Andy Cohen’s ‘Private Recordings and Documents’ Reportedly to Be Unmasked in Leah McSweeney Drug Lawsuit

RadarOnline.com has learned the judge presiding over the former The Real Housewives of New York City star’s case against her former boss and network has allowed private documents and recordings to be seen by McSweeney’s attorney.

The move will ensure the Married to the Mob founder’s legal team can listen to private recordings, read documents tied to the case and give them the ability to set up under-oath interviews.

McSweeney’s suit claimed Cohen and Bravo pressured her to break her sobriety during her time on the Manhattan franchise to make for a more interesting show.

As previously reported, the Watch What Happens Live host and his attorneys demanded the judge pause the lawsuit until their motion to dismiss was heard, claiming that “Any discovery sought will be broad and require extensive responses.”

The motion also stated: “While Plaintiff attempts to overwhelm with a 754-paragraph complaint, even a cursory review of her allegations reveals that many concern matters entirely irrelevant to her claims and most are devoid of any factual or legal support, speculative, misleading, and/or demonstrably false.”

Cohen continued to argue that “further the interests of efficiency and conservation of judicial resources” and that McSweeney “only seeks money damages” and therefore would “not be prejudiced by a stay”.

The biggest bombshell to come out of the scandalous back and forth was the businesswoman’s claim that Cohen allegedly did cocaine with his employees to garner favor.

McSweeney also claimed that Cohen “tormented, demoralized, demeaned, harassed and retaliated” against her “because she is a woman with disabilities, such as alcohol use disorder and various mental health disorders, all in the name of selling drama.”

The father-of-two fired back at the ex-reality star’s accusations via his legal team who said, “Many of Plaintiff’s claims, supported only by the most conclusory and threadbare allegations, should be dismissed as a matter of law.”

“The rest of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because they impermissibly seek to abridge Defendants’ First Amendment rights to tailor and adjust the messages they wish to convey in their creative works, including through cast selection and other creative decisions,” the legal document read.

“Under well-settled law, even if Defendants did want to use the Housewives franchise to feature inebriated cast members (which they do not), that message — achieved through casting and directing decisions — would be protected under the First Amendment.”