for what you're asking for.
6 How is it material and necessary tailored like that.
7 MS. GLANDIAN: Sure. At this point what we know is
8 that there have been five separate representations where
9 Arbitrator Sonnenberg has represented either directly or
10 you either -- as I through his
indirectly CNN, know, said,
11 prior firm which is Paul Hastings or directly.
12 THE COURT: Isn't the law of the though --
case,
13 well, I've already found that it was Sonnenberg's 2003
14 representation and not the Paul Hastings representations
15 that might be an issue. So I'm not really sure why I'm
16 seeing requests after that decision a month after that
17 decision, I'm not understanding why I'm seeing requests
18 about Paul Hastings financial interests in CNN.
19 MS. GLANDIAN: The financial interest is because I
20 do believe there is some case law that if Arbitrator
21 Sonnenberg currently have some sort of financial stake in
22 Paul Hastings after his departure, that that is something
23 that would need to be disclosed. But as far as what your
24 Honor just said about it possibly being the law of the case,
25 the problem that we have is we don't have any sworn
Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter
Daisy
86 of
of 89
57
9&M - & INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 652945/2023
652945/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY
2tMthi±hlis"fthf?k CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM
ws"ted:listEFk$72d±Immey-sta
N §§EF
NYSCEF B@§
DOC. NO. H§
N@: 131 RECEIVED
R§@§IV§B NYSCEF:
NF§@§B 03/26/2024
%§//91//a%at
4
Proceeding
1 testimony as to what the scope and whether we even know the
2 of the prior representation --
entirety
3 THE COURT: Is it not because you failed to do a
4 Google search when you got the disclosure?
5 MS. GLANDIAN: No, your Honor. Initially we, I
6 think, rightfully so relied on the truthfulness of the
7 disclosures and there was some due diligence done at the
8 time but there was no reason to believe there would be a
9 direct attorney/client relationship because there was not
10 any sort of a footnote or explanation when Arbitrator
11 Sonnenberg answered no to question five as to his prior
12 representation of any parties.
13 He did that for a separate question but that was
14 whether he served as a neutral, not whether he's had a
15 direct attorney/client relationship. He answered that in
16 the negative very affirmatively and I don't think that we
17 were under any sort of duty at that point. I think the
18 purpose of the disclosures is that we could rely on the
19 truthfulness particularly where he actually stated elsewhere
20 in his disclosure that he had done some due diligence before
21 answering those questions.
22 Separate from that when we did have some reason to
23 doubt his partiality and we conducted our own search, we
24 were never able to ever uncover the direct attorney/client
25 relationship between Sonnenberg and CNN, that's not
Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter
Daisy
7 of 57
.
FILED: .
NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023
INDEX NO. 652945/2023
d F dDOC.
NYSCEF C.. 1@_.
NO. 11
131 RECEIVED 5MSSE::
EEDUlVGHD NYSCEF: @lfbl/M41
03/26/2024
5
Proceeding
1 something that any amount of Google searching disclosed. As
2 a reminder CNN and what's a little troubling is that it's
3 our belief that the general counsel of CNN, Mr. Vigilante
4 who has been present and currently serves as general counsel
5 was there at the time that Sonnenberg did represent CNN.
6 So CNN sat there for over a year, never disclosed
7 anything, even after we moved for disqualification in the
8 arbitration proceeding CNN didn't say anything. It was only
9 after we filed this action and I would submit that it was
10 maybe for a fear that discovery was going to disclose at
11 least that representation but it was promptly after we filed
12 this action that CNN belated disclosed the direct
13 attorney/client relationship between Arbitrator Sonnenberg
14 and CNN that again doesn't exist by any sort of searchs that
15 we could do, it's within the exclusive knowledge and control
16 of the respondents.
