While acknowledging that the daughter of Patricia Gucci is putting her mental condition at issue in a lawsuit against her mother and other family members, attorneys for her say in new court papers that the defense’s request for a 10-hour session that delves into highly personal issues is overbroad.
Plaintiff Alexandra Zarini is the great granddaughter of Guccio Gucci, creator of the Gucci luxury brand. Zarini’s mother is Patricia Gucci. Now 61, Patricia Gucci was born during Aldo Gucci’s extramarital affair with Bruna Palombo, a co-defendant in the case along with Zarini’s stepfather, Joseph Ruffalo. Zarini’s Los Angeles Superior Court allegations against her mother are for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A judge previously stayed the part of Zarini’s case against Palombo, who is in her 80s and lives in Italy, while Palombo appeals the judge’s denial of her motion to quash the lawsuit summons.
Patricia Gucci was married to Ruffalo, a former music manager, from 1993 to 2008. They lived together in Los Angeles from 1992 to 1998 and she left him after her daughter allegedly told her he was sexually abusing her. Zarini sued the trio in September 2020.
“Plaintiff should not be ordered to participate in an examination that is onerous, protracted and oppressive,” Zarini’s lawyers contend in their court papers. “Here, defendant Gucci seeks to subject plaintiff to 10 hours of examination over two days, but there is no good cause shown to put plaintiff through such a grueling process.”
Because Zarini has already given a deposition, the defense psychiatrist can read the document and get much of the relevant information the evaluator needs, according to Zarini’s attorneys’ court papers, adding that any mental evaluation that does take place should be a maximum of six hours.
Zarini’s attorneys also have offered the sworn declaration of Dr. James E. Rosenberg, himself a psychiatrist, in support of their argument concerning the breadth of any evaluation of the plaintiff.
“It is my understanding that Ms. Zarini’s claims in this case do not involve alleged injuries to her consensual sexual function or intimacy with her husband and therefore, questions in this area … would be upsetting to plaintiff and an unnecessary invasion of her privacy,” according to Rosenberg.
Zarini’s attorneys also want to obtain information on Gucci’s financial worth, an opportunity that typically does not come about in a trial unless and until the plaintiff proves malice.
“Here, there is a high likelihood of plaintiff proving malice at trial,” Zarini’s attorneys state in their court papers. “Plaintiff produced numerous examples of incidents in which defendant Gucci not only failed to protect plaintiff, but also fostered the environment and impunity defendant Ruffalo needed to sexually assault plaintiff.”
In their court papers, Gucci’s lawyers contend it is not inevitable Zarini will prove malice.
“Plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate that it is very likely that she will prove Ms. Gucci’s actual knowledge of defendant Joseph Ruffalo’s alleged abuse and sexual assaults, as she must,” the Gucci attorneys argue in their court papers.
A hearing on the mental exam and financial worth motions is scheduled Tuesday.
According to Zarini’s suit, her mother compounded the plaintiff’s suffering by sexualizing her for Ruffalo’s benefit and also by physically, mentally and emotionally abusing Zarini.
Patricia Gucci’s lawyers maintained in their earlier court papers that Ruffalo, not their client, and his alleged abuses were the cause of Zarini’s injuries and that therefore the plaintiff was precluded from avoiding the statute of limitations by claiming to do so under a special statute.
Patricia Gucci’s lawyers also maintained in their court papers that she was not negligent because she did not know Ruffalo was allegedly abusing Zarini until her daughter reached age 22 and disclosed what had happened.