Time's Up Demands That New York Investigates DA Who Didn't Prosecute Weinstein in 2015

Harvey Weinstein’s legal storm rages on. The disgraced producer, who has spent the last few months hiding in Arizona, is still the subject of numerous litigious investigations, two of which are taking dramatic new turns.

In New York, the N.Y.P.D. is reportedly awaiting approval from District Attorney Cyrus Vance to arrest Weinstein—but Time’s Up, the initiative and legal-defense fund that is dedicated to combatting sexual harassment in the workplace, has also called for New York governor Andrew Cuomo to investigate Vance’s past decision on a Weinstein case. Meanwhile, in Toronto, attorneys for Disney are asking a court to seal details of its previous employment relationship with Weinstein in order to extricate the company from the case altogether. (Disney purchased Miramax, Weinstein’s former distribution company, in 1993; the relationship ended in 2005.)

Let’s start with New York. In early March, the Daily Beast reported that the N.Y.P.D. had been investigating five sexual-assault allegations against Weinstein, and is now ready to arrest him for felony sexual assault. However, the police must wait for Vance to give them the all-clear. This next step is troubling for some, as Vance is the same D.A. who declined to file charges against Weinstein in 2015, after model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez alleged to the N.Y.P.D. that Weinstein had groped her. In a sharp, open letter published on New York magazine’s website on Monday, the Time’s Up initiative urged Governor Cuomo to launch an independent investigation of Vance and determine why the Gutierrez case was scrapped.

“An independent investigation into the full decision-making process in this case, including a full review of the correspondence within the office and with any representatives for Mr. Weinstein, must be undertaken immediately to ensure that prosecutorial integrity was maintained and to restore faith in the D.A.’s office,” the letter reads.

If the Gutierrez investigation had not been halted, the letter continues, Weinstein’s alleged “continued victimization of others could have been avoided.” (Weinstein, through a spokesperson, has repeatedly denied all allegations of nonconsensual acts. Last year, The New Yorkerpublished audio of Weinstein admitting that he groped Gutierrez.)

Now to Toronto, where Weinstein is the subject of a $14 million lawsuit filed by a model and actress identified in court only as Jane Doe. She claims that Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 2000, and names Disney, which owned Miramax at the time, in her complaint, according to the Star.

“At the time of the assaults, Disney knew, should have known, or was willfully blind to the fact that Weinstein regularly sexually harassed and sexually assaulted women,” Doe’s statement reads, per the Star. “Although Disney could have done so, Disney did not take steps to overrule Miramax’s business decision to accommodate and facilitate Weinstein’s serial sexual assaults on young women in the workplace.”

Disney’s team is digging in its heels and defending the company, claiming that Doe’s statement has no legal basis and that Disney had no knowledge of any such allegations against Weinstein. Furthermore, its lawyers say, the Miramax leader had “virtual autonomy” over the company. As such, Disney’s attorneys want to seal details of its employment relationship with Weinstein, and they are also seeking a publication ban on Monday’s proceedings.

“It is troubling that having endured conduct that was shrouded in secrecy and shame, Ms. Doe now faces an attempt to silence her yet again,” Doe’s lawyers, Marie Henein and Alex Smith, responded, per the Star. “While it is understandable that Disney might wish to avoid being publicly associated with Mr. Weinstein given the events of the past several months . . . embarrassment is not grounds for a sealing order.”

Disney’s attorney, David Reiter, declined to comment on the ban to the Star. And the Weinstein circus carries on.