Preview
Filing # 177677540 E-Filed 07/18/2023 02:47:25 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN DOE NO. | and
JOHN DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiffs, CASE NO.
v DIVISION:
RELX, INC. d/b/a LEXISNEXIS USA and
PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC.,
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT
The complaint of PLAINTIFFS respectfully shows and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action for defamation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This action seeks damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
3 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 501, Part 11, Fla.
Stat. The acts or practices alleged herein occurred in the conduct of “trade or commerce” as
defined in § 501.203(8), Fla. Stat.
4 Venue is proper in this court for the following reasons:
a) The tort which is the basis of this lawsuit was committed in central Florida in
addition to all over the world. Central Florida has a population of over 8 million people, thus
making the alleged defamatory statements in this venue significant.
b) The statutory violations alleged herein occurred within Brevard County, and
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
°) JOHN DOE NO. | is a resident of Brevard County and maintains his professional
office in Brevard County.
d) Venue is further proper because DEFENDANTS have and/or continue to
regularly conduct business in Florida. RELX, INC. (“RELX”) is registered with the Division of
Corporations, Florida Secretary of State. RELX maintains offices in Boca Raton, Fort
Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and Temple Terrace. Its Orlando office is located at 1211 Lee
Road Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32810. Law360 has a section “Florida : Law360 : Legal News
& Analysis https://www.law360.com > florida Legal news and analysis on Florida litigation,
policy, deals” as well as a publication “Florida Pulse” and has reporters based in Florida.
5 DEFENDANTS are liable to personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm
statute Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (2017) because they defamed PLAINTIFFS in the State of Florida.
Several persons in the State of Florida, including members of the Florida Bar, accessed the
articles in Law360 in the State of Florida. EXHIBIT A. The material was accessed-thus-
published in Florida. DEFENDANTS have transacted business and engaged in tortious conduct,
by affirmative act or omission, in the State of Florida such that they reasonably anticipated being
subject to personal jurisdiction before the courts of this State. DEFENDANTS have also
transacted business and engaged in tortious conduct, by affirmative act or omission, outside of
the State of Florida whereby they reasonably anticipated that injury would result and has, in fact,
resulted upon persons within the State of Florida. As such, this Court has personal jurisdiction
over DEFENDANTS pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(2) and 48.193(1)(a)(6).
DEFENDANTS are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court under Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a),
48.193(1)(b), and 48.193(2) because they (i) operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on businesses
or business ventures within the State of Florida; (ii) have committed tortious acts within the State
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
of Florida as alleged herein; and/or (iii) engage in substantial and not isolated activity within the
State of Florida.
6. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed, excused,
satisfied, or waived.
PARTIES
7
Plaintiff JOHN DOE NO. | is citizen of Florida residing in Brevard County.
8 Plaintiff JOHN DOE NO. 2 is a United States citizen domiciled in the Republic of
the Philippines.
9. DEFENDANT RELX is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, New York. RELX owns PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC. (“PMI”), which
publishes “Law360”, a legal news service distributed throughout Florida.
10. DEFENDANT PMI is a New York domestic business corporation with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.
ll. The events which gave rise to this Complaint occurred in Brevard County and as
such Brevard County is the proper venue for this action.
COUNT I
DEFAMATION (SLANDER AND LIBEL)
12. PLAINTIFFS hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding
paragraphs.
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS under the Florida long-
arm statute § 48.193(1)(b).
14. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Tino Gonzalez, Esq., Dennis Fairbanks, Esq.,
Maria Morton, and others, all Florida citizens and residents, accessed the articles in the State of
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
Florida, opened them, and read them. Messrs. Gonzalez and Fairbanks are both members of the
Florida Bar. They all said the articles defamed PLAINTIFFS.
15. JOHN DOE NO. | has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing for
over 20 years. He is a professional of high repute.
16. JOHN DOE NO. 2 was JOHN DOE NO. 1’s client.
17. On April 15, 2020, JOHN DOE NO. 1 sued Toyota Motor Corporation and
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) and Akio Toyoda on behalf of JOHN
DOE NO. 2 in the Florida Eighteenth Judicial Cireuit Court. John Doe v. Toyota Motor
Corporation et al., No. 05-2020-CA-024281 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. filed on April 15, 2020).
18. On April 22, 2020, in order to preempt an employment and public health lawsuit
which they knew was coming against them in Brevard County, Toyota and its law firm, Wilmer,
Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP (“Wilmer Hale”), had their job agency, HC2, Inc.
(“HC2”), sue JOHN DOE NO. 2 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (“SDNY”) seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a
preliminary injunction (“PI”) and asserting only two claims for 1) breach of contract and 2)
faithless servant doctrine. HC2, Inc. v. Delaney, 1:20- cv-03178 (S.D.N.Y. filed on April 20,
2020) (Liman, J.).
19, On April 22, 2020, the Honorable Lewis J. Liman denied HC2’s ex parte TRO
motion.
20. On May 27, 2020, Judge Liman also denied HC2’s application for a PI.
21. In rejecting the PI, Judge Liman issued an order referring to JOHN DOE NO. 2’s
“lawyer” (JOHN DOE NO. 1) and ruled that JOHN DOE NO. 1’s April 7, 2020 employment
demand letter to Akio Toyoda, Chairman of Toyota Motor Corporation, was “a routine demand
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
letter” and “it’s not an extortion”. EXHIBIT B. The judge held that JOHN DOE NO. | was
merely exercising his and his client’s rights under the law:
[JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s lawyer [JOHN DOE NO. 1] makes the allegation that plaintiff
violated [JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s rights and then states “I hereby grant you seven days from
the date of this letter to contact me with your offer to settle this case. If you fail to
contact me by this date, I will commence legal action against you without further notice.”
The evidence is that letter was only given to the plaintiff in this case shortly before the
state court complaint was filed and not with the full seven days. Even then it is a routine
demand letter and it’s not an extortion. See U.S. v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 61, that a claim
of right is not an extortion.
(emphasis added) Judge Liman further held that the information in that case was of no value to
anyone and were not trade secrets:
Number two, there has been no showing that any information [JOHN DOE NO. 2] has is
of any commercial value to any third party or that there would be any benefit to [JOHN
DOE NO. 2] from disclosing that information. The only value the information apparently
has -- at least in [JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s mind -- is as evidence in support of his claim
against HC2.
(emphasis added) Since any information was judicially determined to have no value, it would
not have been possible to use it to “blackmail” Toyota.
22. Judge Liman read the order out loud in open court at a public hearing at which
reporters, including a reporter from Law360, attended.
