{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE (Motion #002)","alternateName":"NYSCEF-Document-000067.pdf","caption":"NYSCEF document #67 | Filed: 2026-10-15 | Filed by: BHIMANI, ALISHAH Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/420/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-15T20:36:31+00:00","description":"NYSCEF document #67 | Filed: 2026-10-15 | Filed by: BHIMANI, ALISHAH Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"420","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/420/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/420/index.md"},"name":"LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE (Motion #002)","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nOctober 15, 2026 \nVia NYSCEF \nHon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, J.S.C. \nSupreme Court, New York County \nIAS Part 35 \n60 Centre Street, Courtroom 252 \nNew York, NY 10007 \nRe: \nJane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al., (Index No. 161704/2026) \n \n \nDear Judge Perry-Bond:  \n \nPlease accept this letter as a brief reply to plaintiff\u2019s opposition to Defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s \nproposed order to show cause and accompanying request for temporary injunctive relief filed \nyesterday evening.  Although such a reply ought to, in the ordinary course, be unnecessary, certain \nmisstatements made by Attorney Giuffra cannot be permitted to pass without some comment.   \nAt the outset, it must be stated that neither our office nor our client has ever provided any statement \nor documents to any media outlet. Attorney Giuffra\u2019s assertions to the contrary are factually \nincorrect, needlessly inflammatory, and constitute the latest effort to blur the distinctions among \ndefendants by attributing to Defendant Sarabia conduct that he neither engaged in nor endorsed.  \nIt is also important to note what Attorney Giuffra\u2019s letter does not say.  While making note that he \n\u201cwas overseas\u201d [emphasis in original]1 at the time the lawsuit was first reported in the media, \nAttorney Giuffra does not deny coordinating with the Cornell Sun before the lawsuit was \ncommenced. \nOn September 28, 2026, Attorney Giuffra appeared (virtually) on CNN\u2019s The Lead and stated the \nfollowing:  \n\u201cI was involved with this case early on, and I was surprised that she \nnever heard from any investigators.\u201d2  \n \n1 One cannot but wonder, especially in the age of the internet and global telecommunications, \nwhat significance Mr. Giuffra assigns to being overseas on the issue of his rampant \ncommunication with the media before, after, and around that date.  \n2 https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/28/us/video/jane-doe-cornell-rape-case-attorney-speaks-out-\ndigvid-vrtc (last accessed October 15, 2026)  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n1 of 3\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \nFurther, in \u201cThe Cornell Seven: IMPACT x Nightline\u201d documentary series available on Hulu \nstreaming service3, Cereese Qusba and Sophia Dasser from the Cornell Sun confirmed, in Episode \n1, that they were in contact with Jane Doe and her attorneys prior to the filing of the lawsuit \n(presumably before Attorney Giuffra\u2019s overseas sojourn) and were one of two news outlets that \nreported the story on the day it was filed, according to plaintiff\u2019s own account.   \nOn September 29, 2026, Ms. Qusba appeared on CNN\u2019s Erin Burnett OutFront, and stated the \nfollowing: \n\u201cSo I started to look into this and I was able to get in contact with \nJane Doe and communicate with her and her lawyers as well . . . and \nget some background so when the lawsuit was filed, we were really \nprepared because we had this all this background information and \nhad been communicating with the sources for a really long time.\u201d4   \nIn other words, Attorney Giuffra and/or plaintiff\u2019s other attorneys worked hand in glove with the \nCornell Sun to launch the story upon filing her lawsuit, his overseas travel notwithstanding. \nOf course, this pre-filing coordination was merely the groundwork for the long series of \nobjectionable and prejudicial statements plaintiff\u2019s counsel then began making to the media.  \nAgain most notable by its absence, Attorney Giuffra makes no defense of the propriety of any of \nhis particular public statements noted in defendant\u2019s application, nor does he contend that they are \nnot prejudicial.  Instead, Attorney Giuffra\u2019s letter attempts to justify his media tour by pointing to \nstatements of other attorneys, or by speculating about the actions of the parties and others, \nincluding impugning certain attorneys about their supposed conduct in an entirely different case.    \nAttorney Giuffra expends much ink referencing other cases he has been involved in, including by \nmentioning the name Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs eleven times, as though his other work is somehow \nrelevant to the present issue.  It is not.  \nWhat is relevant here are the particular prejudicial statements he has made and disseminated widely \nand without hesitation to the news media in this case.  \nConfusingly, Attorney Giuffra attempts to defend his present actions by accusing attorneys Mark \nGeragos and Teny Geragos of engaging in a supposed conspiracy to manipulate the media in a \ncompletely different case.  He appears to do this with no evidence, operating on pure speculation. \nHe baselessly attacks their reputation to justify his indisputably inappropriate and extensive media \nhits in this case.   \nNotably, Ms. Geragos has demanded that Attorney Giuffra withdraw his letter and, with her \npermission, we have attached her email from earlier today in which she specifically refutes his \nspeculative accusations.  It is included herewith to assist the Court in evaluating the credibility of \nthe various other unsupported assertions that Attorney Giuffra has made in his letter response.  \n \n3 https://www.hulu.com/series/the-cornell-seven-impact-x-nightline-f95cd61f-2b50-4806-afd2-\n0cf4b6051eb4 (last accessed October 15, 2026).  \n4 https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/video/ebof-cornell-university-rape-allegations-cornell-\ndaily-sun-reporter-editor-in-chief (last accessed on October 15, 2026).  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n2 of 3\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \nSimilarly, it is hoped that it will aid the Court in understanding that plaintiff\u2019s counsel appears to \nknow few bounds when making inflammatory and prejudicial statements. \nDespite Attorney Giuffra\u2019s assertion that defendants \u201cdo not want a level playing field in the public \neye,\u201d that is exactly what defendants want.  Notably, Attorney Giuffra is the only party in this case \nwho is completely opposed to the relief Mr. Sarabia now seeks. \nIt is also worth noting that plaintiff\u2019s opposition is premised on a fundamental misreading of the \nrelief sought. Repeatedly, counsel argues that the proposed Order would prohibit parties from \nfiling documents with the Court, submitting evidence, discussing matters necessary to litigate the \naction, or otherwise advancing their claims and defenses through ordinary motion practice. It \nwould do none of those things. The proposed Order expressly excludes statements made in open \ncourt and in papers properly filed with the Court, as well as communications reasonably necessary \nto investigate, prosecute, defend, or resolve this action. Plaintiff\u2019s repeated assertions that the \nproposed relief would prevent parties from presenting evidence to the Court or filing necessary \npleadings therefore attack restrictions that do not exist in the proposed Order. This application is \nnot an attempt to impede litigation; it is an attempt to ensure that the litigation occurs where it \nbelongs, in the courtroom, rather than through an ongoing public relations campaign conducted \nthrough television appearances, newspapers, podcasts, and social media. \nPlaintiff\u2019s criticism of the proposed carve-outs under Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of \nProfessional Conduct is similarly misplaced. The proposed Order expressly preserves counsel\u2019s \nability to make statements authorized by Rule 3.6(c) and further permits statements authorized by \nRule 3.6(d) when reasonably necessary to respond to prejudicial publicity not initiated by the \nattorney or client. What the Order does not permit is the transformation of Rule 3.6(d)\u2019s narrow \nsafe harbor into a limitless license to conduct serial media appearances, repeatedly advocate \ndisputed facts, opine on witness credibility, characterize evidence, accuse parties and nonparties \nof criminal conduct, and otherwise litigate the merits of the case in the press. Rule 3.6(d) authorizes \na limited reply reasonably necessary to mitigate prejudice; it does not authorize an unrestricted \nmedia campaign. Plaintiff\u2019s opposition conflates those two concepts and, in doing so, confirms \nprecisely why narrowly-tailored relief is necessary here. \nMr. Giuffra\u2019s wild assertions \u2013 about the defendants in this case, about his client, and about other \nattorneys \u2013 all go to show that the only way to achieve a level playing field is through a Court \norder that reasonably restricts the attorneys and parties from engaging in such unbridled salacious \nand prejudicial public media hits. Accordingly, Mr. Sarabia respectfully requests the Court grant \nthe requested relief. \nRespectfully submitted, \nHACKER MURPHY LLP  \n \nBy:_____________________ \nBy: \n \n \n \n \n \nJames C. Knox \n \n \n \n \nAlishah Bhimani  \nAttorney for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n  Attorney for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n \nEnc.  