U.S. District Judge Andrew Krause denied a request from Project Veritas to limit public access to deposition materials in its ongoing legal dispute with founder James O’Keefe, despite the organization citing safety concerns, police reports, and allegations of “witness intimidation.”
The hearing, part of the ongoing case Project Veritas v. O’Keefe, centered on a motion by Veritas attorneys to pause discovery and move all depositions to a remote format. Their attorney, Michael Harris, argued that the publication of excerpts from depositions had resulted in harassment and threats toward witnesses. “People are receiving death threats, threats of rape,” Harris told the court, adding that the situation is now “the subject of an ongoing federal investigation.”
The request followed the release of Part 1 of O’Keefe Media Group’s docu-series, The Truth Inside Veritas, which included footage and testimony from key figures in the dispute. Veritas alleged that the public sharing of these materials was being used not for legal purposes but to “humiliate and intimidate witnesses.” Harris specifically pointed to O’Keefe’s presence at depositions, saying, “His very presence there… has an intimidating effect.”
Judge Krause, however, emphasized the constitutional limits on restricting access to public court proceedings. “As a general matter, this is a public proceeding,” he stated at the outset, adding that requests to seal material retroactively are “generally looked at disfavorably.”
O’Keefe’s legal team pushed back on the intimidation claims. His attorney, Nick Whitney, told the court that O’Keefe was simply participating in his own defense. “We would work much more productively if we’re in the same room,” Whitney said. “He’s feeding me documents and questions and responding in real time.”
Whitney also introduced troubling new testimony: under oath, two witnesses reportedly confirmed that Project Veritas board member Matthew Tyrmand stated inside company headquarters that he wanted to “decapitate James O’Keefe and carve his heart out and eat it with a spoon.” Judge Krause called the statement “atrocious” and “disturbing,” though noted it was not directly material to the current litigation.
In a separate incident, Whitney submitted an email from former Veritas attorney Paul Cali that allegedly threatened O’Keefe with physical violence. Judge Krause declined to read the email into the record, citing its language as “certainly not… befitting of a member of a bar of this or any court,” but acknowledged it as a “hostile and aggressive” communication.
Also discussed was a police report filed by witness George Skakel after O’Keefe appeared at his home to request comment. The report noted Skakel “just wanted the incident documented in case he goes to apply for a protective order.” The court acknowledged the report but found no evidence that O’Keefe had threatened Skakel.
O’Keefe, who was present at the hearing, criticized efforts to restrict public coverage of the case. “If they are embarrassed and humiliated by what they’re doing and saying going out into the public, maybe they should not engage in that behavior,” he said. “The solution is not to seal up a public proceeding.”
Ultimately, Judge Krause denied Veritas’s motion to stay discovery and rejected the request to bar O’Keefe from depositions. “You’d have to really make a proper showing,” he said. “It can’t just be the witness doesn’t feel like seeing Mr. O’Keefe.”
The judge did acknowledge concerns around the method of journalism used in the ongoing coverage, suggesting that media outreach could be conducted without showing up at witnesses’ homes. “There are ways of seeking comment that don’t involve going to somebody’s house,” he said, though clarified he would not prohibit O’Keefe or his organization from reporting on the case.
As the hearing concluded, Judge Krause indicated the court would reconvene.
