A judge has ordered Creative Artists Agency co-founder Michael Ovitz to return and complete his deposition in actor Julia Ormond’s lawsuit against the agency. The ruling follows a June 1 deposition session that ended after Ovitz was questioned about Jeffrey Epstein and left before the examination was complete.

Judge Adam Silvera directed that the deposition be completed by Dec. 18. While the court declined requests from Ormond’s lawyers for an arrest warrant and a contempt finding, it concluded that Ovitz, a non-party witness in the case, had not properly ended the deposition.

“The Court finds that the deposition of non-party Ovitz was not completed but, rather was inappropriately terminated by non-party Ovitz,” Judge Silvera wrote.

The decision is a procedural ruling, not a resolution of Ormond’s claims against CAA. Still, it has immediate practical significance: Ovitz must sit for further questioning, and the court did not foreclose additional questions concerning Epstein despite objections that the topic was irrelevant and improperly prejudicial.

What the lawsuit concerns

Ormond is suing CAA over its alleged role in arranging a December 1995 meeting between her and Harvey Weinstein. She alleges that Weinstein sexually assaulted her after that meeting. Those are allegations in the civil case; the order concerning Ovitz does not decide whether CAA is liable or establish the underlying allegations as fact.

Ovitz had already departed CAA by the time of the alleged 1995 incident. Ormond’s legal team nevertheless seeks testimony about the agency’s relationship with Weinstein and its handling of sexual-misconduct issues. That distinction matters. A witness need not be a party to a lawsuit—or have been present at the event being litigated—to possess testimony that one side believes is relevant to broader questions in a case.

CAA’s lawyers have argued that the Epstein questions were an effort to damage Ovitz’s character rather than obtain evidence connected to Ormond’s claims. The dispute therefore turns partly on relevance: whether a line of questioning has a sufficient connection to issues the court may need to decide. The judge did not issue a final, blanket ruling that every possible Epstein-related question is permissible. Instead, by ordering the deposition to resume and declining to rule out those questions, the court left the matter open for the continuing examination.

Why the June deposition became the focus

At the June 1 deposition, Ormond’s attorneys asked Ovitz whether he was friendly with Epstein. Ovitz objected to the connection with Weinstein, removed his microphone and left the proceeding.

Related coverage includes Judge Orders Michael Ovitz to Finish Deposition in Julia Ormond Lawsuit.

A deposition is sworn testimony taken before trial, typically with attorneys for the parties asking questions and a court reporter creating a record. It is a central discovery tool in civil litigation: lawyers use it to learn what a witness knows, preserve testimony, assess disputes over evidence and prepare for later stages of the case.

That setting is not simply an informal interview that a witness can unilaterally end because a question is disputed. Lawyers can object, seek limits from a judge and preserve arguments that a question should not be answered. But the court’s wording here makes clear that it regarded the incomplete session as improperly terminated. The remedy chosen was a new deadline for the remaining testimony, rather than punishment in the form of contempt or an arrest warrant.

That split result is important. Ormond’s lawyers asked for stronger sanctions, but Judge Silvera denied them. At the same time, the judge rejected Ovitz’s attempt to avoid further questioning altogether. The outcome does not hand either side every remedy it sought; it restores the discovery process and gives the court a clearer expectation that the examination must proceed under its rules.

The Epstein issue and the limits of this ruling

Earlier-disclosed emails between Ovitz and Epstein were referenced in the dispute. In one, Ovitz wrote that he looked forward to seeing Epstein in St. Barts; in another, he wrote, “I would love to see you.” Their disclosure does not itself establish why the communications are relevant to Ormond’s lawsuit, nor does the deposition order make findings about the nature of their relationship.

That is a critical boundary for readers following a contentious legal story. A court allowing—or declining at this stage to prohibit—a topic of questioning is not the same thing as a factual finding about the witness. Discovery often includes arguments over the scope of questions precisely because parties disagree about what information may lead to admissible evidence or illuminate a disputed issue.

CAA’s position is that the material was deployed to smear Ovitz rather than to advance the claims at issue. Ormond’s lawyers have taken the opposite position, seeking answers about it as part of their examination. The resumed deposition is where that conflict will continue to play out, subject to the court’s rules and any subsequent rulings.

What comes next

The immediate next step is straightforward: Ovitz has been ordered to complete his deposition by Dec. 18. The order does not say that the case is over, determine the merits of Ormond’s lawsuit or impose contempt penalties. It addresses a discrete discovery dispute arising from the unfinished questioning.

Ormond’s attorneys Kevin Mintzer, Meredith Firetog and Effie Blassberger welcomed the ruling, saying the court required Ovitz to return and answer their questions and warned him to follow court rules. Their statement also said they expect the deposition to resume.

For the entertainment business, the case puts attention on questions that extend beyond a single witness: how a major talent agency’s dealings with powerful producers are examined in litigation, what former executives may be asked about institutional practices, and how courts manage testimony involving sensitive and potentially disputed collateral subjects.

Those questions arrive at a time when corporate leadership and accountability remain major threads across entertainment-industry coverage, including recent reporting on executive change at Warner Bros. Discovery. But the Ovitz ruling is narrower than a broader referendum on an agency or its former executive. Its concrete effect is procedural: an interrupted deposition must be finished, and the precise boundaries of questioning can continue to be litigated as the testimony resumes.

Key points from the order

  • Judge Adam Silvera ordered Michael Ovitz to complete his deposition by Dec. 18.
  • The court found the prior deposition was not completed and was inappropriately terminated.
  • Requests to hold Ovitz in contempt or issue an arrest warrant were denied.
  • The judge did not rule out continued questions involving Jeffrey Epstein.
  • The ruling does not decide Julia Ormond’s claims against CAA or make a final determination on the disputed factual issues in the lawsuit.