The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 108, 20 March 2024 · source · PDF · 13 pages
Docket text. OPINION AND ORDER as to Michael Cohen on 88 LETTER MOTION re Early Termination of Supervised Release: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Cohens latest motion for early termination of his supervised release and declines to impose sanctions for the citation in that motion to nonexistent cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 88. -- SEE ORDER. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/20/2024) (ab) (Entered: 03/20/2024)
80, 83, 87. In this Opinion, the Court turns to a fourth motion for early termination of Cohen’s supervised release and the question of whether sanctions are warranted for that motion’s citation to three cases that do not exist. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all record citations are to 18-CR-602 (JMF).
May 10, 2022)). There was only one problem: The cases do not exist. Although the Government failed to point that fact out in its opposition to Cohen’s motion, see ECF No.
95 (“Def.’s Reply”), at 3 n.6. On December 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Schwartz to show cause in writing “why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) the inherent power of the Court for citing non-existent cases to the Court.” ECF No. 96, at 2.
96, at 2. The Court directed that Schwartz provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Id.
Perry’s reputation” as “a renowned and skilled trial lawyer,” Schwartz “did not independently review the cases.” Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10. He notes that he “never contemplated that the cases cited were ‘non-existent,’” id. ¶ 13, that their inclusion in his motion was an “honest” and “unfortunate mistake[],” Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3, 23, and that he “had no intention to deceive the Court,” id. ¶ 3. The first Schwartz learned of the problem was when the Court issued its 2 “Schwartz Decl.” refers to Schwartz’s declaration that is part of ECF No.
All of that is to say, the Court credits Schwartz’s testimony that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that the cases had come from Perry; that he did not independently review the cases based on that belief; that he would have researched the cases had he known that Cohen was the source; and that he did not intend to deceive the Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the record is complete and two discrete issues are thus ripe for the Court’s decision: first, whether Cohen’s supervised release term should be 6 terminated early; and second, whether sanctions should be imposed in connection with the citation to non-existent cases. The Court will address each issue in turn.
Cohen’s testimony was not, as 7 Id. at 2437. 8 To be clear, the Court does not rely in any way on the citation to non-existent cases in Cohen’s motion as a basis for denying the motion. Among other things, and as discussed below, the Court agrees that the primary fault for that problem lies with Schwartz.
Accordingly, his motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED. WHETHER SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED That leaves the question of whether sanctions should be imposed for the citation in Cohen’s motion to three non-existent cases. In its Order to Show Cause, the Court cited three potential grounds for sanctions: Rule 11(b)(2), Section 1927, and the Court’s inherent power.
Docket entry 108, 20 March 2024 · source · PDF · 13 pages
Docket text. OPINION AND ORDER as to Michael Cohen on 88 LETTER MOTION re Early Termination of Supervised Release: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Cohens latest motion for early termination of his supervised release and declines to impose sanctions for the citation in that motion to nonexistent cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 88. -- SEE ORDER. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/20/2024) (ab) (Entered: 03/20/2024)
80, 83, 87. In this Opinion, the Court turns to a fourth motion for early termination of Cohen’s supervised release and the question of whether sanctions are warranted for that motion’s citation to three cases that do not exist. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all record citations are to 18-CR-602 (JMF).
May 10, 2022)). There was only one problem: The cases do not exist. Although the Government failed to point that fact out in its opposition to Cohen’s motion, see ECF No.
95 (“Def.’s Reply”), at 3 n.6. On December 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Schwartz to show cause in writing “why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) the inherent power of the Court for citing non-existent cases to the Court.” ECF No. 96, at 2.
96, at 2. The Court directed that Schwartz provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Id.
Perry’s reputation” as “a renowned and skilled trial lawyer,” Schwartz “did not independently review the cases.” Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10. He notes that he “never contemplated that the cases cited were ‘non-existent,’” id. ¶ 13, that their inclusion in his motion was an “honest” and “unfortunate mistake[],” Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3, 23, and that he “had no intention to deceive the Court,” id. ¶ 3. The first Schwartz learned of the problem was when the Court issued its 2 “Schwartz Decl.” refers to Schwartz’s declaration that is part of ECF No.
All of that is to say, the Court credits Schwartz’s testimony that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that the cases had come from Perry; that he did not independently review the cases based on that belief; that he would have researched the cases had he known that Cohen was the source; and that he did not intend to deceive the Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the record is complete and two discrete issues are thus ripe for the Court’s decision: first, whether Cohen’s supervised release term should be 6 terminated early; and second, whether sanctions should be imposed in connection with the citation to non-existent cases. The Court will address each issue in turn.
Cohen’s testimony was not, as 7 Id. at 2437. 8 To be clear, the Court does not rely in any way on the citation to non-existent cases in Cohen’s motion as a basis for denying the motion. Among other things, and as discussed below, the Court agrees that the primary fault for that problem lies with Schwartz.
Accordingly, his motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED. WHETHER SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED That leaves the question of whether sanctions should be imposed for the citation in Cohen’s motion to three non-existent cases. In its Order to Show Cause, the Court cited three potential grounds for sanctions: Rule 11(b)(2), Section 1927, and the Court’s inherent power.
Docket entry 104, 29 December 2023 · source · PDF · 25 pages
Docket text. LETTER by Michael Cohen addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from E. Danya Perry dated 12/28/2023 re: Pursuant to the Court's December 18, 2023 Order (ECF No. 97), I write to address the substance of David Schwartz's response to the Order to Show Cause ("Mr. Schwartz's submission") and the privilege and sealing issues it raises. As the Court is aware, I represent Michael Cohen with respect to his reply letter in support of his motion for early termination of supervised release (ECF No. 95), and now also with respect to the Court's inquiry into the nonexistent cases cited in Mr. Schwartz's initial motion (ECF No. 88). (ab) (Entered: 12/29/2023)
Unfortunately, the citations that Mr. Cohen found online refer to non-existent cases, and Mr. Schwartz submitted them, unchecked.
Schwartz’s apparent mistaken assumptions, there is no actual dispute about the fact that I (and my firm) had no part in finding or sending the citations, or in Mr. Schwartz’s decision to include (and not verify) the citations of non-existent cases. Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.
Docket entry 104, 29 December 2023 · source · PDF · 25 pages
Docket text. LETTER by Michael Cohen addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from E. Danya Perry dated 12/28/2023 re: Pursuant to the Court's December 18, 2023 Order (ECF No. 97), I write to address the substance of David Schwartz's response to the Order to Show Cause ("Mr. Schwartz's submission") and the privilege and sealing issues it raises. As the Court is aware, I represent Michael Cohen with respect to his reply letter in support of his motion for early termination of supervised release (ECF No. 95), and now also with respect to the Court's inquiry into the nonexistent cases cited in Mr. Schwartz's initial motion (ECF No. 88). (ab) (Entered: 12/29/2023)
Unfortunately, the citations that Mr. Cohen found online refer to non-existent cases, and Mr. Schwartz submitted them, unchecked.
Schwartz’s apparent mistaken assumptions, there is no actual dispute about the fact that I (and my firm) had no part in finding or sending the citations, or in Mr. Schwartz’s decision to include (and not verify) the citations of non-existent cases. Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.