Episode 155: Michael Ovitz, CAA, and the Deposition He Walked Out Of

CAA co-founder Michael Ovitz was ordered by a New York state court to complete his deposition in the Julia Ormond sexual assault lawsuit after walking out of questioning in June when pressed on his post-conviction relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Justice Adam Silvera declined to hold Ovitz in contempt or issue a bench warrant — but explicitly warned that Ovitz "inappropriately terminated" the deposition and must return to finish it. For agents, executives, and studio leadership, this case is a live demonstration of how institutional conduct from the 1990s continues to generate legal and financial exposure today — and CAA is footing the bill. Key Takeaways: Justice Adam Silvera denied a bench warrant for Ovitz but issued a formal warning: proper deposition procedures must be followed and questioning must be completed. Ormond alleges CAA leadership failed to warn her about Harvey Weinstein before a 1995 meeting that led to her assault — Ovitz was CAA's chairman at the time. Ovitz refused all Epstein-related questions at the June deposition, saying on the record: "I'm not going to discuss anything about Jeffrey Epstein." DOJ documents released earlier in 2026 include 2012 emails showing Ovitz and Epstein planning meetings in Manhattan and off St. Barts — more than 3 years after Epstein's Florida sex crimes conviction. CAA is paying Ovitz's legal fees, even while arguing he has "nothing to do" with the Ormond case or its underlying claims. Ormond's legal team — Kevin Mintzer, Meredith Firetog, and Effie Blassberger — stated publicly that Ovitz "is not above the law" and that they look forward to resuming the deposition. Ovitz left CAA in 1995; his own counsel frames his deposition appearance as entirely tangential to the core litigation. The resumed deposition is the immediate forward event to watch. What Ovitz says — or refuses to say — on the record about his Epstein contact after 2009 will shape both the Ormond litigation and the broader public record on CAA's institutional posture toward predatory behavior in the 1990s. For the agency, the reputational and financial cost of defending this keeps climbing. For representation professionals at every level, this case is a reminder that agency liability for what leadership knew — and didn't act on — has a very long tail. Subscribe to The Option for daily updates on the business behind the business.