Lawyer Hijinks in Laura Loomer’s and Bill Maher’s Deposition

From today’s decision by Magistrate Judge Phillip Lammens in Loomer v. Maher (M.D. Fla.) (the underlying case is a defamation lawsuit over Maher’s saying President Trump “might be” “fucking” Loomer):

The matter is before the Court initially on Plaintiff Laura Loomer’s motion for sanctions against Defendants Bill Maher and Home Box Office, Inc., and their counsel at Davis Wright Tremaine for their conduct during the discovery process…. [But] it is readily apparent that Mr. Klayman’s conduct warrants attention that the Court cannot ignore—or use to simply offset the conduct of defense counsel….

[Plaintiff raises] arguments related to the conduct of Ms. Bolger (Defense counsel) at the depositions of Mr. Maher, Ms. Loomer, and HBO’s 30(b)(6) witness, Nina Rosenstein. The Court has reviewed the video depositions of Mr. Maher (3.5+ hours) and Ms. Loomer (almost 6.0 hours) in their entirety, and the deposition excerpts cited by the parties. While the Court is concerned by the lapse in professionalism evidenced by Ms. Bolger, it is equally, if not more troubled, by Mr. Klayman’s conduct. It appears that both attorneys allowed personal distaste (for the deponent and opposing counsel) to replace dispassionate legal representation. As Mr. Maher asked at his deposition, “Is this the way the law works?” Simply stated—no, it is not. The Court demands better from counsel….

Turning first to Mr. Maher’s deposition, it was taken by Mr. Klayman on April 4, 2025, with Ms. Loomer in attendance. There is no question that Ms. Bolger was frustrated by Mr. Klayman’s conduct. Mr. Klayman improperly made statements without asking Mr. Maher a question, asked harassing questions about Mr. Maher’s religious beliefs and his private life, and spent considerable time questioning Mr. Maher about tweets from up to ten years ago that had nothing to do with Ms. Loomer or the litigation. At times, Mr. Klayman mischaracterized statements by Mr. Maher or interpreted them in ways that strained credulity. And Mr. Klayman even insinuated that Mr. Maher could not get an impartial trial in Ocala, asking if Mr. Maher knew that it was “the heart of the Bible Belt,” that the jury would be composed of “very religious people,” and that jurors and judges “reach decisions based upon their own personal experience [ ] and beliefs.”

While Ms. Bolger made many legitimate and proper objections, at times she failed to state them concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner as required by Rule 30(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. Indeed, Ms. Bolger’s objections often devolved into arguments with Mr. Klayman in which they bickered (with each other) in discourteous tones, made sarcastic comments, hurled insults, spoke over each other in raised voices, and offered inappropriate editorial commentary and legal arguments.. At one point, while disagreeing with Mr. Klayman about defamation law in Florida, Ms. Bolger taunted Mr. Klayman with a comment about his ongoing disciplinary issues—”You’re about not to be [a lawyer], Mr. Klayman.” Despite the ongoing conflict and inappropriate conduct throughout the entirety of the deposition, neither party sought to suspend the deposition or seek relief from the Court.

These same issues plagued Ms. Loomer’s deposition, which was taken by Ms. Bolger on June 4, 2025. Counsel argued, made sardonic comments, hurled accusations, and spoke over each other in raised voices.

At times, Mr. Klayman resorted to name-calling. He called Ms. Bolger disrespectful and a “disgrace,” a “very mean, nasty individual,” and a “vicious nasty person.” He asked how, as a woman, she could badger another woman. And he spoke to Ms. Bolger in a disdainful manner, saying things like “get off my back,” and “[t]hank you, Your Honor. I didn’t know that you were the judge.”

In addition, Mr. Klayman raised improper objections. For example, when Ms. Bolger was asking questions about an AP article about Ms. Loomer dated September 11, 2024, Mr. Klayman stated the following:

Mr. Klayman: Objection. What’s the relevancy of this? It’s written by Associated Press … a Trump-hating organization, which the Israelis even had to bomb their building in Gaza because they were supporting Hamas.

As Ms. Bolger questioned Ms. Loomer about additional articles, Mr. Klayman improperly commented that the articles were from “leftist Trump-hating publications”; and “ultra-leftist rags … [w]hich have no credibility at all.” Mr. Klayman accused Ms. Bolger of “pull[ing] out all your friends in the leftist media to try to smear [Loomer] on a public record?” And he told Ms. Bolger that the articles “will never come into evidence. You can have your fun right now, but that will be the last fun you have.”

