A California judge ruled in favor of Michael Jackson’s estate on Thursday (August 22), denying a request by accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck to access “the entirety of the criminal file” related to child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson in Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County dating back to the early 1990s. The request included photographs of Michael Jackson’s nude body and genitalia taken during a 1993 criminal investigation.
“These evidence requests are about basic fairness so that everyone has access to the same information,” argued John Carpenter, the attorney for Robson and Safechuck, in a Beverly Hills courtroom before the judge dismissed his plea. “It’s undeniable that this evidence is relevant. We need these subpoenas not only to obtain the evidence but to establish a foundation for other alleged evidence.”
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael E. Whitaker acknowledged the significance of the evidence sought but cited procedural issues in his decision. “It’s clear why you want this, but there are procedural hurdles,” the judge remarked. He rejected the records request for two reasons: a 2018 ruling that quashed similar subpoenas in Robson’s case before it was consolidated with Safechuck’s, and the failure of Robson and Safechuck to notify third parties whose private, potentially sensitive information might be included in the sought-after documents.
Regarding the motion for order to enforce Carpenter to comply with the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge stated that the courts lack the authority to regulate Carpenter’s behavior, though he believes they should. While no sanctions were issued today, the judge warned Carpenter to remain cautious. Reportedly, Carpenter told the defense that if they had concerns about his conduct, they should file a complaint with the state bar.
Although the plaintiffs disagree with the structure of the discovery and motion schedule proposed by the defense, they have agreed to the defendant’s request for a trial date in 2026 or sooner, depending on the availability of the court and defense counsel. During an April 26, 2024, meet-and-confer, the defendants proposed a trial date of August 17, 2026. The plaintiffs did not object to this date or suggest any alternatives.
Judge Whitaker indicated that parts of this case fall under Complex Litigation and will require case management orders. After the joint case report is submitted in early October, the judge will issue his order. The possibility of holding the trial in downtown Los Angeles, which could extend the trial’s duration, is also being considered. However, all pre-trial proceedings will remain in Beverly Hills and be carefully managed.
The next court date is scheduled for October 22.
