Ashley Judd isn’t having any of Harvey Weinstein’s attempts to vanquish charges of career sabotage the actress brought against the disgraced mogul.
“Harvey Weinstein’s motion to dismiss is a baseless and offensive study in misdirection that demonstrates his malicious and reckless disregard for the law and for Ms. Judd’s rights to be free from sexual harassment and retaliation,” wrote Judd’s counsel from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in a scathing court filing obtained by TheWrap.
In mid-July, Weinstein sought to have Judd’s case dismissed on the grounds that she waited too long to sue. Judd’s original complaint from April said she lost numerous lucrative acting opportunities after rebuking the mogul’s advances in the 1990s.
Among them, Judd says she lost out on a part in “Lord of the Rings” after Weinstein told director Peter Jackson that Judd was difficult to work with. Weinstein has denied doing so.
“Weinstein seeks refuge behind the statute of limitations,” said Judd’s team. “But California courts have adopted an exception to statutes of limitations — the ‘delayed discovery rule’ — precisely because a defendant like Weinstein, whose misconduct occurred in secret and was concealed for years, should not be allowed to benefit from his subterfuge.”
“When Ms. Judd’ is effectively cross-examined, the revisionist versions of her various narratives will quickly be seen for the fiction they are,” Weinstein’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman said in a statement provided to TheWrap.
The Academy Award winner has been indicted in New York on six charges including predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual act in the first degree, rape in the first degree and rape in the third degree. Weinstein’s lawyer Benjamin Brafman said the Manhattan D.A. “failed to provide the Grand Jury with exculpatory evidence of the long-term, consensual, intimate relationship between Mr. Weinstein and the alleged rape victim.”
Weinstein and his lawyer continued to point to what they consider failures on the part of the District Attorney, saying that the office did not give adequate notice that it was presenting new, far more serious charges to a Grand Jury.