23. DEFENDANTS’ Law360 has falsely and libelously written that PLAINTIFFS
have been accused of! crimes and are being sued for crimes. DEFENDANTS published that
PLAINTIFFS were accused of and were being sued for extortion, blackmail, a shakedown’, and
stealing. Its headlines refer to the case as the “Extortion Case” or “Blackmail Suit”. Their whole
purpose was to portray PLAINTIFFS - attorneys in good standing for years - as criminals and
' The dictionary states that “An accusation is a claim that someone is guilty of a crime or offense.”
2 “shakedown” is defined as “an act or instance of shaking someone down especially : extortion.”
5
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
persons being accused of and sued for crimes. However, these criminal terms or causes of action
are not contained in the SDNY complaint. The articles in question are not a “fair report”.
24, In late 2021, 2022, and 2023, DEFENDANTS published five defamatory articles
about PLAINTIFFS. Two articles refer to JOHN DOE NO. | by name and the others are linked
to news reports naming him. See, e.g., “Ex-WilmerHale Temp Says White House Atty Lied For
Toyota” (Law360, February 18, 202 1) and “Toyota Stamps Out Bid To Unseal Ex-WilmerHale
Temp’s Case” (Law 360, February 24, 202 1.
25. DEFENDANTS made a series of false and defamatory statements which were
made to third parties, including readers in Florida, since they are and were available on the
worldwide web.
26. All of the written statements include asserted statements of fact.
27. All of the statements concerned PLAINTIFFS, who are private parties.
28 The asserted statements of fact, including those set out below, are false.
29. The eight defamatory written statements contained in the five articles from
2021-2023 are organized chronologically below starting on December 20, 2021 as follows:
1. “Ex-WilmerHale Temp Moves To DQ Judge In Employment Case”
December 20, 2021
30. The first written statement at issue is: “A former WilmerHale document
reviewer said U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman should be disqualified from overseeing a
* https://www.Jaw360.com/articles/13495 17/ex-wilmerhale-temp-says-white-house-atty-lied-for-toyota
* htips://www.law360.com/articles/1358633/toyota-stamps-out-bid-to-unseal-ex-wilmerhale-temp-s-case
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
Southern District of New York suit that accuses him of extorting his former law firm because of
the judge’s alleged previous employment there.”
31. The written statement is false and defamatory because 1) Wilmer Hale was not
JOHN DOE NO. 2’s “former law firm”, 2) JOHN DOE NO. 2 was sued for breach of contract,
not extortion, which is a crime in New York, and 3) JOHN DOE NO. 2 was sued by Toyota, not
Wilmer Hale.
2. “Agency Pans Ex-Wilmer Hale Temp’s DQ Bid In Extortion Case”
January 4, 2022
32. The second written statement at issue is: “Agency Pans Ex-WilmerHale
Temp’s DQ Bid In Extortion Case.”
33. The written statement is false defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 was not an
“Ex-Wilmer Hale Temp” and was not sued for extortion.
34, The third written statement at issue is: “HC2 sued [JOHN DOE NO. 2], who’d
worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai language reviewer for WilmerHale via a staffing agency,
for allegedly trying to extort $450,000 from the company, WilmerHale and the car maker, and
for allegedly revealing Toyota’s sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after they
failed to pay up.”
35. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 was not
sued for extortion and was more specifically not accused of trying to extort Wilmer Hale.
3. “Court Rejects Recusal Bid In WilmerHale Extortion Suit”
January 6, 2022
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
36. The fourth written statement at issue is: “Court Rejects Recusal Bid in
WilmerHale Extortion Suit.”
37. The written statement is false and defamatory because it clearly implies that
Wilmer Hale sued JOHN DOE NO. 2 for extortion. For a lawyer to be sued by his supposed
“former law firm” is a serious — and false — accusation which implies breach of fiduciary duty in
addition to being unethical.
38. The fifth written statement at issue is: “A New York federal district court said
Thursday that it would not recuse itself in a suit against a former WilmerHale document reviewer
that accuses him of extorting the law firm....”
39. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. | was not
accused of extorting the said law firm.
4. “Fla. Atty Denies Attempt to Extort Toyota, Wilmer Hale”
March 6, 2023
40. The sixth written statement at issue is: “Fla. Atty Denies Attempt to Extort
Toyota, Wilmer Hale.”
41. The written statement is false and defamatory toward JOHN DOE NO. | since it
implies that Toyota and Wilmer Hale sued him for extortion. It is the opposite of the truth.
JOHN DOE NO. | was the one who sued Toyota and Wilmer Hale. JOHN DOE NO. 1 has
never done any of the acts implied by DEFENDANTS.
42. The seventh written statement at issue is: “A Florida attorney has denied trying
to extort Toyota Motor Corp. and its law firm, WilmerHale, over alleged wrongful termination of
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
his client, saying accusations of demanding $450,000 and threats to disclose confidential
information that were revealed in a state court lawsuit were false and defamatory.”
43. The written statement is false and defamatory because it falsely implies that
JOHN DOE NO. | was sued by Toyota and Wilmer Hale and that he denied their “accusations”
against him.
5. “Sullivan & Cromwell's $12.5K Deal With Bankrupt Atty Upheld”
March 24, 2023
44. The eighth written statement at issue is: “Sullivan & Cromwell's $12.5K Deal
With Bankrupt Atty Upheld.”
45. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 is not a
“Bankrupt Atty” since he has not been declared bankrupt and filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the petition.
46. The persons receiving the eight written statements, including readers in Brevard
County, Florida, understood them to be defamatory.
47. DEFENDANTS knew the statements were false and/or made these statements
with reckless disregard for their truth.
48. DEFENDANTS acted with actual malice in making each of the above-described
written statements.
49. In addition, with respect to each of the above-described written statements,
DEFENDANTS negligently failed to recognize that the statements were false. DEFENDANTS
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
failed to exercise due care to determine whether the statements were true before making each of
them.
50. DEFENDANTS’ written statements, together and individually, have caused actual
injury to PLAINTIFFS’ reputations and professions.
51 Such conduct is in direct violation of law and outside First Amendment
protection.
52 DEFENDANTS’ statements were not privileged.
53 DEFENDANTS’ false and libelous statements, when considered alone and
without innuendo, have a) negatively impacted PLAINTIFFS’ trustworthiness and character and
b) caused PLAINTIFFS to be subject to disgust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
54, No client or employer would ever hire a lawyer or individual who is accused of
and/or being sued for crimes.
55. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS seek nominal and compensatory damages from
DEFENDANTS for their defamatory statements in an amount to be proven at trial.
56. PLAINTIFFS further seek special damages
57. PLAINTIFFS further seek punitive damages.
COUNT II
LIBEL PER SE
58. PLAINTIFFS hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding
paragraphs.
59. DEFENDANTS’ statements are libel per se because a) they charge PLAINTIFFS
with morally reprehensible crimes (extortion and theft) and/or b) they tend to injure another in
his trade, business, or profession.
10
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
60. DEFENDANTS’ false statements about PLAINTIFFS were published at least
with negligence.
