An actor who is suing Tyler Perry for sexual assault and battery has asked a judge to compel the filmmaker’s deposition, but Perry’s attorneys state in new court papers that the motion is part of the plaintiff’s effort to coerce a settlement and should be denied.
Plaintiff Mario Rodriguez appeared in “Boo! A Madea Halloween” and accuses the filmmaker and studio mogul of leveraging his power in Hollywood to make sexual advances. Rodriguez’s attorney previously filed court papers with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brock T. Hammond stating he has been trying to take Perry’s deposition since April 14.
Although Perry’s attorneys have ostensibly committed to a Dec. 9 deposition date, “An email from these defendants is not an order; each of their prior commitments lasted only until the next email,” according to plaintiff attorney Jonathan Delshad’s court papers.
But in their court papers, Perry’s lawyers say their client had already agreed to the Dec 9 deposition and when asked to confirm that date, Rodriguez instead filed a “frivolous motion.”
Rodriguez’s actions amount to a “futile attempt to pressure Mr. Perry to settle,” Tyler’s attorneys argue in their court papers.
“The sequence is telling,” Perry’s lawyers state in their court papers. Having secured an agreed time and place for Mr. Perry’s deposition, plaintiff floated his interest in a multimillion-dollar settlement and when Mr. Perry wouldn’t take the bait, he filed a public motion to attempt to harm Mr. Perry’s reputation.”
Rodriguez knows he cannot win this case on the merits, so he “stooped to harassing Mr. Perry, including with endless discovery disputes. But Mr. Perry will not cave,” Perry’s lawyers state in their pleadings.
“Perry will not be bullied by such tactics nor should the court lend its process to that strategy, especially where Rodriguez “seeks to expose private details of Mr. Perry*s personal life that have no connection to the allegations at issue in this case,” Perry’s attorneys contend in their court papers.
According to the Rodriguez attorneys, their counterparts on Perry’s side have demanded that Perry not be asked whether he is, or has been, sexually attracted to men, a subject the defense insists is irrelevant and inflammatory, according to Delshad’s court papers. Yet, Rodriguez offered Perry’s attorneys’ a deal that if he would stipulate that he has had a sexual interest in men since before he met the plaintiff, Delshad would forgo deposition questioning about Perry’s sexual preferences and sexual orientation altogether, but the defense lawyers said no, according to Delshad.
But Perry’s attorneys state in their court papers that Perry is not embarrassed to answer questions about his sexual orientation, but Rodriguez’s potential inquiry in the area is still prejudicial and improper. if Perry testifies that he is not attracted to men, his case will be converted into a witch hunt about his sexuality, Perry’s lawyers state in their court papers.
If instead a defendant testifies that he is attracted to men, he or she will be subjected to the “pervasive bias and prejudice against gay men that … remains in our society, bias that will color a jury’s view of every piece of evidence it hears,” according to the Perry lawyers’ court papers.
A hearing on Rodriguez’s motion to compel Perry’s deposition is scheduled July 22.
In previous court papers, Perry’s attorneys denied Rodriguez’s lawsuit claims and contended the plaintiff suffered no damages.