Mr. Klayman also improperly advised Ms. Loomer not to answer questions about whether the First Amendment protects her right to give her opinion or make jokes. Rule 30(c)(2) provides only three justifications for instructing a deponent not to answer a question—i.e., to preserve a privilege; to enforce a limitation imposed by the court; or to present a Rule 30(d)(3) motion. [Rule 30(d)(3) provides, in relevant part, “At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.” -EV] Here, Mr. Klayman did not raise any of these objections, nor did he move for a protective order…. [C]ounsel violates Rule 30(d)(3) by instructing a deponent not to answer questions but never moving for a protective order ….

Moreover, Mr. Klayman violated his professional responsibility when he declined to restrain Ms. Loomer’s patently improper conduct at her deposition. Objectively, Ms. Loomer was a difficult witness. She repeatedly argued with Ms. Bolger and went on tangents unrelated to any pending question. At one point, she told Ms. Bolger: “I know what you’re doing. I know what type of people you are. You’re fucking Democrats: okay? You represent the filthiest fucking people in our country—Democrats scumbags.” {The Court was also concerned by Ms. Bolger’s response—which was in a taunting, patronizing tone—”I thought you didn’t like the word, “fuck,” Ms. Loomer? I thought you were offended by the word fuck.”} Ms. Loomer accused Ms. Bolger of “hat[ing] America.”

Incredulously, Mr. Klayman took no action to rein in this outrageous conduct. And on at least one occasion, he appeared to egg Ms. Loomer on when she was refusing to directly answer what she meant by her own tweet about Marjorie Taylor Green and the meaning of the phrase “Arby’s in your pants.” Mr. Klayman asked, “[w]here’s the meat?” and Ms. Loomer, who was laughing, quipped, “[i]t’s in her pants.” As an officer of the Court, Mr. Klayman’s complete failure to check Ms. Loomer’s wildly inappropriate behavior was inexcusable.

Ms. Bolger was clearly frustrated by Ms. Loomer’s failure to directly answer questions, some of which were bordering on the absurd. {For example, Ms. Loomer’s testimony surrounding her own tweet about Marjorie Taylor Green and the meaning of the phrase “Arby’s in your pants” is objectively ridiculous.} Unfortunately, in a few instances, Ms. Bolger lost her cool and took the bait. For example, when Ms. Loomer obfuscated about the meaning of a previous tweet she had made about Kamala Harris {“I guess you would know a thing or two about trashy Montel Williams, given the fact that you dated and stuck your cock inside Kamala Harris many years ago. I’ve heard everything her infested snatch touches also dies a miserable, painful death.”}, Ms. Bolger taunted Ms. Loomer to answer with statements like, “I thought you were a First Amendment warrior who was fearless in what you say” and called her a “coward.” There is simply no excuse for this name-calling.

Likewise, when Ms. Loomer wouldn’t directly respond to questions about whether the First Amendment protects her right to give her opinion or make jokes—and Mr. Klayman improperly instructed her not to answer—Ms. Bolger lapsed into unprofessional conduct.. Rather than seeking assistance from the Court, Ms. Bolger continued to repeatedly ask the same (or similar) question, and as she grew more exasperated even asked, “Isn’t it the case that, in the United States of America, the First Amendment express[es] a right to have opinions; and isn’t that fucking fantastic?” She repeatedly asked Ms. Loomer if she was going to take her lawyer’s instruction and attempted to goad her into a response with jabs about being a “free speech warrior.” At one point, Ms. Bolger even stated, “God. It’s embarrassing that you, the free speech warrior, won’t answer a simple question like that.”

Sadly, the deposition transcripts are replete with countless other instances of unprofessional conduct. Rather than taking personal responsibility for their own misconduct, counsel largely points to the misdeeds of opposing counsel to somehow offset their behavior. However, “[m]utual enmity does not excuse the breakdown of decorum” that occurred at the depositions. The Court cannot, and will not, ignore counsel’s unacceptable conduct….

Accordingly, on or before December 18, 2025, Mr. Klayman and Ms. Bolger must show cause why, for the conduct described, they should not be sanctioned under the Court’s authority to maintain standards of civility and professionalism. Sanctions may include, but by no means limited to: nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty to the Court; an order revoking special admission; a Local Rule 2.04 referral to a grievance committee; or some combination of these sanctions.