61. DEFENDANTS sought to gain financially and in terms of increased readership by
publishing untrue statements about PLAINTIFFS.
62. PLAINTIFFS have been damaged by these false statements because the
statements subjected PLAINTIFFS to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS demand nominal and compensatory damage, special
damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and such other and further
relief, whether at law or in equity, that this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS demand a jury trial in this action for all the claims so triable.
Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere:
Melbourne, Florida Christopher Beres, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 588261
Attorney for plaintiffs
1600 Sarno Road Ste. 1
Melbourne, Florida 32935
(321) 339-9301
christopherberes8@gmail.com
11
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was provided via the
e-filing system portal to DEANNA SHULLMAN, attorney for RELX, INC. and PORTFOLIO
MEDIA, INC., dshullman@shullmanfugate.com.
Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere:
Melbourne, Florida Christopher Beres, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 588261
Attorney for plaintiffs
1600 Sarno Road Ste. 1
Melbourne, Florida 32935
(321) 339-9301
christopherberes8@gmail.com
12
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
THEREBY CERTIFY that PLAINTIFFS have complied with the pre-suit notice
requirement of Fla. Stat. § 770.01.
Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere:
13
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
Exhibit A
Ex-WilmerHale Temp Moves To DQ Judge
in Employment Case
By Jack Rodgers - Listen to article
Law360 (December 20, 2021, 3:48 PM EST) — A former Wilmertiale document reviewer said U.S. District
Judge Lewis J. Liman should be disqualified from overseeing a Southern Districtof New York suit that
accuses him of extorting his former law firm because of the judge's alleged previous employment there.
Andrew Delaney, who worked as a Thai language document reviewer for WilmerHale through staffing
agency HC2 or Hire Counsel, said in a motion to recuse Judge Liman Monday that his alleged former
work as a WilmerHale partner was a conflict of interest.
Judge Liman's relationships with two current WilmerHale partners, Jay Holtmeier and Jamie Gorelick,
contributed to “rulings against Delaney without regard to the case law or applicable legal standards,” and
were further evidence of Judge Liman's bias, according to that motion.
“This case should never have been filed in this court in the first place and has been dragging out
unlawfully for 20 months despite there being no jurisdiction,” Delaney said in the motion. "This is due to
Judge Liman's neglect of his duty as an Article Ill officer."
Hire Counsel sued Delaney in April, saying he was threatening to expose proprietary information about
WilmerHale's review of Toyota's sensitive documents.
But Delaney said in his Monday filing that Judge Liman's bias as a former WilmerHale partner resulted in
the dismissal of his $20 million counterclairn against the agency for whistleblower retaliation and a
number of other infractions in response to his assertion that the firm was sidestepping COVID-19
protections and regulations. Judge Liman's bias had resulted in his dismissal of those claims, Delaney
said.
“Secondly, recusal is warranted due to Judge Liman's opinion that HC2’s false allegations against
Delaney ‘have to be accepted as true’ and were ‘serious,’ whereas all of his truthful claims against HC2
were ‘speculative,” Delaney said in the motion.
While Delaney had reported the firm's employees were coming to work with flu-like symptoms and failed
to take proper precautions to not spread disease, Judge Liman had ruled in dismissing those
counterclaims that Delaney shouldn't have been given additional whistleblower protection from
termination because of superficial issues with his language, the motion said,
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
"Thus, according to Judge Liman, Delaney's report was not valid because he used the words ‘flu-like
symptoms’ and not ‘acute respiratory illnesses’ and when he complained about workers coughing and
sneezing that Delaney did not state that they ‘failed to cover their noses and mouths with a tissue,"
Delaney said in the motion. "This is manipulative semantics calculated to dismiss all of Delaney's
counterclaims.”
in an email to Law360 on Monday, Delaney said the suit "is and was a fraud on the court."
“There is no subject matter jurisdiction and no diversity,” he said. "The case should have been dismissed
a year ago,”
Michael Nacchio, an Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC attorney who represents HC2, did not
respond to a request for comment Monday.
HC2 is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC.
Andrew Delaney represents himself.
The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
~-Additional reporting by Frank G. Runyeon. Editing by Gemma Horowitz.
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
U5I22, 11:10 AM Agency Pans Ex-Wilmertale Temp's DQ Bid In Extortion Case - Law360
@ Law3e0
Portfollo Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | wwwlaw360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161. { customerservice@law360.com
AGeiey ans Ex-WilmerHale Temp's DQ Bid In
Extortion Case
By Andrew Strickler
Law360 (January 4, 2022, 4:39 PM EST) -- The "latest fantasy" of a onetime WilmerHale document
reviewer seeking to remove the New York federal judge overseeing an extortion case against him
should be rejected, staffing agency HC2 told the court Monday.
Answering a recusal request from Andrew Delaney, the company urged the court to reject his claims
that U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman was biased because of his long-ago employment at
WilmerHale, saying the request was rife with “facial absurdity” and legal defects.
The company argued that Delaney lost standing in the case when he was substituted out for the
trustee of his bankruptcy estate three months ago.
Moreover, Delaney's conspiracy-heavy motion that the court's decision to toss his counterclaims more
than a year ago was the product of judicial bias ignores the "numerous pleading defects" the judge
cited in his decision.
And since the judge's former connection to WilmerHale wasn't raised over the case's nearly two-year
duration, Delaney’s request simply came too late, the company said.
Delaney‘s suggestion that Judge Liman's long-ago job at a WilmerHale predecessor firm "somehow
makes the court biased or part of a vast conspiracy theory ... is absurd, unsupported, and should be
rejected out of hand,” the filing states.
HC2-sued Delaney, who'd worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai language reviewer for WilmerHale via
a staffing agency, for allegedly trying to extort $450,000 from the company, WilmerHale and the car
maker, and for allegedly revealing Toydta's sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after
they failed to:pay up.
Delaney then sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims against the agency, including
those for fraud and whistleblower retaliation.
The court granted HC2's initial motion to dismiss Delaney's claims without prejudice in July 2020,
and later that year threw out his amended counterclaims with prejudice.
The case was later stayed after HC2 notified the court that Delaney had filed a Chapter 7 petition in
New York, In October, a bankruptcy judge approved a settlement between the trustee of Delaney's
estate and HC2 that released Delaney’s already-dismissed counterclaims.
Judge Liman then ordered the substitution of the trustee as defendant, a decision Delaney has
already indicated he will appeal.
In recent weeks, Delaney was back in court with a disqualification motion in which he argued that
Judge Liman had undisclosed conflicts of interest as a former WilmerHale partner that led to
"constant bias and rulings" against him.
