ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Deepak Chopra's Stalking Case Reopens

Aseem Chhabra

A judge in San Diego declared this week a mistrial in a lawsuit brought by Dr Deepak Chopra against Joyce Weaver, a former employee of Sharp Center for Mind-Body Medicine, according to the attorneys representing the two parties in the case. Weaver had worked with Dr Chopra, the executive director of Sharp, before she was laid off along with others, about three years ago.

Dr Chopra then started his holistic facility in La Jolla.

A fresh jury had been selected for the retrial, which will resume on Monday, December 5, Dr Chopra's lawyer, Carla DiMare, said.

DiMare told rediff.com that Judge Thomas Murphy of the California State Superior Court in San Diego declared a mistrial "because he felt both sides were putting in evidence that he did not want to get into evidence."

Earlier, in an interview, Peter Friesen, the attorney representing Weaver, said, "The mistrial was declared because 'of the conduct of Chopra's lawyers.' "

Dr Chopra brought the suit against Weaver in 1996 on the grounds that she had allegedly attempted to blackmail him and had falsely contended that he had sexually harassed her.

Weaver countersued Dr Chopra on the grounds of retaliation and wrongful termination. Eventually the two actions were consolidated into one lawsuit.

Dr Chopra is represented in the trial by a law firm based in Rancho Santa Fe CA, Flynn, Sheridan, Tabb and Stillman. DiMare is his main lawyer. Weaver is represented by Friesen, a San Diego-based solo practitioner who has been a lawyer for 17 years.

After attempts to settle the suit out of court failed, the trial opened on November 29; the judge declared the mistrial on December 1.

DiMare said Friesen's statement (that the fault lies with Chopra's lawyers) "is not true because in Peter Friesen's opening argument we objected over 30 times and the judge actually sustained our objections. You have to understand that attorneys do not like object to because then it looks like you are trying to hide something from the jury. Plus you don't want to embarrass the guy (the other lawyer) in front of the jury.

"You can see in the transcript that the judge said about the three times that Friesen was delivering a closing argument in his opening statement," DiMare said. "The judge also said he thought in my opening I said some things that he didn't like. But you know what? Peter Freisen only made one objection that was sustained by the judge."

Prior to the start of the trial the judge had made a decision on certain evidence that he did not want to be included in the trail. This included a taped interview of Weaver by a reporter for The Weekly Standard magazine.

In 1996, The Weekly Standard published allegations of a tryst between Dr Chopra and a prostitute, Judy Bangert. The newspaper later retracted the story and reportedly paid Dr Chopra in excess of $ 1 million to settle the suit.

DiMare said the taped interview was conducted by the reporter after the magazine had published its story.

"Those taped transcripts are so damaging to Weaver because they show that she had an agenda to try to destroy Deepak," she said. She added that the transcripts had been a subject of arguments by both sides and the judge decided not to enter them into evidence in the current trial.

However, when DiMare was questioning Weaver on the witness stand at the opening of the trial, the latter "blurted out" the issue regarding the taped interview, Dimare said, adding that the judge was annoyed that the matter was brought up.

Earlier, Friesen also said the judged had prohibited the two sides to speak to the jury about prior settlement negotiations and that issue too crept into the court proceedings.

"I think (at this point) he (the judge) felt that trial was getting out of his control," DiMare said, adding that the judge finally declared a mistrial.

Dr Chopra himself did not want to comment on the current lawsuit. A spokesperson for his institute, The Chopra Center for Well Being in La Jolla, CA said:

"Because the trial is in process right now, we are not able to respond, but we thank you so much for calling."

The lawsuit and the counter suit date back to the fall of 1995, when Weaver was an employee of the Sharp Center for Mind-Body Medicine. Friesen said Weaver was primarily involved in helping develop Chopra's programs, especially his seminars. She had worked for the group for approximately two years.

Friesen said Weaver first complained to Richard Perl, the COO of the organization, that for a year-and-a-half prior to 1995 she had been harassed by her immediate supervisor, David Simon, and by Dr Chopra himself.

The alleged harassment charges against Simon were settled out of court, Friesen said.

DiMare said Weaver was terminated from the center in May 1996 as a part of the downsizing effort because they were losing money. "Deepak had no power to terminate her. Sharp was her employer. Sharp terminated her because they were losing money," she said.

Later in October 1996, Weaver filed an administrative complaint of sexual harassment with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Friesen said Dr Chopra sued her soon after that.

Dr Chopra's suit alleged that Weaver attempted to blackmail him by threatening to go public with the story about Judy Bangert, the prostitute, who in a separate claim was trying to expose her alleged relationship with the Indian doctor.

DiMare said at the time when Weaver approached Perl, complaining that Dr Chopra and Simon were harassing here, she (Weaver) also strongly inferred that she could go the press and talk to them about the Bangert affair.

"She said to Perl: 'These things the press are always interested in, Richard,' " DiMare said. It was later reported in the press that Weaver approached Dr Chopra thrice asking for $ 50,000, or else she would go public with the Bangert story.

Meanwhile, Weaver countersued Dr Chopra on charges of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, breach of contract, fraud, invasion of privacy, retaliation and wrongful termination. Friesen said that Weaver's charges were based on alleged "unwanted romantic overtures" from Dr Chopra and Simon.

DiMare said the first five charges leveled against Dr Chopra were dismissed by Judge Murphy prior to the opening of the trial this week.

DiMare said in her opinion Weaver had stalked Dr Chopra and constantly wanted to be near him.

The San Diego Union Tribune quoted DiMare as saying in the court earlier this week: "Ms Weaver is a very, very angry woman and she was particularly angry at Dr Chopra because he wasn't paying attention to her.

"She keeps going after him even though she knows the story is false because she wants money," DiMare said.

The newspaper also quoted Dr Chopra as saying that the lawsuit was filed to protect his reputation.

"It is a matter of principle I don't feel any hostility (toward Weaver)," he said. "I just feel that blackmail shouldn't be allowed."

DiMare told rediff.com that she believes Dr Chopra has a strong case.

"I think it is really sad that people target public figures, because they feel, 'Oh, that person has a lot of money. I think I'll go file a lawsuit against them and that they will have to pay me something'," she said.

Next: What Comes Of Bearding A Lion

Tell us what you think of this report