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n3 of 3","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nOctober 15, 2026 \nVia NYSCEF \nHon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, J.S.C. \nSupreme Court, New York County \nIAS Part 35 \n60 Centre Street, Courtroom 252 \nNew York, NY 10007 \nRe: \nJane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al., (Index No. 161704/2026) \n \n \nDear Judge Perry-Bond:  \n \nPlease accept this letter as a brief reply to plaintiff\u2019s opposition to Defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s \nproposed order to show cause and accompanying request for temporary injunctive relief filed \nyesterday evening.  Although such a reply ought to, in the ordinary course, be unnecessary, certain \nmisstatements made by Attorney Giuffra cannot be permitted to pass without some comment.   \nAt the outset, it must be stated that neither our office nor our client has ever provided any statement \nor documents to any media outlet. Attorney Giuffra\u2019s assertions to the contrary are factually \nincorrect, needlessly inflammatory, and constitute the latest effort to blur the distinctions among \ndefendants by attributing to Defendant Sarabia conduct that he neither engaged in nor endorsed.  \nIt is also important to note what Attorney Giuffra\u2019s letter does not say.  While making note that he \n\u201cwas overseas\u201d [emphasis in original]1 at the time the lawsuit was first reported in the media, \nAttorney Giuffra does not deny coordinating with the Cornell Sun before the lawsuit was \ncommenced. \nOn September 28, 2026, Attorney Giuffra appeared (virtually) on CNN\u2019s The Lead and stated the \nfollowing:  \n\u201cI was involved with this case early on, and I was surprised that she \nnever heard from any investigators.\u201d2  \n \n1 One cannot but wonder, especially in the age of the internet and global telecommunications, \nwhat significance Mr. Giuffra assigns to being overseas on the issue of his rampant \ncommunication with the media before, after, and around that date.  \n2 https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/28/us/video/jane-doe-cornell-rape-case-attorney-speaks-out-\ndigvid-vrtc (last accessed October 15, 2026)  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n1 of 3\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \nFurther, in \u201cThe Cornell Seven: IMPACT x Nightline\u201d documentary series available on Hulu \nstreaming service3, Cereese Qusba and Sophia Dasser from the Cornell Sun confirmed, in Episode \n1, that they were in contact with Jane Doe and her attorneys prior to the filing of the lawsuit \n(presumably before Attorney Giuffra\u2019s overseas sojourn) and were one of two news outlets that \nreported the story on the day it was filed, according to plaintiff\u2019s own account.   \nOn September 29, 2026, Ms. Qusba appeared on CNN\u2019s Erin Burnett OutFront, and stated the \nfollowing: \n\u201cSo I started to look into this and I was able to get in contact with \nJane Doe and communicate with her and her lawyers as well . . . and \nget some background so when the lawsuit was filed, we were really \nprepared because we had this all this background information and \nhad been communicating with the sources for a really long time.\u201d4   \nIn other words, Attorney Giuffra and/or plaintiff\u2019s other attorneys worked hand in glove with the \nCornell Sun to launch the story upon filing her lawsuit, his overseas travel notwithstanding. \nOf course, this pre-filing coordination was merely the groundwork for the long series of \nobjectionable and prejudicial statements plaintiff\u2019s counsel then began making to the media.  \nAgain most notable by its absence, Attorney Giuffra makes no defense of the propriety of any of \nhis particular public statements noted in defendant\u2019s application, nor does he contend that they are \nnot prejudicial.  Instead, Attorney Giuffra\u2019s letter attempts to justify his media tour by pointing to \nstatements of other attorneys, or by speculating about the actions of the parties and others, \nincluding impugning certain attorneys about their supposed conduct in an entirely different case.    \nAttorney Giuffra expends much ink referencing other cases he has been involved in, including by \nmentioning the name Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs eleven times, as though his other work is somehow \nrelevant to the present issue.  It is not.  \nWhat is relevant here are the particular prejudicial statements he has made and disseminated widely \nand without hesitation to the news media in this case.  \nConfusingly, Attorney Giuffra attempts to defend his present actions by accusing attorneys Mark \nGeragos and Teny Geragos of engaging in a supposed conspiracy to manipulate the media in a \ncompletely different case.  He appears to do this with no evidence, operating on pure speculation. \nHe baselessly attacks their reputation to justify his indisputably inappropriate and extensive media \nhits in this case.   \nNotably, Ms. Geragos has demanded that Attorney Giuffra withdraw his letter and, with her \npermission, we have attached her email from earlier today in which she specifically refutes his \nspeculative accusations.  It is included herewith to assist the Court in evaluating the credibility of \nthe various other unsupported assertions that Attorney Giuffra has made in his letter response.  \n \n3 https://www.hulu.com/series/the-cornell-seven-impact-x-nightline-f95cd61f-2b50-4806-afd2-\n0cf4b6051eb4 (last accessed October 15, 2026).  \n4 https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/video/ebof-cornell-university-rape-allegations-cornell-\ndaily-sun-reporter-editor-in-chief (last accessed on October 15, 2026).  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n2 of 3\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \nSimilarly, it is hoped that it will aid the Court in understanding that plaintiff\u2019s counsel appears to \nknow few bounds when making inflammatory and prejudicial statements. \nDespite Attorney Giuffra\u2019s assertion that defendants \u201cdo not want a level playing field in the public \neye,\u201d that is exactly what defendants want.  Notably, Attorney Giuffra is the only party in this case \nwho is completely opposed to the relief Mr. Sarabia now seeks. \nIt is also worth noting that plaintiff\u2019s opposition is premised on a fundamental misreading of the \nrelief sought. Repeatedly, counsel argues that the proposed Order would prohibit parties from \nfiling documents with the Court, submitting evidence, discussing matters necessary to litigate the \naction, or otherwise advancing their claims and defenses through ordinary motion practice. It \nwould do none of those things. The proposed Order expressly excludes statements made in open \ncourt and in papers properly filed with the Court, as well as communications reasonably necessary \nto investigate, prosecute, defend, or resolve this action. Plaintiff\u2019s repeated assertions that the \nproposed relief would prevent parties from presenting evidence to the Court or filing necessary \npleadings therefore attack restrictions that do not exist in the proposed Order. This application is \nnot an attempt to impede litigation; it is an attempt to ensure that the litigation occurs where it \nbelongs, in the courtroom, rather than through an ongoing public relations campaign conducted \nthrough television appearances, newspapers, podcasts, and social media. \nPlaintiff\u2019s criticism of the proposed carve-outs under Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of \nProfessional Conduct is similarly misplaced. The proposed Order expressly preserves counsel\u2019s \nability to make statements authorized by Rule 3.6(c) and further permits statements authorized by \nRule 3.6(d) when reasonably necessary to respond to prejudicial publicity not initiated by the \nattorney or client. What the Order does not permit is the transformation of Rule 3.6(d)\u2019s narrow \nsafe harbor into a limitless license to conduct serial media appearances, repeatedly advocate \ndisputed facts, opine on witness credibility, characterize evidence, accuse parties and nonparties \nof criminal conduct, and otherwise litigate the merits of the case in the press. Rule 3.6(d) authorizes \na limited reply reasonably necessary to mitigate prejudice; it does not authorize an unrestricted \nmedia campaign. Plaintiff\u2019s opposition conflates those two concepts and, in doing so, confirms \nprecisely why narrowly-tailored relief is necessary here. \nMr. Giuffra\u2019s wild assertions \u2013 about the defendants in this case, about his client, and about other \nattorneys \u2013 all go to show that the only way to achieve a level playing field is through a Court \norder that reasonably restricts the attorneys and parties from engaging in such unbridled salacious \nand prejudicial public media hits. Accordingly, Mr. Sarabia respectfully requests the Court grant \nthe requested relief. \nRespectfully submitted, \nHACKER MURPHY LLP  \n \nBy:_____________________ \nBy: \n \n \n \n \n \nJames C. Knox \n \n \n \n \nAlishah Bhimani  \nAttorney for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n  Attorney for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n \nEnc.  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2026 04:18 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 67\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2026\n3 of 3","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/420/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/420"}