Delaney, who is representing himself, did not reply to a request for comment. Michael Nacchio of
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, who represents HC2, also did nat respond to a
Filing 1672422mMessage. vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX
bitps:/Iwwrwlaw360.com/articles/1452115/print?section=employment 42
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
U5I22, 11:10 AM Agency Pans Ex-Wilmertale Temp's DQ Bid In Extortion Case - Law360
HC2 is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC,
Andrew Delaney is representing himself.
The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S, District Court for the
Southern District of New York,
--Additional reporting by Jack Rogers and Frank G. Runyeon. Editing by Adam LoBelia.
‘Content @ 2003-2022, Portfolio Media, Ine,
Filing 167242274 vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX
bitps:/Iwwrwlaw360.com/articles/1452115/print?section=employment 22
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
17122, 5:00 AM Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale Extortion Suit - Law360
@ Law3e0
Portfollo Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | wwwlaw360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161. { customerservice@law360.com
“ -
Court Rejects Recusal Bid In WilmerHale Extortion
Suit
By Matt Perez
Law360 (January 6, 2022, 4:54 PM EST) -- A New York federal district court said Thursday that it
would not recuse itself in a suit against a former WilmerHale document reviewer that accuses him of
extorting the law firm, despite his argument that U.S. District Judge Lewis J, Liman should be
disqualified because of his previous. employment there.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Andrew Delaney, who
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last fall, had no standing to invoke the recusal statute given that he
was replaced as defendant in the bankruptcy case by the trustee in November.
Delaney was sued by H2C, the staffing agency that had hired him to review documents for
WilmerHale; in April 2020. Delaney, who'd worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai- language reviewer
for WilmerHale, was accused of trying to extort $450,000 from the agency, WilmerHaie and the
carmaker, and of revealing Toyota's sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after. they
failed to pay up.
Delaney later sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims including fraud and whistleblower
retaliation, but the court eventually dismissed his amended counterclaims with prejudice. Some time
after Delaney sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the trustee, Gregory Messer, reached a settlement with
H2C, known as Hire Counsel, that dismissed all of Delaney's counterclaims.
“With the substitution of the Chapter 7 trustee, Delaney was terminated as a party to this action,"
the court wrote Thursday.
The court also denied what it called his "meritless" arguments explaining why the court's judges,
specifically Judge Liman, should recuse themselves from the suit following the denial of several of
Delaney's counterclaims.
The court found that an "objective, informed observer" could not question the court's impartiality due
to Judge Liman's former employment at Wilmer Cutler & Pickering (now WilmerHale) nearly 20 years
ago, given that the facts of the dispute emerged over a decade after that affiliation ended.
Further, the court denied Delaney's accusation that the court has an ongoing professional or personal
relationship with WilmerHale partners Jay Holtmeier and Jamie Gorelick.
"Delaney points out that the court and Jay Holtmeier were both listed on the government's brief in
United States v, Bayless, which was decided in 2000," Judge Liman wrote in the order. "That, in my
prior capacity as an assistant United States attorney over two decades ago, I worked with Mr.
Holtmeler on behalf of our common client — the United States government — is too remote to this
case to raise the appearance of impropriety.”
Finally, the court ruled that the recusal motion filed last month was untimely given that it came
over a year and half after the start of the case and because Judge Liman's affiliation with the
predecessor of WilmerHale had been public knowledge for two decades,
Delaney later sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims including fraud and whistleblower
retaliation, but the court granted HC2's initial motion to dismiss the claims without prejudice in July
Filing 1672422%20 and later dismisses his amended counterclaims with prejudice. 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX
https:/wwwlaw360.com/articles/1453142/print?section=commercialcontracts 42
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
17122, 5:00 AM Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale Extortion Suit - Law360
The court on Thursday ordered HC2 and the defendant to file a joint letter by Feb. 18 stating the
status of the bankruptcy matter, the automatic stay issued in relation to it and whether the stay
should remain in place or not,
Delaney and Michael Nacchio of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, who represents HC2,
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
nee is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
Andrew Delaney is representing himself.
The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
-Additional reporting by Andrew Strickler. Editing by Karin Roberts.
‘NI Content @ 2003-2022, Portfolio Media, Ine.
Filing 167242274 vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX
https:/wwwlaw360.com/articles/1453142/print?section=commercialcontracts 22
Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX
3/7/23, 12:43 PM Fla. Atty Denies Attempt To Extort Toyota, WilmerHale - Law360
q ‘ LAW360°
: Portfolio. Medi, tn 1.1111 646West783 19th7100Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
| Fax: +1 646 763 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
Fla. Atty Denies Attempt To Extort Toyota,
WilmerHale
By David Minsky
Law360 (March 6, 2023, 4:44 PM EST) -- A Florida attorney has denied trying to extort Toyota
Motor Corp. and its law firm, WilmerHale, over alleged wrongful termination of his client, saying
accusations of demanding $450,000 and threats to disclose confidential information that were
revealed in a state court lawsuit are defamatory.
In a suit filed Friday in Palm Beach County, attorney Christopher Beres alleged defamation
against Toyota and several other parties, saying he never tried to extort the companies and that
they lied about the contents of a letter sent to Toyota's chief executive officer and board of
directors in filings related to a separate lawsuit.
"None of the above contents was ever true," Beres said in his suit. "Plaintiff never demanded
$450,000 from Toyota. It isn't in plaintiff's letter. He never threatened 'disclosure of [Toyota]'s
privileged and confidential information.' ... The defamatory content about plaintiff spread like a
disease including on social media and in other publications."
In his complaint, Beres said the defendants defamed him over a period of a year through a series
of statements published in court documents and news articles regarding his client, who was a
contract attorney involved in a project reviewing confidential documents for Toyota. Beres alleged
the client was terminated from the project in 2020 over COVID-19 safety concerns during the
pandemic.
While Beres' client is listed as a John Doe in the suit, web links to online articles identify the client
as Andrew Delaney, who previously worked for staffing company HC2 Inc., also known as Hire
Counsel. Delaney was hired as a Thai-language reviewer for WilmerHale on the Toyota project.
HC2 accused Delaney of breach of contract in a 2020 suit filed in New York federal court,
seeking to prevent him from disclosing confidential information, including attorney-client
information, obtained over the course of reviewing Toyota's documents.
In HC2's suit, the company said the project was suspended due to the increasing COVID-19
infections. HC2 said Delaney was disgruntled because he wanted to continue with the project, but
instead manufactured a complaint that he was terminated from the project for raising pandemic-
related concerns.
According to the staffing company, Delaney hired Beres to send a letter to Toyota demanding to
be paid $450,000 or they would initiate legal action and disclose confidential information. The
company didn't capitulate, according to HC2, and a state court complaint followed days later. A
suit was initiated by a John Doe in April 2020 against Toyota in Brevard County, Florida, and its
complaint remains sealed, records show.
