CAA Denies Prior Knowledge of Harvey Weinstein’s Crimes in Suit From Julia Ormond

Winston Cho
·4 min read
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

When Julia Ormond sued CAA faulting the agency for encouraging her to take a meeting with Harvey Weinstein that eventually led to her being assaulted, the suit asked a pivotal question that may decide the case and lead to more legal action against the company depending on the answer: When did CAA’s top agents discover his history of sexual misconduct?

The answer to that question, the agency says, is not too long ago. Moving to dismiss the suit, CAA argues in a motion filed Tuesday that it learned of Weinstein’s crimes when the rest of the world did in 2017 and not before Ormond was allegedly assaulted in 1995.

More from The Hollywood Reporter

“Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against CAA turn on the premise that the agency allegedly knew of Weinstein’s history of sexual assault and nevertheless failed to protect her,” the filing states. “But the Complaint seeks to impute to CAA in December 1995 knowledge about Weinstein’s sexually assaultive conduct that only emerged after groundbreaking media reporting on the subject by The New York Times and other publications in 2017.”

In a suit against Weinstein filed in October, Ormond named CAA for failing to “look out for her well-being, to not place her in danger, and to warn her about Weinstein’s predations.” The actress, who rose to prominence in the ’90s after starring in Legends of the Fall, First Knight and Sabrina, accused high-level agents of knowing about his “propensity for sexually assaultive and exploitative behavior,” as well as “multiple confidential settlements that Weinstein reached to keep his conduct hidden from public exposure.” Specifically, she claimed Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane encouraged her to take a meeting with the then-movie mogul that led to her being assaulted and not to report the incident to law enforcement because “he was too important, too powerful, and made them too much money.”

CAA’s defense, outlined in a motion to dismiss, revolves around arguments that it “did not — and had no reason to — know of Weinstein’s history of sexual assault.” It contends it had no duty to warn Ormond against what it called an “unforeseeable harm.”

In support of allegations that CAA knew of Weinstein’s misconduct, Ormond pointed to the agency’s representation of Mia Kirshner, who allegedly told her agents in 1994 that he “wanted to exchange sex for career opportunity.” According to the complaint, Kirshner reported the incident to her primary agent at CAA but was told that it was “pointless to do anything about it.”

The agency argues that CAA’s knowledge of the exchange, even if true, is insufficient to establish that the agency should’ve been on notice of potential future sexual assaults by Weinstein.

“A single event not involving sexual or physical assault, occurring a year prior to the assault of Plaintiff, provides no basis for Plaintiff’s assertion that CAA knew or should have known that Weinstein would commit sexual assault in December 1995 after a business dinner,” writes Loretta Lynch, a lawyer for the agency, in the filing.

Other suits brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which suspended the statute of limitations on claims of sexual misconduct for one year, against companies accused of facilitating alleged crimes focus on facts relating to what they could’ve known before they became involved. One example: Plaintiffs suing Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase Bank accused the firms of aiding Jeffrey Epstein’s violations of sex trafficking laws. The judge in that case found that the suit brought a viable negligence claim, in part, because Epstein had already been convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution prior to their participation in the scheme. A court in 2023 similarly rejected a bid to dismiss a suit against Harvard Club of New York by women who’d been assaulted on its premises by director James Toback. It found that hotel owners can be liable for failing to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal conduct.

CAA argues that a duty to warn is only triggered in “very limited circumstances” where a defendant has a “special relationship” with the plaintiff. New York courts have recognized this duty between employers and employees, parents and children, and bartenders and their patrons, among others, but not a relationship between a talent agent and client, it says.

The agency moves to dismiss claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

A series of suits from plaintiffs taking advantage of the ASA also named companies for aiding the alleged assaults by failing to supervise their employees, including those against Sean “Diddy” Combs and ex-Grammys CEO Neil Portnow. In August, a California appeals court revived lawsuits from two men who accused Michael Jackson of abusing them as children in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. It concluded that Wade Robson and James Safechuck should be able to proceed with claims that a pair of corporations owned by the singer had a legal duty to protect them from sexual abuse that Jackson is alleged to have inflicted on them when they were children.

Best of The Hollywood Reporter