Donald Trump’s sparklemagic lawyer Alina Habba is very upset that anyone would suggest that her client Donald Trump would grab women by the … genitals. The very nerve!
Also she’d like to exclude that Access Hollywood tape where her client brags about his habit of grabbing women by the … genitals because “the proposed evidence does not share any unique characteristics to this case or demonstrate a modus operandi or pattern of misconduct.”
Of course, there are plenty of compelling reasons under the Federal Rules of Evidence to argue for the exclusion of that tape, as well as the testimony of other women who allege they were assaulted by Trump. Ditto for Trump’s propensity for saying that he couldn’t have assaulted his accusers because they were not his “type.”
And indeed, Habba made these arguments in her prior motion in limine filed on February 16. But apparently the prospect of getting to write “Plaintiff fails to establish that there was an attempt to contact genitalia” by her client in a public filing was too tempting to refuse, so she did it again yesterday.
The problem, from the perspective of Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan, is that the scheduling order in this case does not anticipate reply briefs to motions in limine.
“Because Trump’s reply brief was not authorized, we respectfully request that the Court decline to consider it,” she wrote, alternatively requesting that the plaintiff be permitted to file a reply of her own by March 9 so that the court will have time to consider it before next week’s trial.
Habba’s conduct has already succeeded in pissing off Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has described the defense strategy as prejudicial to the plaintiff and conducted “at least in part for a dilatory purpose and is at least in part in bad faith.”
Whether the court yeets this motion into space is yet to be determined. But at the very least, Trump’s lawyers got to remind us all once again that it is indeed their client’s habit to grab women by the … genitals and brag about it on camera.
Congratulations on another round well-played!
Carroll v. Trump I [Docket via Court Listener]
Carroll v. Trump II [Docket via Court Listener]
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.