IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ANDREA CONSTAND, 

Plaintiff, 

No. 05-cv-1099 

V. 

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this_ day of ____ , 200_, upon consideration of Defendant's 

Motion to Strike Plaintiffs "Motion Concerning Conduct of Defendant's Deposition and Motion 

for Sanctions," and any response thereto, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to strike Plaintiffs "Motion Concerning 

Conduct of Defendant's Deposition and Motion for Sanctions" from the record. 

Eduardo C. Robreno, J. 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ANDREA CONSTAND, 

Plaintiff, 

No. 05-cv-1099 

v. 

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., FILED UNDER SEAL 

Defendant. 

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION CONCERNING CONDUCT 

OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS" 

On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed not one motion, but two. In addition to the motion 

to compel that the Court had allowed both parties to file that day, Plaintiff also filed a "Motion 

Concerning Conduct of Defendant's Deposition and Motion for Sanctions." Defendant has a 

substantive response for each of the meritless, misleading, and hypocritical accusations 

contained in Plaintiffs motion. For the reasons stated below, however, Plaintiffs motion should 

be stricken from the record, and Defendant should not be required to respond to it. 

Early in this case, in its August 17, 2005 Scheduling Order, the Court provided that the 

parties could bring discovery disputes to the Court for resolution by way of letters "setting forth 

the details of the dispute." (August 17, 2005 Sch. Order at 1 n.1.) After the first round of 

depositions in this case, on September 27 through 29, 2005, both parties did that, presenting the 

Court with substantive letters concerning several disputes that arose during the depositions. 

Specifically, on October 5, 2005, Defendant notified the Court of several instances of improper 

behavior by Plaintiffs counsel during both depositions. On October 6, 2005, Plaintiff wrote the 

Court and complained that Defendant's counsel had improperly impeded Defendant's deposition. 
Plaintiff's letter was four pages long and attached 30 pages from the transcript of Defendant's 

deposition. Plaintiff asked the Court for permission to file, "of record," both a motion to compel 

and a "Motion Concerning the Conduct of Defendant's Deposition." 

Neither of Plaintiff's requests was granted. Instead, on October 17, 2005, the Court 

directed the parties to provide the Court in chambers with complete copies of the transcripts of 

both parties' depositions. Then, on November 4, 2005, the Court held a discovery conference 

with counsel, via telephone. The Court began the conference by commenting on the conduct of 

both counsel at the depositions. The Court noted that it had read every word of both deposition 

transcripts. The Court opined that both parties' counsel had conducted themselves appropriately 

in defending their respective client's depositions. What remained to be resolved, held the Court, 

was the extent to which additional deposition testimony was required. To that end, the Court 

ordered the parties to file motions to compel by November 21, 2005. 

On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed not only a motion to compel, but also filed a 

"Motion Concerning the Conduct of Defendant's Deposition." Ignoring that she had already 

requested to file such a motion, and ignoring that the Court had already read the entirety of each 

party's deposition and concluded that no impropriety occurred, Plaintiff filed a 62-page 

memorandum concerning counsel's conduct during Defendant's deposition. In the face of the 

Court's comments, Plaintiff contends that "Defense counsel was so obstructive in the deposition 

that he denied Plaintiff her right to an appropriate interrogation" and that Defendant's counsel 

"was unscrupulous in his total disregard for ... the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (Pl.'s 

Mem. at 2, 14.) Plaintiff made her motion knowing that the Court had already rejected her 

characterization of counsel's conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion should be stricken. 

2 
Moreover, as the Court likely concluded when reading the depositions, the conduct of 

Defendant's counsel was no different than that of Plaintiffs counsel. Indeed, Plaintiffs motion 

is little better than hypocrisy, expressed in a vacuum, from which her own counsel's conduct is 

excluded. Plaintiff lambastes Defendant's counsel for "speaking objections" and "coaching the 

witness," but her own counsel blatantly coached her and offered "speaking objections" 

throughout Plaintiffs deposition. (See, e.g., Pl.'s Dep., 9/27, at 16-17; 29-30; 76-78; 84-85; 

297-302; 307-308; 373-74.) Her counsel even resorted to characterizing documents on the 

record to counter Plaintiffs own testimony. (See id. at 260-61.) Plaintiff calls for sanctions 

because Defendant's counsel instructed him not to answer a question that had been "asked and 

answered," but Plaintiffs counsel did precisely the same thing. (See id. at 89-90.) Plaintiff 

cries foul because Defendant's attorney referred him to his police statement during questioning, 

but, again, Plaintiffs attorney did the same. (See id. at 408-09.) Plaintiff even criticizes 

Defendant himself for "joking" during the deposition, but she forgets to mention her attorney's 

outright abuse and deliberate confusion of Defendant during the same deposition. (See, e.g., 

Def.'s Dep., 9/28/05, at 13-14, 23-27, 50, 79-80, 121-22.)2 

In fact, Plaintiffs motion appears simply to be a determined effort to put Defendant's 

deposition transcript in the public record. Not content with citations to the record already before 

the Court, Plaintiff reproduces, verbatim, over 50 pages of the transcript in her motion. Yet, she 

knows that the Court already possesses the entire transcript and already has read the entire 

transcript. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff bases her request for sanctions on the most embarrassing 

and prejudicial elements of the deposition. Plaintiff, who has made no secret of her desire to 

2 These citations are but examples. Defendant does not attempt to list here all of the 

instances where Plaintiffs counsel conducted herself in a manner equivalent to, or worse 

than, the conduct she criticizes in her motion. 

3 
foment prejudicial pretrial publicity by publishing the fruits of discovery before trial, should not 

be permitted to fabricate "judicial issues" simply to avoid the default rule that deposition 

transcripts are not public. 

For these reasons, Defendant respectfully moves the Court to strike Plaintiffs motion. 

Dated: November 28, 2005 PJ05016 

Patrick J. O'Connor 

George M. Gowen III 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

1900 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

215.665.2000 

Andrew D. Schau 

PATTERSON, BELKNAP, 

WEBB & TYLER LLP 

1133 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-6710 

212.336.2000 

Attorneys for Defendant 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused a copy of 

the foregoing to be served upon the following counsel for Plaintiff: 

Dated: November 28, 2005 

Via First Class Mail 

Bebe H. Kivitz 

Dolores M. Troiani 

Troiani/Kivitz, L.L.P. 

38 North Waterloo Road 

Devon, Pennsylvania 19333 

610.688.8426 (fax) 

PJ05016 

Patrick J. O'Connor 

/ 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ANDREA CONSTAND, 

Plaintiff, 

No. 05-cv-1099 

v. 

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., FILED UNDER SEAL 

Defendant. 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION CONCERNING CONDUCT OF 

DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS" 

Defendant respectfully moves the Court to strike Plaintiffs "Motion Concerning Conduct 

of Defendant's Deposition and Motion for Sanctions." The grounds for Defendant's motion are 

set forth in the accompanying memorandum. 1 

Dated: November 29, 2005 PJ05016 

Patrick J. 0' Connor 

George M. Gowen III 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

1900 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

215.665.2000 

Consistent with the Court's November 4, 2005 Order, and as Plaintiffs motion was filed 

under seal, Defendant files this motion and accompanying memorandum under seal, 

pursuant to the November 4, 2005 Order. 
Andrew D. Schau 

PATTERSON, BELKNAP, 

WEBB & TYLER LLP 

1133 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-6710 

212.336.2000 

Attorneys for Defendant 

2