This action is for the alleged sexual assault of defendant [Kevin]Fowler (also known as Kevin Spacey) is a plaintiff [Anthony] Rapp in about 1986, when Rapp was about 14 years of age…. Kevin Spacey is an actor well-known for his performances in popular television shows. House of Cards. Rapp, too, is an actor of note and is perhaps most well known for his performance in the Broadway hit production of Rent….
Rapp proposes, via counsel, to interview Spacey about his intimate details regarding Spacey’s sexual and romantic life, over many years, and most importantly, about the identities and relationships of his partners. He admittedly hopes to find evidence of prior acts that could be used against Spacey in this action….
Spacey first asserts that inquiries should not be restricted to non-consensual events or relationships. He maintains—with justification—that any consensual behavior is no one’s business but his own and that of his partners. Spacey and his lawyers cannot be trusted to decide what was consensual.
Spacey also claims this case concerns an alleged assault against a minor. Spacey believes that disclosures should only be made in similar situations, which would mean that incidents and relationships that involve minors during the event are allowed. However, the Court finds that this is too narrow. However, the Court cannot exclude that an incident in which a non-consenting adult was involved could be relevant.
In the final analysis, thirdly, non-parties’ interests are important. The first matter is that persons may have shared consensual, private relationships or relations with Spacey. They are not allowed to identify themselves to strangers and should be given substantial consideration. It is possible that there were individuals who interacted with Spacey involuntarily or in part consensually, but who still place a high value on their anonymity. Even if they are able to assist Rapp in pursuing this civil suit.
Fourth, the Court appreciates Rapp’s proposal … of an order that would prevent both parties “from publicly disclosing the name of any witness who alleges that he or she was sexually harassed, abused or assaulted by … Spacey.” However, such an order wouldn’t protect any person who was in a relationship or had relationships with Spacey. This order would not prevent anyone mistreated by Spacey but wishes to keep quiet, from being subject to Rapp’s investigators and counsels and being forced to take a deposition and to be called to testify at the trial. And while this and other courts have had considerable success in maintaining the confidentiality from the public of a great deal of sensitive information … the fact remains that complete and permanent success cannot be guaranteed, especially in the information age in which we now live.
Finally, Rapp was accused of sexually assaulting his former co-plaintiff C.D. Spacey’s other misconduct allegations have been extensively covered. Spacey is a victim of many and those who are willing to talk have had and continue to have ample opportunity. Rapp, his lawyer and others can easily identify Spacey’s professional contacts and talk to anyone who is willing. These people could have information on other individuals who may be interested. It is not clear whether Spacey’s discovery of Rapp’s case would be appropriate or beneficial in these situations. It is doubtful also that Rapp would be seriously handicapped in pursuing his claim here in the absence of the sort of discovery that he seeks despite some serious cost to legitimate interests of others….
Accordingly, … [d]The plaintiff must not question the defendant during discovery about any prior romantic or sexual encounters (if any) with any person unless the identity and/or publication of the subject in inquiry has been made by them. All such Subject [presumably any Subject whose identity has not yet been voluntarily or publicly disclosed -EV]Both the plaintiff and defendant have strong privacy interests in their most intimate personal relationships.
C.D. Plaintiff must not question the defendant during discovery about any prior romantic or sexual experiences with him. C.D. He has dismissed the claim against defendant C.D. If plaintiff was to inject C.D.According to the plaintiff’s allegations in this case, fairness would demand that defendants be allowed to complete a thorough and fair investigation of C.D.’s allegations. This will at least partially likely lead to public disclosure or require C.D.’s identity. C.D.C.D.In the absence of defendant having the opportunity to address such allegations,’s claims are not admissible. This would likely compromise C.D.’s legitimate privacy interests….