In a footnote in his complaint, Beres said a federal judge in HC2's suit against Delany ruled the
letter sent to Toyota was simply a "routine demand letter" and "not an extortion,"
In addition, Beres accused the defendants of defaming his client in bankruptcy proceedings,
saying they lied to his client's Chapter 7 trustee that his client "is appealing a judgment entered
against him for extorting his prior employer."
"Plaintiff has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing for over 20 years,"
Preview
Filing # 177677540 E-Filed 07/18/2023 02:47:25 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA JOHN DOE NO. | and JOHN DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. v DIVISION: RELX, INC. d/b/a LEXISNEXIS USA and PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC., Defendants. / COMPLAINT The complaint of PLAINTIFFS respectfully shows and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action for defamation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action seeks damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 3 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 501, Part 11, Fla. Stat. The acts or practices alleged herein occurred in the conduct of “trade or commerce” as defined in § 501.203(8), Fla. Stat. 4 Venue is proper in this court for the following reasons: a) The tort which is the basis of this lawsuit was committed in central Florida in addition to all over the world. Central Florida has a population of over 8 million people, thus making the alleged defamatory statements in this venue significant. b) The statutory violations alleged herein occurred within Brevard County, and Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX °) JOHN DOE NO. | is a resident of Brevard County and maintains his professional office in Brevard County. d) Venue is further proper because DEFENDANTS have and/or continue to regularly conduct business in Florida. RELX, INC. (“RELX”) is registered with the Division of Corporations, Florida Secretary of State. RELX maintains offices in Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and Temple Terrace. Its Orlando office is located at 1211 Lee Road Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32810. Law360 has a section “Florida : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis https://www.law360.com > florida Legal news and analysis on Florida litigation, policy, deals” as well as a publication “Florida Pulse” and has reporters based in Florida. 5 DEFENDANTS are liable to personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (2017) because they defamed PLAINTIFFS in the State of Florida. Several persons in the State of Florida, including members of the Florida Bar, accessed the articles in Law360 in the State of Florida. EXHIBIT A. The material was accessed-thus- published in Florida. DEFENDANTS have transacted business and engaged in tortious conduct, by affirmative act or omission, in the State of Florida such that they reasonably anticipated being subject to personal jurisdiction before the courts of this State. DEFENDANTS have also transacted business and engaged in tortious conduct, by affirmative act or omission, outside of the State of Florida whereby they reasonably anticipated that injury would result and has, in fact, resulted upon persons within the State of Florida. As such, this Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(2) and 48.193(1)(a)(6). DEFENDANTS are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court under Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a), 48.193(1)(b), and 48.193(2) because they (i) operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on businesses or business ventures within the State of Florida; (ii) have committed tortious acts within the State Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX of Florida as alleged herein; and/or (iii) engage in substantial and not isolated activity within the State of Florida. 6. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed, excused, satisfied, or waived. PARTIES 7 Plaintiff JOHN DOE NO. | is citizen of Florida residing in Brevard County. 8 Plaintiff JOHN DOE NO. 2 is a United States citizen domiciled in the Republic of the Philippines. 9. DEFENDANT RELX is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. RELX owns PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC. (“PMI”), which publishes “Law360”, a legal news service distributed throughout Florida. 10. DEFENDANT PMI is a New York domestic business corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. ll. The events which gave rise to this Complaint occurred in Brevard County and as such Brevard County is the proper venue for this action. COUNT I DEFAMATION (SLANDER AND LIBEL) 12. PLAINTIFFS hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. 13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS under the Florida long- arm statute § 48.193(1)(b). 14. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Tino Gonzalez, Esq., Dennis Fairbanks, Esq., Maria Morton, and others, all Florida citizens and residents, accessed the articles in the State of Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX Florida, opened them, and read them. Messrs. Gonzalez and Fairbanks are both members of the Florida Bar. They all said the articles defamed PLAINTIFFS. 15. JOHN DOE NO. | has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing for over 20 years. He is a professional of high repute. 16. JOHN DOE NO. 2 was JOHN DOE NO. 1’s client. 17. On April 15, 2020, JOHN DOE NO. 1 sued Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) and Akio Toyoda on behalf of JOHN DOE NO. 2 in the Florida Eighteenth Judicial Cireuit Court. John Doe v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., No. 05-2020-CA-024281 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. filed on April 15, 2020). 18. On April 22, 2020, in order to preempt an employment and public health lawsuit which they knew was coming against them in Brevard County, Toyota and its law firm, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP (“Wilmer Hale”), had their job agency, HC2, Inc. (“HC2”), sue JOHN DOE NO. 2 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction (“PI”) and asserting only two claims for 1) breach of contract and 2) faithless servant doctrine. HC2, Inc. v. Delaney, 1:20- cv-03178 (S.D.N.Y. filed on April 20, 2020) (Liman, J.). 19, On April 22, 2020, the Honorable Lewis J. Liman denied HC2’s ex parte TRO motion. 20. On May 27, 2020, Judge Liman also denied HC2’s application for a PI. 21. In rejecting the PI, Judge Liman issued an order referring to JOHN DOE NO. 2’s “lawyer” (JOHN DOE NO. 1) and ruled that JOHN DOE NO. 1’s April 7, 2020 employment demand letter to Akio Toyoda, Chairman of Toyota Motor Corporation, was “a routine demand Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX letter” and “it’s not an extortion”. EXHIBIT B. The judge held that JOHN DOE NO. | was merely exercising his and his client’s rights under the law: [JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s lawyer [JOHN DOE NO. 1] makes the allegation that plaintiff violated [JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s rights and then states “I hereby grant you seven days from the date of this letter to contact me with your offer to settle this case. If you fail to contact me by this date, I will commence legal action against you without further notice.” The evidence is that letter was only given to the plaintiff in this case shortly before the state court complaint was filed and not with the full seven days. Even then it is a routine demand letter and it’s not an extortion. See U.S. v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 61, that a claim of right is not an extortion. (emphasis added) Judge Liman further held that the information in that case was of no value to anyone and were not trade secrets: Number two, there has been no showing that any information [JOHN DOE NO. 2] has is of any commercial value to any third party or that there would be any benefit to [JOHN DOE NO. 2] from disclosing that information. The only value the information apparently has -- at least in [JOHN DOE NO. 2]’s mind -- is as evidence in support of his claim against HC2. (emphasis added) Since any information was judicially determined to have no value, it would not have been possible to use it to “blackmail” Toyota. 