17 What's troubling is that Arbitrator Sonnenberg has
18 submitted an affidavit in this case. Never does he say in
19 his affidavit and I think it's glaringly absent that he
20 contacted Paul Hastings after learning that there was this
21 direct attorney/client relationship. If I was arbitrator I
22 would certainly be concerned that I had made a disclosure
23 that was false and I would have contacted the firm and said
24 can you please run a check and see if I was involved on any
25 other matters. We never received so much as a supplemental
Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter
Daisy
8 of 57
FILED:
.· NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
24GLi 03:20 PM
QS..&
INDEX NO. 652945/2023
INDEX NO. 652945/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
6
Proceeding
1 disclosure which is required by the JAMS rules.
2 Once he became aware of these representations he
3 was on notice to conduct a search to look into this and
4 disclose it. Instead he has stood by the fact that his
5 disclosures were proper. He is just taking a blanket
6 approach of saying I just don't recall any of this and
7 that's not sufficient. Now that we know there was a direct
8 attorney/client relationship, he does have a duty to
9 actually look into that and see, So all we have is an
10 unsworn statement in a letter that Mr. Petrocelli filed in
11 the arbitration proceeding telling us that there was this
12 prior representation and making statements as to what the
13 value was, what the year was. That's not under oath.
14 Arbitrator Sonnenberg has not said anything as to
15 that direct representation other than I don't recall and we
16 don't have any information from Paul Hastings. We may
17 depose somebody from Paul Hastings or do discovery that
18 says, oh, there was more than that one, Arbitrator
19 Sonnenberg, in fact, while he was at our firm represented
20 CNN in five direct relationships. We don't know that
21 because Arbitrator Sonnenberg doesn't recall anything. So
22 he I don't remember of it --
basically says, any
23 THE COURT: If he doesn't recall it, then how can
24 it be creating bias?
25 MS. GLANDIAN: Well, your Honor, I hate to say it
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X : In the Matter of the Application of : Index No. 652945/2023 : CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, : Hon. Andrea Masley (Part 48) : Petitioner, : Motion Sequence Nos. 002 & 003 : For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, Staying a : NOTICE OF APPEAL Pending Arbitration and Disqualifying Arbitrator, : : -against- : : JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG, : : Respondents. : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner Christopher Cuomo hereby appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, from the order of the New York County Supreme Court (Honorable Andrea Masley) entered on March 12, 2024 (the “Order”), and served with Notice of Entry on March 21, 2024, Dkt. #129 & #130, denying Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery and granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petition, Dkt. #127 & #128, and Petitioner appeals from each and every part of said decision and Order and the whole thereof. A copy of the Order, with notice of entry, is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. An informational statement is annexed as Exhibit B. Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC /s/ Tina Glandian______ Tina Glandian, Esq. 256 5th Avenue New York, New York 10001 (213) 625-3900 tina@geragos.com Attorneys for Petitioner Christopher Cuomo 1 of 57 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 EXHIBIT A 2 of 57 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03/21/2024 03:20 09:40 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 129 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 03/21/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X : In the Matter of the Application of : Index No. 652945/2023 : CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, : Hon. Andrea Masley (Part 48) : Petitioner, : Motion Sequence Nos. 002 & 003 : For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, Staying a : NOTICE OF ENTRY Pending Arbitration and Disqualifying Arbitrator, : : -against- : : JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG, : : Respondents. : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true and correct copy of the Order of the Honorable Andrea Masley of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, entered on March 12, 2024, denying Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery (Motion Sequence No. 002) and granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petition (Motion Sequence No. 003). Dated: March 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC /s/ Tina Glandian______ Tina Glandian, Esq. 256 5th Avenue New York, New York 10001 (213) 625-3900 tina@geragos.com Attorneys for Petitioner Christopher Cuomo 1 of 57 3 50 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20b PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 MI RECEIVED Y ( NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 1 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 48 2 ------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, Index No.: Petitioner(s) 652945/2023 For an Order, Pursuant to Article 75 of the 6 CPLR, Staying a pending Arbitration and Disqualifying Arbitrator, -against- 8 JAMS, INC., and STEPHEN P. SONNENBERG, 9 Respondent(s). 