United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Larry Klayman again seeks reconsideration of the Court's
decision to deny his post-trial motions in this matter and
once again pursues voluntary recusal or disqualification of
this Court. He further moves for relief on the basis that
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.
(“Judicial Watch”) and Counter-Plaintiff Thomas
J. Fitton committed fraud, misrepresentation, and/or
misconduct. Lastly, he requests that the temporary stay of
Judicial Watch and Fitton's writ of garnishment be
reinstated. See Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. of
Pl.'s Mot. for Voluntary Recusal or Disqualification,
Mot. for Recons. of Ct.'s Order Den. Mot. for J.
Notwithstanding Verdict and Lifting Temporary Stay on Writs
of Garnishment, and Mot. for Order to Show Cause and to Set
Aside J. of Mar. 18, 2019 for Fraud, Misrepresentation,
and/or Misconduct by Defs./Counterclaimants' Thomas J.
Fitton and Judicial Watch, ECF No. 606 (“Klayman's
Second Recons. & Recusal Mot.”). The Court finds
that Judicial Watch and Fitton do not need to file an
Court's prior orders denying Klayman's post-trial
motions have addressed all but two of the arguments that
Klayman now makes. The Court incorporates and makes part of
its opinion each of these past decisions. See Mem.
Op. (Aug. 7, 2019), ECF No. 604; Mem. Op. (Mar. 18, 2019),
ECF No. 581. Accordingly, Klayman's request that the
temporary stay of Judicial Watch and Fitton's writ of
garnishment be reinstituted “to allow for a new judge
to rule on” his post-trial motions is moot.
See Klayman's Second Recons. & Recusal Mot.
at 21. Even if his request were not moot, Klayman has not
offered to provide a bond or other security as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). See
Defs.' Reply in Opp'n to Stay of Writs of Attachment
by Garnishment, ECF No. 601, at 1 (noting that as of August
2, 2019 Klayman had not fulfilled bond or other security
first of Klayman's new arguments is that the damages are
unreasonable, in part due to how Judicial Watch and
Fitton's counsel Richard W. Driscoll
“misleadingly” described the decrease in
donations from multi-year donors. During his closing
argument, Mr. Driscoll stated that “during 2006, there
was a $500, 000 drop; and in 2007, there was a $1, 400, 000
drop.” Trial Tr. 3684:1-3. Klayman claims this is
misleading considering the testimony of Steven Anderson, who
explained that the donations dropped from $4.8 million in
2005 to $4.3 million in 2006 (a decrease of $500, 000) and
further to $3.4 million in 2007 (an additional decrease of
$900, 000), totaling a $1.4 million drop in funding.
See Trial Tr. 3064:2-12. Klayman did not object to
this statement during Mr. Driscoll's closing. Nor did he
address it during his own closing. Furthermore, the Court
instructed the jury that counsels' statements were not
evidence in the case. See, e.g., Trial Tr.
245:10-15. While Mr. Driscoll could have been more precise in
clarifying whether the $1.4 million drop was from 2005 to
2007 or from 2006 to 2007, the jury considered the evidence
and the jury award was reasonable in light of the evidence.
See Mem. Op. (Mar. 18, 2019), ECF No. 581, at 36-39
(discussing reasonableness of damages at length).
Klayman moves to set aside the  March 18, 2019 judgment
for alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and/or misconduct by
Judicial Watch and Fitton under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). This is based on “newly discovered
evidence” in the form of deposition testimony in a
defamation suit initiated by Klayman against Fitton filed in
the Southern District of Florida, Klayman v. Fitton,
No. 19-cv-20544. In his deposition testimony, Fitton stated
that Klayman was not “ousted as a result of a sexual
harassment complaint.” See Klayman's
Second Recons. & Recusal Mot., Ex. 1 (Fitton Dep. Trans.)
at 44:23-45:5. Klayman appears to contend that this statement
contradicts Fitton's and other witnesses' testimony
in this case, and that therefore Judicial Watch and Fitton
have committed fraud, misrepresentation, and/or misconduct.
Klayman's own cited authority, “[f]raud on the
court . . . is fraud which is directed to the judicial
machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or
fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.”
Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt., Inc.,
98 F.3d 640, 643 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Showing fraud under Rule 60(b) requires meeting a
high threshold, such as demonstrating “the bribery of a
judge or the knowing participation of an attorney in the
presentation of perjured testimony.” Id.
has not met the high standard for relief on these grounds, as
he has contended solely that Fitton and possibly others
testified falsely. Moreover, Klayman has not identified any
of Fitton's testimony at trial contradicting the quoted
deposition testimony or suggesting that Klayman was
“ousted as a result of a sexual harassment
complaint.” He references only the testimony of Paul
Orfanedes in addressing Mr. Orfanedes's understanding of
why Klayman left Judicial Watch. See Trial Tr.
1834:14-25. Nowhere in his testimony did Mr. Orfanedes state
that Klayman left Judicial Watch due to a “sexual
harassment complaint.” He testified that Klayman left
Judicial Watch in part to avoid “an internal
investigation into . . . whether he [Klayman] pursued an
inappropriate relationship” with an employee and, at
most, explained his concern that Judicial Watch might have
been subject to “sexual harassment allegations”
based on that alleged relationship. See Trial Tr. at
1830:4-9, 1834:14-25. Accordingly, Klayman is not entitled to
relief on these grounds.
foregoing reasons, this Court shall DENY
 Larry Klayman's Motion for Reconsideration of
Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Recusal or
Disqualification; DENY  Klayman's
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying
Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Lifting
Temporary Stay on Writs of Garnishment; and
DENY  Klayman's Motion for Order to
Show Cause and to Set Aside Judgment of March 18, ...