22. Judge Liman read the order out loud in open court at a public hearing at which reporters, including a reporter from Law360, attended. 23. DEFENDANTS’ Law360 has falsely and libelously written that PLAINTIFFS have been accused of! crimes and are being sued for crimes. DEFENDANTS published that PLAINTIFFS were accused of and were being sued for extortion, blackmail, a shakedown’, and stealing. Its headlines refer to the case as the “Extortion Case” or “Blackmail Suit”. Their whole purpose was to portray PLAINTIFFS - attorneys in good standing for years - as criminals and ' The dictionary states that “An accusation is a claim that someone is guilty of a crime or offense.” 2 “shakedown” is defined as “an act or instance of shaking someone down especially : extortion.” 5 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX persons being accused of and sued for crimes. However, these criminal terms or causes of action are not contained in the SDNY complaint. The articles in question are not a “fair report”. 24, In late 2021, 2022, and 2023, DEFENDANTS published five defamatory articles about PLAINTIFFS. Two articles refer to JOHN DOE NO. | by name and the others are linked to news reports naming him. See, e.g., “Ex-WilmerHale Temp Says White House Atty Lied For Toyota” (Law360, February 18, 202 1) and “Toyota Stamps Out Bid To Unseal Ex-WilmerHale Temp’s Case” (Law 360, February 24, 202 1. 25. DEFENDANTS made a series of false and defamatory statements which were made to third parties, including readers in Florida, since they are and were available on the worldwide web. 26. All of the written statements include asserted statements of fact. 27. All of the statements concerned PLAINTIFFS, who are private parties. 28 The asserted statements of fact, including those set out below, are false. 29. The eight defamatory written statements contained in the five articles from 2021-2023 are organized chronologically below starting on December 20, 2021 as follows: 1. “Ex-WilmerHale Temp Moves To DQ Judge In Employment Case” December 20, 2021 30. The first written statement at issue is: “A former WilmerHale document reviewer said U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman should be disqualified from overseeing a * https://www.Jaw360.com/articles/13495 17/ex-wilmerhale-temp-says-white-house-atty-lied-for-toyota * htips://www.law360.com/articles/1358633/toyota-stamps-out-bid-to-unseal-ex-wilmerhale-temp-s-case Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX Southern District of New York suit that accuses him of extorting his former law firm because of the judge’s alleged previous employment there.” 31. The written statement is false and defamatory because 1) Wilmer Hale was not JOHN DOE NO. 2’s “former law firm”, 2) JOHN DOE NO. 2 was sued for breach of contract, not extortion, which is a crime in New York, and 3) JOHN DOE NO. 2 was sued by Toyota, not Wilmer Hale. 2. “Agency Pans Ex-Wilmer Hale Temp’s DQ Bid In Extortion Case” January 4, 2022 32. The second written statement at issue is: “Agency Pans Ex-WilmerHale Temp’s DQ Bid In Extortion Case.” 33. The written statement is false defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 was not an “Ex-Wilmer Hale Temp” and was not sued for extortion. 34, The third written statement at issue is: “HC2 sued [JOHN DOE NO. 2], who’d worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai language reviewer for WilmerHale via a staffing agency, for allegedly trying to extort $450,000 from the company, WilmerHale and the car maker, and for allegedly revealing Toyota’s sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after they failed to pay up.” 35. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 was not sued for extortion and was more specifically not accused of trying to extort Wilmer Hale. 3. “Court Rejects Recusal Bid In WilmerHale Extortion Suit” January 6, 2022 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX 36. The fourth written statement at issue is: “Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale Extortion Suit.” 37. The written statement is false and defamatory because it clearly implies that Wilmer Hale sued JOHN DOE NO. 2 for extortion. For a lawyer to be sued by his supposed “former law firm” is a serious — and false — accusation which implies breach of fiduciary duty in addition to being unethical. 38. The fifth written statement at issue is: “A New York federal district court said Thursday that it would not recuse itself in a suit against a former WilmerHale document reviewer that accuses him of extorting the law firm....” 39. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. | was not accused of extorting the said law firm. 4. “Fla. Atty Denies Attempt to Extort Toyota, Wilmer Hale” March 6, 2023 40. The sixth written statement at issue is: “Fla. Atty Denies Attempt to Extort Toyota, Wilmer Hale.” 41. The written statement is false and defamatory toward JOHN DOE NO. | since it implies that Toyota and Wilmer Hale sued him for extortion. It is the opposite of the truth. JOHN DOE NO. | was the one who sued Toyota and Wilmer Hale. JOHN DOE NO. 1 has never done any of the acts implied by DEFENDANTS. 42. The seventh written statement at issue is: “A Florida attorney has denied trying to extort Toyota Motor Corp. and its law firm, WilmerHale, over alleged wrongful termination of Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX his client, saying accusations of demanding $450,000 and threats to disclose confidential information that were revealed in a state court lawsuit were false and defamatory.” 43. The written statement is false and defamatory because it falsely implies that JOHN DOE NO. | was sued by Toyota and Wilmer Hale and that he denied their “accusations” against him. 5. “Sullivan & Cromwell's $12.5K Deal With Bankrupt Atty Upheld” March 24, 2023 44. The eighth written statement at issue is: “Sullivan & Cromwell's $12.5K Deal With Bankrupt Atty Upheld.” 45. The written statement is false and defamatory because JOHN DOE NO. 2 is not a “Bankrupt Atty” since he has not been declared bankrupt and filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition. 46. The persons receiving the eight written statements, including readers in Brevard County, Florida, understood them to be defamatory. 47. DEFENDANTS knew the statements were false and/or made these statements with reckless disregard for their truth. 48. DEFENDANTS acted with actual malice in making each of the above-described written statements. 49. In addition, with respect to each of the above-described written statements, DEFENDANTS negligently failed to recognize that the statements were false. DEFENDANTS Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX failed to exercise due care to determine whether the statements were true before making each of them. 50. DEFENDANTS’ written statements, together and individually, have caused actual injury to PLAINTIFFS’ reputations and professions. 51 Such conduct is in direct violation of law and outside First Amendment protection. 52 DEFENDANTS’ statements were not privileged. 53 DEFENDANTS’ false and libelous statements, when considered alone and without innuendo, have a) negatively impacted PLAINTIFFS’ trustworthiness and character and b) caused PLAINTIFFS to be subject to disgust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace. 54, No client or employer would ever hire a lawyer or individual who is accused of and/or being sued for crimes. 55. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS seek nominal and compensatory damages from DEFENDANTS for their defamatory statements in an amount to be proven at trial. 56. PLAINTIFFS further seek special damages 57. PLAINTIFFS further seek punitive damages. COUNT II LIBEL PER SE 58. PLAINTIFFS hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. 59. DEFENDANTS’ statements are libel per se because a) they charge PLAINTIFFS with morally reprehensible crimes (extortion and theft) and/or b) they tend to injure another in his trade, business, or profession. 10 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX 60. DEFENDANTS’ false statements about PLAINTIFFS were published at least with negligence. 61. DEFENDANTS sought to gain financially and in terms of increased readership by publishing untrue statements about PLAINTIFFS. 