Weinstein Company Holdings – Files Objection to Harvey Weinstein Motion to Compel Discovery

September 20, 2018 – The Weinstein Company Holdings filed an objection to Harvey Weinstein’s motion to compel discovery [Docket No. 1430]. The objection [Docket No. 1516] asserts, “The Motion should be denied because there is no good cause for the requested discovery. First, the requested discovery has nothing to do with Weinstein’s defense of the civil or criminal cases pending against him. All of the emails Weinstein has requested between himself and alleged victims have been produced, and are continuing to be produced, in accordance with the 2004 Order. Second, any discovery related to a proof of claim Weinstein may one day file should be denied as premature. A proof of claim is prima facie valid as a matter of law until an objection is filed. Accordingly, if and when Weinstein files a proof of claim, and that proof of claim is objected to—which may or may not happen—Weinstein can seek discovery as to those matters that are actually in dispute in connection with his claim. There is no basis for Weinstein to seek broad discovery pre-emptively, at the expense of all creditors, when a bar date has not yet been set, no proof of claim has been filed, and no objections have been lodged. Moreover, even if such discovery requests were not premature, other than generic statements that the documents he seeks are ‘essential to his ability to investigate and analyze’ his claims, Weinstein does not draw any actual connection between the discovery he seeks and any proof of claim he may one day file. Third, Weinstein does not need any discovery to ‘ensure that his property has not been improperly transferred to Lantern’. Weinstein’s film rights are specified in Schedule I to his employment agreement, which is attached to Weinstein’s motion. The film rights that were transferred in the sale to Lantern are set forth in the publicly-filed Asset Purchase Agreement between the Debtors and Lantern—and necessarily only consist of those assets that were owned by the Debtors, not assets owned by Weinstein personally or by other third parties—and Weinstein agreed not to press his objection to that sale….Finally, the discovery sought is of the Debtors’ records predating the sale to Lantern, and Weinstein has done nothing to establish that there is any connection between that discovery and the alleged transfer of his rights….Engaging in the broad discovery that Weinstein seeks will distract the Debtors from those critical tasks and impose substantial unnecessary costs on the Debtors’ estates. In contrast, no harm will come to Weinstein if the Motion is denied because, if and when he files a proof of claim on some day in the future and the Debtors or another party objects, Weinstein will be entitled to seek discovery that is properly tailored to resolve that objection. The Motion should be denied.”