A judge has denied a motion to compel the deposition of Tyler Perry filed by an actor who accuses the filmmaker of sexual assault and battery, given that Perry has already agreed to be deposed later this year.
In a final ruling issued Monday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brock Hammond wrote that there were no grounds to grant plaintiff Mario Rodriguez’s request. “The motion lacks merit,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff acknowledged that Perry was not available for deposition in June well before serving the deposition notice.” Moreover, Perry, 57, already agreed to appear for an in-person deposition on Dec. 9, Hammond further wrote.
Hammond heard arguments on July 22 and took the issues under submission. Rodriguez appeared in “Boo! A Madea Halloween” and accuses the filmmaker and studio mogul of leveraging his power in Hollywood to make sexual advances. Rodriguez’s attorney previously filed court papers stating he has been trying to take Perry’s deposition since April 14.
Although Perry’s attorneys have ostensibly committed to a Dec. 9 deposition date, “An email from these defendants is not an order; each of their prior commitments lasted only until the next email,” according to plaintiff attorney Jonathan Delshad’s court papers.
But in their court papers, Perry’s lawyers say their client had already agreed to the Dec. 9 deposition, and when asked to confirm that date, Rodriguez instead filed a “frivolous motion.”
Rodriguez’s actions amount to a “futile attempt to pressure Mr. Perry to settle,” Tyler’s attorneys argued in their court papers. “The sequence is telling,” Perry’s lawyers stated. “Having secured an agreed time and place for Mr. Perry’s deposition, plaintiff floated his interest in a multimillion-dollar settlement, and when Mr. Perry wouldn’t take the bait, he filed a public motion to attempt to harm Mr. Perry’s reputation.”
Rodriguez knows he cannot win this case on the merits, so he “stooped to harassing Mr. Perry, including with endless discovery disputes. But Mr. Perry will not cave,” Perry’s lawyers stated.
“Perry will not be bullied by such tactics nor should the court lend its process to that strategy, especially where Rodriguez seeks to expose private details of Mr. Perry’s personal life that have no connection to the allegations at issue in this case,” Perry’s attorneys contend in their court papers.
In previous court papers, Perry’s attorneys denied Rodriguez’s lawsuit claims and contended the plaintiff suffered no damages. A case management conference is scheduled Oct. 16.