62. PLAINTIFFS have been damaged by these false statements because the statements subjected PLAINTIFFS to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS demand nominal and compensatory damage, special damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and such other and further relief, whether at law or in equity, that this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFFS demand a jury trial in this action for all the claims so triable. Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere: Melbourne, Florida Christopher Beres, Esq. Florida Bar No. 588261 Attorney for plaintiffs 1600 Sarno Road Ste. 1 Melbourne, Florida 32935 (321) 339-9301 christopherberes8@gmail.com 11 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was provided via the e-filing system portal to DEANNA SHULLMAN, attorney for RELX, INC. and PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC., dshullman@shullmanfugate.com. Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere: Melbourne, Florida Christopher Beres, Esq. Florida Bar No. 588261 Attorney for plaintiffs 1600 Sarno Road Ste. 1 Melbourne, Florida 32935 (321) 339-9301 christopherberes8@gmail.com 12 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE THEREBY CERTIFY that PLAINTIFFS have complied with the pre-suit notice requirement of Fla. Stat. § 770.01. Dated: July 18, 2023 /s/Christopher Bere: 13 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX Exhibit A Ex-WilmerHale Temp Moves To DQ Judge in Employment Case By Jack Rodgers - Listen to article Law360 (December 20, 2021, 3:48 PM EST) — A former Wilmertiale document reviewer said U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman should be disqualified from overseeing a Southern Districtof New York suit that accuses him of extorting his former law firm because of the judge's alleged previous employment there. Andrew Delaney, who worked as a Thai language document reviewer for WilmerHale through staffing agency HC2 or Hire Counsel, said in a motion to recuse Judge Liman Monday that his alleged former work as a WilmerHale partner was a conflict of interest. Judge Liman's relationships with two current WilmerHale partners, Jay Holtmeier and Jamie Gorelick, contributed to “rulings against Delaney without regard to the case law or applicable legal standards,” and were further evidence of Judge Liman's bias, according to that motion. “This case should never have been filed in this court in the first place and has been dragging out unlawfully for 20 months despite there being no jurisdiction,” Delaney said in the motion. "This is due to Judge Liman's neglect of his duty as an Article Ill officer." Hire Counsel sued Delaney in April, saying he was threatening to expose proprietary information about WilmerHale's review of Toyota's sensitive documents. But Delaney said in his Monday filing that Judge Liman's bias as a former WilmerHale partner resulted in the dismissal of his $20 million counterclairn against the agency for whistleblower retaliation and a number of other infractions in response to his assertion that the firm was sidestepping COVID-19 protections and regulations. Judge Liman's bias had resulted in his dismissal of those claims, Delaney said. “Secondly, recusal is warranted due to Judge Liman's opinion that HC2’s false allegations against Delaney ‘have to be accepted as true’ and were ‘serious,’ whereas all of his truthful claims against HC2 were ‘speculative,” Delaney said in the motion. While Delaney had reported the firm's employees were coming to work with flu-like symptoms and failed to take proper precautions to not spread disease, Judge Liman had ruled in dismissing those counterclaims that Delaney shouldn't have been given additional whistleblower protection from termination because of superficial issues with his language, the motion said, Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX "Thus, according to Judge Liman, Delaney's report was not valid because he used the words ‘flu-like symptoms’ and not ‘acute respiratory illnesses’ and when he complained about workers coughing and sneezing that Delaney did not state that they ‘failed to cover their noses and mouths with a tissue," Delaney said in the motion. "This is manipulative semantics calculated to dismiss all of Delaney's counterclaims.” in an email to Law360 on Monday, Delaney said the suit "is and was a fraud on the court." “There is no subject matter jurisdiction and no diversity,” he said. "The case should have been dismissed a year ago,” Michael Nacchio, an Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC attorney who represents HC2, did not respond to a request for comment Monday. HC2 is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC. Andrew Delaney represents himself. The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ~-Additional reporting by Frank G. Runyeon. Editing by Gemma Horowitz. Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX U5I22, 11:10 AM Agency Pans Ex-Wilmertale Temp's DQ Bid In Extortion Case - Law360 @ Law3e0 Portfollo Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | wwwlaw360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161. { customerservice@law360.com AGeiey ans Ex-WilmerHale Temp's DQ Bid In Extortion Case By Andrew Strickler Law360 (January 4, 2022, 4:39 PM EST) -- The "latest fantasy" of a onetime WilmerHale document reviewer seeking to remove the New York federal judge overseeing an extortion case against him should be rejected, staffing agency HC2 told the court Monday. Answering a recusal request from Andrew Delaney, the company urged the court to reject his claims that U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman was biased because of his long-ago employment at WilmerHale, saying the request was rife with “facial absurdity” and legal defects. The company argued that Delaney lost standing in the case when he was substituted out for the trustee of his bankruptcy estate three months ago. Moreover, Delaney's conspiracy-heavy motion that the court's decision to toss his counterclaims more than a year ago was the product of judicial bias ignores the "numerous pleading defects" the judge cited in his decision. And since the judge's former connection to WilmerHale wasn't raised over the case's nearly two-year duration, Delaney’s request simply came too late, the company said. Delaney‘s suggestion that Judge Liman's long-ago job at a WilmerHale predecessor firm "somehow makes the court biased or part of a vast conspiracy theory ... is absurd, unsupported, and should be rejected out of hand,” the filing states. HC2-sued Delaney, who'd worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai language reviewer for WilmerHale via a staffing agency, for allegedly trying to extort $450,000 from the company, WilmerHale and the car maker, and for allegedly revealing Toydta's sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after they failed to:pay up. Delaney then sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims against the agency, including those for fraud and whistleblower retaliation. The court granted HC2's initial motion to dismiss Delaney's claims without prejudice in July 2020, and later that year threw out his amended counterclaims with prejudice. The case was later stayed after HC2 notified the court that Delaney had filed a Chapter 7 petition in New York, In October, a bankruptcy judge approved a settlement between the trustee of Delaney's estate and HC2 that released Delaney’s already-dismissed counterclaims. Judge Liman then ordered the substitution of the trustee as defendant, a decision Delaney has already indicated he will appeal. In recent weeks, Delaney was back in court with a disqualification motion in which he argued that Judge Liman had undisclosed conflicts of interest as a former WilmerHale partner that led to "constant bias and rulings" against him. Delaney, who is representing himself, did not reply to a request for comment. Michael Nacchio of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, who represents HC2, also did nat respond to a Filing 1672422mMessage. vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX bitps:/Iwwrwlaw360.com/articles/1452115/print?section=employment 42 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX U5I22, 11:10 AM Agency Pans Ex-Wilmertale Temp's DQ Bid In Extortion Case - Law360 HC2 is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Andrew Delaney is representing himself. The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S, District Court for the Southern District of New York, --Additional reporting by Jack Rogers and Frank G. Runyeon. Editing by Adam LoBelia. ‘Content @ 2003-2022, Portfolio Media, Ine, Filing 167242274 vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX bitps:/Iwwrwlaw360.com/articles/1452115/print?section=employment 22 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX 17122, 5:00 AM Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale Extortion Suit - Law360 @ Law3e0 Portfollo Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | wwwlaw360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161. { customerservice@law360.com “ - Court Rejects Recusal Bid In WilmerHale Extortion Suit By Matt Perez Law360 (January 6, 2022, 4:54 PM EST) -- A New York federal district court said Thursday that it would not recuse itself in a suit against a former WilmerHale document reviewer that accuses him of extorting the law firm, despite his argument that U.S. District Judge Lewis J, Liman should be disqualified because of his previous. employment there. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Andrew Delaney, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last fall, had no standing to invoke the recusal statute given that he was replaced as defendant in the bankruptcy case by the trustee in November. Delaney was sued by H2C, the staffing agency that had hired him to review documents for WilmerHale; in April 2020. Delaney, who'd worked on a Toyota matter as a Thai- language reviewer for WilmerHale, was accused of trying to extort $450,000 from the agency, WilmerHaie and the carmaker, and of revealing Toyota's sensitive company information in a Florida lawsuit after. they failed to pay up. Delaney later sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims including fraud and whistleblower retaliation, but the court eventually dismissed his amended counterclaims with prejudice. Some time after Delaney sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the trustee, Gregory Messer, reached a settlement with H2C, known as Hire Counsel, that dismissed all of Delaney's counterclaims. “With the substitution of the Chapter 7 trustee, Delaney was terminated as a party to this action," the court wrote Thursday. The court also denied what it called his "meritless" arguments explaining why the court's judges, specifically Judge Liman, should recuse themselves from the suit following the denial of several of Delaney's counterclaims. The court found that an "objective, informed observer" could not question the court's impartiality due to Judge Liman's former employment at Wilmer Cutler & Pickering (now WilmerHale) nearly 20 years ago, given that the facts of the dispute emerged over a decade after that affiliation ended. Further, the court denied Delaney's accusation that the court has an ongoing professional or personal relationship with WilmerHale partners Jay Holtmeier and Jamie Gorelick. "Delaney points out that the court and Jay Holtmeier were both listed on the government's brief in United States v, Bayless, which was decided in 2000," Judge Liman wrote in the order. "That, in my prior capacity as an assistant United States attorney over two decades ago, I worked with Mr. Holtmeler on behalf of our common client — the United States government — is too remote to this case to raise the appearance of impropriety.” Finally, the court ruled that the recusal motion filed last month was untimely given that it came over a year and half after the start of the case and because Judge Liman's affiliation with the predecessor of WilmerHale had been public knowledge for two decades, Delaney later sought $20 million in damages on nine counterclaims including fraud and whistleblower retaliation, but the court granted HC2's initial motion to dismiss the claims without prejudice in July Filing 1672422%20 and later dismisses his amended counterclaims with prejudice. 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX https:/wwwlaw360.com/articles/1453142/print?section=commercialcontracts 42 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX 17122, 5:00 AM Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale Extortion Suit - Law360 The court on Thursday ordered HC2 and the defendant to file a joint letter by Feb. 18 stating the status of the bankruptcy matter, the automatic stay issued in relation to it and whether the stay should remain in place or not, Delaney and Michael Nacchio of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, who represents HC2, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. nee is represented by Michael Nacchio and Valerie Weiss of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart Andrew Delaney is representing himself. The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:30-cv-03178, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. -Additional reporting by Andrew Strickler. Editing by Karin Roberts. ‘NI Content @ 2003-2022, Portfolio Media, Ine. Filing 167242274 vs 05-2023-CA-016793-XXXX-XX https:/wwwlaw360.com/articles/1453142/print?section=commercialcontracts 22 Filing 177677540 VS 05-2023-CA-039786-XXXX-XX 3/7/23, 12:43 PM Fla. Atty Denies Attempt To Extort Toyota, WilmerHale - Law360 q ‘ LAW360° : Portfolio. Medi, tn 1.1111 646West783 19th7100Street, Sth floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com | Fax: +1 646 763 7161 | customerservice@law360.com Fla. Atty Denies Attempt To Extort Toyota, WilmerHale By David Minsky Law360 (March 6, 2023, 4:44 PM EST) -- A Florida attorney has denied trying to extort Toyota Motor Corp. and its law firm, WilmerHale, over alleged wrongful termination of his client, saying accusations of demanding $450,000 and threats to disclose confidential information that were revealed in a state court lawsuit are defamatory. In a suit filed Friday in Palm Beach County, attorney Christopher Beres alleged defamation against Toyota and several other parties, saying he never tried to extort the companies and that they lied about the contents of a letter sent to Toyota's chief executive officer and board of directors in filings related to a separate lawsuit. "None of the above contents was ever true," Beres said in his suit. "Plaintiff never demanded $450,000 from Toyota. It isn't in plaintiff's letter. He never threatened 'disclosure of [Toyota]'s privileged and confidential information.' ... The defamatory content about plaintiff spread like a disease including on social media and in other publications." In his complaint, Beres said the defendants defamed him over a period of a year through a series of statements published in court documents and news articles regarding his client, who was a contract attorney involved in a project reviewing confidential documents for Toyota. Beres alleged the client was terminated from the project in 2020 over COVID-19 safety concerns during the pandemic. While Beres' client is listed as a John Doe in the suit, web links to online articles identify the client as Andrew Delaney, who previously worked for staffing company HC2 Inc., also known as Hire Counsel. Delaney was hired as a Thai-language reviewer for WilmerHale on the Toyota project. HC2 accused Delaney of breach of contract in a 2020 suit filed in New York federal court, seeking to prevent him from disclosing confidential information, including attorney-client information, obtained over the course of reviewing Toyota's documents. In HC2's suit, the company said the project was suspended due to the increasing COVID-19 infections. HC2 said Delaney was disgruntled because he wanted to continue with the project, but instead manufactured a complaint that he was terminated from the project for raising pandemic- related concerns. According to the staffing company, Delaney hired Beres to send a letter to Toyota demanding to be paid $450,000 or they would initiate legal action and disclose confidential information. The company didn't capitulate, according to HC2, and a state court complaint followed days later. A suit was initiated by a John Doe in April 2020 against Toyota in Brevard County, Florida, and its complaint remains sealed, records show. In a footnote in his complaint, Beres said a federal judge in HC2's suit against Delany ruled the letter sent to Toyota was simply a "routine demand letter" and "not an extortion," In addition, Beres accused the defendants of defaming his client in bankruptcy proceedings, saying they lied to his client's Chapter 7 trustee that his client "is appealing a judgment entered against him for extorting his prior employer." "Plaintiff has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing for over 20 years,"