More on Lawyer Hijinks in Laura Loomer’s and Bill Maher’s Depositions

From an order today by Magistrate Judge Philip 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):

On December 4, 2025, the Court entered an Order directing counsel for Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, and counsel for Defendants, Kate Bolger, to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct at the depositions of Bill Maher and Laura Loomer. The Court was sincerely shocked by counsel’s conduct at those depositions—conduct which fell well below the standards of professionalism that this Court expects and that are mandated by the Florida Bar. In issuing its show cause Order, the Court was focused on explaining why counsel’s conduct at the depositions was unacceptable, resetting the tone of this litigation (which has been unusually contentious), and ensuring that counsel would conduct themselves with civility and professionalism moving forward.

The court began by discussing Ms. Bolger’s response, and concluded “its objectives in issuing the order to show cause were achieved” because “Ms. Bolger was remorseful and apologetic, she took full responsibility for her behavior, and she re-committed herself to litigating this action with civility and professionalism—standards to which she has held herself over the course of her 25-year career. Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged as to Ms. Bolger.”

The court then turned to Mr. Klayman’s response:

In stark contrast, Mr. Klayman fails to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at the depositions. In fact, Mr. Klayman blatantly ignores the countless instances of unprofessional conduct identified by the Court—including name calling, bickering, improper objections, and failing to restrain Ms. Loomer’s outrageous conduct—and instead, explains why he was rightfully frustrated by Ms. Bolger’s conduct at the depositions, why his improper objections were well-founded, and even appears to shift blame to the Court for not granting his requests for in-person discovery conferences and for (according to Mr. Klayman, who made the suggestion “respectfully”) the undersigned’s purported bias towards Ms. Bolger and her clients.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated instance of unprofessional conduct for Mr. Klayman. Indeed, over the past thirty years, Mr. Klayman repeatedly has been sanctioned and condemned for violations of court rules and professional standards, both in the Middle District and throughout the United States.

See e.g., Robles v. In the Name of Human., We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist Am., No. 17-CV-04864, 2018 WL 2329728, at (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2018), aff’d, 1820 Fed.Appx. 529, 531-32 (9th Cir. 2020) (revoking Mr. Klayman’s pro hac vice admission and reviewing his history of judicial reprimands and sanctions—”Over the years, numerous courts have sanctioned Klayman, called his behavior into question, or revoked his pro hac vice admission. Two courts have banned Klayman from their courts for life.”); In re Bundy, 840 F.3d 1034, 1042-(9th Cir. 2016), subsequent mandamus proceeding, 852 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming District of Nevada’s decision to deny Mr. Klayman’s application for pro hac vice, based on pending D.C. disciplinary proceedings, number of other cases in which federal district courts have cited him for inappropriate and unethical behavior, and his pattern of perverting the judicial process with insults and intimidation against judges personally, which show a “total disregard for judicial process.”); Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-CV-143-OC-22PRL, 2015 WL 1546173, at n.7 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2015) (noting that

Mr. Klayman “has routinely shown a disregard for [the district court’s] Local Rules” and “[t]he Court has become quite frustrated with [Mr. Klayman’s] various tactics to avoid Court rules throughout the course of this litigation. Unfortunately, the Court learned early on in this case that this approach to litigation is the norm and not the exception for [Mr. Klayman].”); Klayman v. Jud. Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 137, 138-39, 152 (D.D.C. 2011) (after the “patent failure of the Court’s use of lesser sanctions in the past to have an discernible effect on Klayman’s conduct,” Klayman’s “consistent pattern of engaging in dilatory tactics, his disobedience of Court-ordered deadlines, and his disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules” necessitated further, more severe, sanctions); Stern v. Burkle, 2007 WL 2815139 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 6, 2007) (denying Mr. Klayman’s petition to proceed pro hac vice because his “record demonstrates more than an occasional lapse of judgment, it evinces a total disregard for the judicial process. There is no reason for Mr. Klayman to be involved in this case or appear in this court.”); Macdraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 447, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 138 F.3d 33, 34 (2d Cir. 1998) (revoking Klayman’s ability to appear before the district court pro hac vice in perpetuity and sanctioning Klayman for “undignified and discourteous conduct that was both degrading to the Court and prejudicial to the administration of justice” by, among other things, making accusations of racial and political bias and acting “abusive[ly] and obnoxious[ly]” at depositions); Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (affirming district court’s order “permanently prohibiting Mr. Klayman from appearing before him pro hac vice in the future[].”). The most recent sanction is Mr. Klayman’s two-year suspension by the Florida Supreme Court. Florida Bar v. Klayman, No. SC2023-1219, 2025 WL 3096930 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2025).

Given this history, combined with Mr. Klayman’s complete refusal to acknowledge his blatantly unacceptable conduct at the depositions, the Court has no reason to believe that Mr. Klayman understands his professional obligations and that he is committed to conducting himself in compliance with the standards of professionalism that this Court expects and that are mandated by the Florida Bar.

Accordingly, the Court refers Mr. Klayman to the grievance committee for the Ocala Division under Local Rule 2.04, to investigate alleged misconduct in this Court, described in Doc. 158, and to provide the Chief Judge a recommended resolution. The Court further refers Mr. Klayman to The Florida Bar for any action considered appropriate in any current investigations involving Mr. Klayman or otherwise.

In addition to this Order, the Clerk shall provide the grievance committee for the Ocala Division and The Florida Bar with the Order to Show Cause, Mr. Klayman’s response, a copy of the deposition transcript for both depositions, and a thumb drive of the video of each deposition.

Mr. Klayman responded immediately with an emergency motion to stay (which also includes a copy of his response that was cited by the court), arguing that:

Magistrate Lammens’ order is based in large part on alleged conduct in other cases to which Mr. Klayman was not provided an opportunity to address. Mr. Klayman had been a member continuously in good standing with The Florida Bar for nearly forty-eight (48) years before his recent suspension, which is still being challenged through a Petition for Rehearing.

Furthermore, it is not true that Mr. Klayman did not show any remorse. In his response to December 4, 2025 order to show cause, Mr. Klayman pointed out how he asked Magistrate Lammens on multiple occasions to intervene and set hearing to discuss try to resolve ongoing issues and expressed contrition about how the matter had proceeded on both sides. Exhibit 1; Response to Magistrate Lammens’ Order to Show Cause.

WHEREFORE, Magistrate Lammens’ January 15, 2026 order must be stayed so that Mr. Klayman can address this issue before Judge Moody before any further action is taken. Otherwise, Mr. Klayman will suffer irreparable harm.

For details on what happened in the depositions, here’s my post from December:

[* * *]

From [the December 4] 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.

You can read the Loomer deposition for yourself (thanks to commenter thenotoriousrbg for the pointer).