New York Supreme Court Judge Adam Silvera has ordered Michael Ovitz to return to the witness chair to complete his deposition in the Julia Ormond lawsuit. The ruling establishes a firm deadline of December 18, 2026, for the former Creative Artists Agency (CAA) co-founder to finish his testimony.
The court’s decision follows a June 1 session in which Ovitz walked out after only 47 minutes of a scheduled three-hour deposition. The session was abruptly terminated by Ovitz and his legal team after plaintiff attorneys began questioning him regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Silvera ruled that Ovitz “inappropriately terminated” that previous session.
While the judge mandated the continuation of the deposition, he denied a request from Ormond’s legal team to issue an arrest warrant or a contempt finding against Ovitz. Crucially, the court also refused to block future questions regarding Epstein, allowing the plaintiff’s counsel to explore potential connections between the disgraced financier and the “culture” of high-level Hollywood misconduct relevant to the case.
Ormond filed the lawsuit in 2023 under the New York Adult Survivors Act, alleging that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 1995. The complaint further alleges that CAA, which represented Ormond at the time, failed to protect her and discouraged her from speaking out. During his brief testimony in June, Ovitz reportedly described Weinstein as a “bully” but resisted deeper questioning into his own social and professional circles.
The legal landscape of the case has shifted throughout 2026. While Ormond’s initial suit named CAA, Weinstein, Miramax, and Disney, both Disney and Miramax were dismissed from the litigation earlier this year following a settlement. CAA remains a primary defendant as the case moves toward trial.
The friction regarding Jeffrey Epstein stems from a dispute over the extent of Ovitz’s ties to him. The court’s refusal to shield Ovitz from these questions suggests that the “culture” surrounding major power players in the 1990s remains a permissible area of inquiry for the plaintiff’s team.
