Judge Orders Michael Ovitz to Complete Julia Ormond Deposition

A New York judge has ordered former CAA leader Michael Ovitz to return and complete his deposition in Julia Ormond’s lawsuit against the talent agency. Judge Adam Silvera set a December 18 deadline after finding that Ovitz, a non-party witness, had ended the earlier session before it was finished.

The ruling follows a June 1 deposition that stopped when Ormond’s attorneys questioned Ovitz about Jeffrey Epstein. Reporting on the transcript says Ovitz objected to the relevance of those questions, removed his microphone and left. The court declined his request to be excused from additional questioning and did not prohibit the lawyers from revisiting the subject.

The judge rejected more severe requests

Silvera did not grant every remedy sought by Ormond’s legal team. He denied requests for an arrest warrant and a contempt finding, while still directing Ovitz to resume the deposition. That distinction keeps the development focused on completing discovery rather than imposing the harsher sanctions the attorneys had requested.

Ormond’s lawyers welcomed the decision and said they expect Ovitz to answer their questions under the court’s rules. CAA’s attorneys have argued that the Epstein material was introduced to damage Ovitz’s reputation rather than obtain information relevant to the case. The ruling, as described by two entertainment trade publications, leaves that dispute over relevance open for the resumed questioning.

How the deposition fits the larger case

Ormond sued CAA in 2023, alleging that the agency arranged a 1995 meeting with Harvey Weinstein after which, she says, Weinstein sexually assaulted her. The lawsuit argues that the agency failed to protect her despite knowledge about his conduct. CAA has disputed liability. The allegations in the civil case have not been resolved by the deposition order.

Ovitz had left CAA by the time of the alleged 1995 assault, but Ormond’s attorneys contend that he may have information about the agency’s relationship with Weinstein and its handling of misconduct concerns. Ovitz is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

The next concrete step is therefore procedural: the deposition must be completed by December 18. The order does not decide Ormond’s underlying claims, nor does it establish wrongdoing by Ovitz. It determines that the earlier questioning ended improperly and must continue.