Closing arguments wrap up billionaire’s sex harassment trial

Plaintiff attorney Nathan Goldberg asked for $14 million in punitive and compensatory damages Tuesday during closing arguments for a sexual harassment trial against billionaire Alki David.

Highlighting 14 instances of alleged harassment and assault committed by David against his client Lauren Reeves, Goldberg told a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury the Hologram USA Inc. CEO should be made to pay $1 million for each of them.

In one incident in 2016, Goldberg claims David put his hands around Reeves' throat and pushed her, causing her to hit her head. In another, David allegedly pulled down his pants in front of Reeves, who was employed at Holorgam USA as a writer and was at the time sitting in David's office.

On the witness stand last week, David said the exchange was intended to be seen as a joke by a third employee, who would see it as "an act of feigned fellatio." David said many of the alleged instances of assault against Reeves were jokes or pranks that were blown out of proportion or misinterpreted.

Joke or not, Goldberg questioned when it was alright for a boss to walk around an office naked, referencing another incident in which David had exposed himself at the office with his genitals tucked to perform what David called "the Mangina."

"Like that's normal?" said Goldberg, a partner of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. "In what universe is it okay to have your boss walk around naked?"

David's counsel, Venable LLP partner Ellyn C. Garofalo, argued David's humorous intentions were clear as Reeves responded to most of them in good humor and the "raunchy," offensive nature of the workplace was well known for her. While acknowledging her client's courtroom behavior could be seen as "loud, aggressive and obnoxious," she said his attitude has been consistent with the idea that he's righteously angry after being wrongfully accused.

"Like it or not, he testified in a way that a liar would not," Garofalo said.

She also suggested a number of apparent inconsistencies between the testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses was the result of coaching by the plaintiff's counsel. Garofalo said this was perhaps done after the jury didn't appear moved by Reeves' initial testimony and that they "felt the need to spice it up."

Goldberg took offense at the suggestion.

"To have someone come in and say something that's inconsistent with my client's testimony?" Goldberg said. "Am I stupid?"

Though they didn't have much time to deliberate ahead of the end of court day Tuesday, the matter is now in the jury's hands.