10 ------------------------------------------x Microsoft Teams 11 New York, New York January 23, 2024 B E F O R E: 13 HONORABLE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C., LEY 14 A P P E A R A N C E S: . p()N 15 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC Attorneys for Petitioner 16 256 5th Avenue New York, New York 10001 17 BY: TINA GLANDIAN, ESQ. 18 ELMAN FREIBERG PLLC Attorneys for Respondents 19 950 Third Avenue - Suite 1600 New York, New York 10022 20 BY: HOWARD I. ELMAN, ESQ. 21 O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Attorneys for Respondents 22 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 23 BY: NATASHA W. TELANU, ESQ. DANIEL PETROCELLI, ESQ. 24 Reported by: 25 Daisy Vazquez, SCR Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter Daisy 3 af AO 24 ofof 50 57 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 RECEIVED NYSCE : 02/01 2024 NYSCEF DOC. . NO. . 131 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 03/22/2024 2 Proceeding 1 THE COURT: In the matter of Christopher Cuomo 2 against JAMS. Who is speaking for petitioner? 3 MS. GLANDIAN: Good morning, your Honor. I am, 4 Tina Glandian. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Who is speaking for 6 JAMS? 7 MR. ELMAN: I am, your Honor. Howard Elman from 8 Elman Freiberg for JAMS and Arbitrator Sonnenberg. 9 THE COURT: Okay. And I see that there are some 10 other people us. I ask that -- to record your joining 11 representation on the record please e-mail Ms. Vazquez when 12 we're done with your names, law firm affiliation, and 13 everyone that is joining you. Okay. 14 So we have a motion for summary judgment and a 15 motion for discovery. We'll go in the order that they were 16 filed which is the discovery motion came first, that's 17 Motion No. 2 and that would be Ms. Glandian. 18 MS. GLANDIAN: Thank you, your Honor. As the Court 19 will recall at the last hearing, the Court expressly 20 declined to dismiss the petition and indicated that some 21 discovery would be appropriate. Pursuant to CPLR 408 since 22 this is a special proceeding, we are required to obtain 23 leave of court to obtain disclosure in this proceeding. 24 We timely following the hearing on the preliminary 25 injunction which was in July, the following month we timely Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter Daisy 35 ofof 89 57 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 652945/2023 652945/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Proceeding 1 filed our motion seeking leave to conduct such discovery 2 along with eight exhibits which were the discovery requests 3 that we prepared that we were to propound -- proposing 4 THE COURT: Can we just cut to your request and 5 explain to me why you're asking for what you're asking for. 6 How is it material and necessary tailored like that. 7 MS. GLANDIAN: Sure. At this point what we know is 8 that there have been five separate representations where 9 Arbitrator Sonnenberg has represented either directly or 10 you either -- as I through his indirectly CNN, know, said, 11 prior firm which is Paul Hastings or directly. 12 THE COURT: Isn't the law of the though -- case, 13 well, I've already found that it was Sonnenberg's 2003 14 representation and not the Paul Hastings representations 15 that might be an issue. So I'm not really sure why I'm 16 seeing requests after that decision a month after that 17 decision, I'm not understanding why I'm seeing requests 18 about Paul Hastings financial interests in CNN. 19 MS. GLANDIAN: The financial interest is because I 20 do believe there is some case law that if Arbitrator 21 Sonnenberg currently have some sort of financial stake in 22 Paul Hastings after his departure, that that is something 23 that would need to be disclosed. But as far as what your 24 Honor just said about it possibly being the law of the case, 25 the problem that we have is we don't have any sworn Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter Daisy 86 of of 89 57 9&M - & INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 652945/2023 652945/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY 2tMthi±hlis"fthf?k CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM ws"ted:listEFk$72d±Immey-sta N §§EF NYSCEF B@§ DOC. NO. H§ N@: 131 RECEIVED R§@§IV§B NYSCEF: NF§@§B 03/26/2024 %§//91//a%at 4 Proceeding 1 testimony as to what the scope and whether we even know the 2 of the prior representation -- entirety 3 THE COURT: Is it not because you failed to do a 4 Google search when you got the disclosure? 5 MS. GLANDIAN: No, your Honor. Initially we, I 6 think, rightfully so relied on the truthfulness of the 7 disclosures and there was some due diligence done at the 8 time but there was no reason to believe there would be a 9 direct attorney/client relationship because there was not 10 any sort of a footnote or explanation when Arbitrator 11 Sonnenberg answered no to question five as to his prior 12 representation of any parties. 13 He did that for a separate question but that was 14 whether he served as a neutral, not whether he's had a 15 direct attorney/client relationship. He answered that in 16 the negative very affirmatively and I don't think that we 17 were under any sort of duty at that point. I think the 18 purpose of the disclosures is that we could rely on the 19 truthfulness particularly where he actually stated elsewhere 20 in his disclosure that he had done some due diligence before 21 answering those questions. 22 Separate from that when we did have some reason to 23 doubt his partiality and we conducted our own search, we 24 were never able to ever uncover the direct attorney/client 25 relationship between Sonnenberg and CNN, that's not Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter Daisy 7 of 57 . FILED: . NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 652945/2023 INDEX NO. 652945/2023 d F dDOC. NYSCEF C.. 1@_. NO. 11 131 RECEIVED 5MSSE:: EEDUlVGHD NYSCEF: @lfbl/M41 03/26/2024 5 Proceeding 1 something that any amount of Google searching disclosed. As 2 a reminder CNN and what's a little troubling is that it's 3 our belief that the general counsel of CNN, Mr. Vigilante 4 who has been present and currently serves as general counsel 5 was there at the time that Sonnenberg did represent CNN. 6 So CNN sat there for over a year, never disclosed 7 anything, even after we moved for disqualification in the 8 arbitration proceeding CNN didn't say anything. It was only 9 after we filed this action and I would submit that it was 10 maybe for a fear that discovery was going to disclose at 11 least that representation but it was promptly after we filed 12 this action that CNN belated disclosed the direct 13 attorney/client relationship between Arbitrator Sonnenberg 14 and CNN that again doesn't exist by any sort of searchs that 15 we could do, it's within the exclusive knowledge and control 16 of the respondents. 17 What's troubling is that Arbitrator Sonnenberg has 18 submitted an affidavit in this case. Never does he say in 19 his affidavit and I think it's glaringly absent that he 20 contacted Paul Hastings after learning that there was this 21 direct attorney/client relationship. If I was arbitrator I 22 would certainly be concerned that I had made a disclosure 23 that was false and I would have contacted the firm and said 24 can you please run a check and see if I was involved on any 25 other matters. We never received so much as a supplemental Vazquez - Senior Court Reporter Daisy 8 of 57 FILED: .· NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 24GLi 03:20 PM QS..& INDEX NO. 652945/2023 INDEX NO. 652945/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 6 Proceeding 1 disclosure which is required by the JAMS rules. 2 Once he became aware of these representations he 3 was on notice to conduct a search to look into this and 4 disclose it. Instead he has stood by the fact that his 5 disclosures were proper. He is just taking a blanket 6 approach of saying I just don't recall any of this and 7 that's not sufficient. Now that we know there was a direct 8 attorney/client relationship, he does have a duty to 9 actually look into that and see, So all we have is an 10 unsworn statement in a letter that Mr. Petrocelli filed in 11 the arbitration proceeding telling us that there was this 12 prior representation and making statements as to what the 13 value was, what the year was. That's not under oath. 14 Arbitrator Sonnenberg has not said anything as to 15 that direct representation other than I don't recall and we 16 don't have any information from Paul Hastings. We may 17 depose somebody from Paul Hastings or do discovery that 18 says, oh, there was more than that one, Arbitrator 19 Sonnenberg, in fact, while he was at our firm represented 20 CNN in five direct relationships. We don't know that 21 because Arbitrator Sonnenberg doesn't recall anything. So 22 he I don't remember of it -- basically says, any 23 THE COURT: If he doesn't recall it, then how can 24 it be creating bias? 25 MS. GLANDIAN: Well, your Honor, I hate to say it