Bill Cosby did not attend mandatory deposition hearings scheduled for June 23-24, 2026, in the civil lawsuit brought by Donna Motsinger, who accused him of drugging and assaulting her in 1972. His legal team, led by attorney Jennifer Bonjean, attributed his absence to significant health barriers that make courtroom participation impossible for the 89-year-old former entertainer. The deposition came roughly three months after a Los Angeles jury had already awarded Motsinger a $59.25 million judgment against Cosby in March 2026, raising complex questions about how failing health intersects with legal accountability in high-stakes civil cases.
At 89 years old, Cosby faces multiple documented disabilities that his legal team argues prevent compliance with standard deposition procedures. He is legally blind, experiences age-related health conditions, and suffers from significant mobility limitations. When a defendant’s support person is also unavailable—as was the case during the June dates—the logistical burden of attending depositions in person becomes, according to his attorneys, insurmountable. This situation illustrates how the intersection of advanced age and serious illness can create genuine barriers to legal participation, even when a judgment has already been entered against the defendant.
Table of Contents
- Why Cosby Couldn’t Appear for the June Deposition
- The $59.25 Million Verdict and Its Context
- How Health Conditions Complicate Civil Litigation
- The Role of Attorneys and Medical Documentation
- Enforcement and Collection Challenges in High-Award Cases
- Motsinger’s Perspective and the Plaintiff’s Position
- Legal Precedent for Health-Based Absence from Proceedings
Why Cosby Couldn’t Appear for the June Deposition
depositions are a critical stage in civil litigation, requiring the defendant or plaintiff to answer questions under oath in the presence of attorneys and typically a court reporter. Cosby’s inability to attend wasn’t a casual matter of inconvenience—his legal team documented disabilities that created what they characterized as an impossible situation. Being legally blind means that standard deposition procedures, which often involve reading documents or reviewing exhibits, would be difficult or impossible to complete without significant accommodation and assistance. The mobility limitations cited by Bonjean are a second compounding factor.
An 89-year-old with severe mobility restrictions cannot reliably travel to a law office or courthouse, sit for the duration of a deposition, or manage the physical demands of testimony. When the person designated to support him during this process was unavailable on the scheduled June 23-24 dates, the equation became untenable. This isn’t unique to Cosby’s case; courts increasingly encounter elderly defendants whose health deteriorates to the point that in-person legal participation becomes genuinely impossible. The difference here is the high-profile nature of the case and the size of the judgment already awarded.
The $59.25 Million Verdict and Its Context
In March 2026, just three months before the missed deposition, the Los Angeles jury had determined that Cosby owed Motsinger $59.25 million for her claims of sexual assault and battery. The verdict represented a significant legal judgment against Cosby, particularly in a case dating back to 1972—more than five decades prior. That the jury reached this verdict while Cosby’s health was already documented as declining raises questions about how much his condition deteriorated further during the three-month interval between the verdict and the scheduled depositions. The deposition process that Cosby missed serves a different purpose than the trial that preceded it. While the jury trial determines liability and damages, depositions in the post-verdict phase typically address questions about enforcement, asset location, or other implementation matters.
For Motsinger’s legal team, obtaining Cosby’s deposition testimony could help locate assets to satisfy the judgment or secure commitments about payment plans. His absence, therefore, has practical consequences beyond simple courtroom attendance—it affects the plaintiff’s ability to collect what the court determined she was owed. It’s worth noting that a $59.25 million judgment against an 89-year-old defendant raises the serious limitation of collectability. Even if Cosby’s health were not a barrier, questions about whether an elderly person’s assets would be sufficient to satisfy such a judgment are significant. Courts have limited tools to compel payment from defendants facing extreme age and health challenges, and enforcement in such cases often becomes protracted or incomplete.
How Health Conditions Complicate Civil Litigation
The combination of legal blindness and significant mobility limitations creates a genuine conflict between a defendant’s legal obligations and physical capacity. Cosby’s case is instructive here: no court can compel someone to perform an act that their documented medical conditions make impossible. At the same time, allowing a defendant to simply avoid all legal proceedings due to health would undermine the enforcement of judgments and the civil justice system’s ability to hold people accountable. Some jurisdictions have begun allowing remote depositions via video conferencing, particularly for elderly or infirm witnesses and defendants. This option can remove some mobility barriers, but it does not eliminate others. A person who is legally blind still cannot read documents independently, and providing real-time accommodations during a remote deposition requires coordinated support.
In Cosby’s case, the unavailability of his support person during the June dates meant that even a remote deposition option would have been difficult to execute properly. Different courts have handled similar situations with varying approaches. Some allow depositions to proceed with extensive accommodations and support staff. Others postpone proceedings indefinitely when health barriers cannot be practically overcome. A few have allowed parties to submit written interrogatories—written questions answered in writing—rather than conducting live depositions. Each approach has tradeoffs: accommodations increase cost and time, postponements delay justice for the plaintiff, and written responses provide less opportunity to assess credibility or follow up with immediate questioning.
The Role of Attorneys and Medical Documentation
Jennifer Bonjean’s statement to the court itemized the barriers with specificity: “disabilities, age-related health issues, and related logistical challenges.” This framing required more than assertion—it typically requires medical documentation. Courts do not accept vague claims of illness as grounds for avoiding legal participation. Attorneys must present medical evidence: physician statements, recent medical records, specific diagnoses, and functional capacity assessments that demonstrate why the defendant cannot appear.
The presence of documented legal blindness and mobility limitations makes Cosby’s case stronger than a simple claim of “not feeling well.” These are permanent, verifiable disabilities rather than temporary ailments. The addition of a missing support person transforms the situation from “the defendant is frail” to “the defendant cannot reasonably function without specific assistance that is unavailable on these dates.” Courts are more likely to grant relief when an attorney can point to concrete, documented barriers rather than general health concerns. Attorneys representing elderly clients facing litigation must navigate a difficult comparison: between their duty to zealously advocate for their client and the practical reality that their client’s health may make certain legal proceedings impossible. In Cosby’s case, Bonjean appears to have taken a preventive approach, notifying the court of barriers before the deposition was scheduled, rather than attempting to force Cosby’s attendance and then requesting a continuance after he became ill or was unable to travel.
Enforcement and Collection Challenges in High-Award Cases
A $59.25 million judgment is substantial, yet collecting such a judgment from an 89-year-old defendant involves inherent limitations. Cosby would need to either have liquid assets of that magnitude, income sources sufficient to satisfy the judgment over time, or property that could be sold to generate proceeds. His age and health status suggest that collection may occur more through asset liquidation than ongoing payment, and disputes over what assets are available, what debts take priority, and what expenses are necessary for his care can all complicate the process. Depositions in the post-verdict phase can help locate assets and establish payment plans, but they are not the only enforcement mechanism available.
Plaintiff’s attorneys can issue subpoenas to banks, conduct asset searches, file liens against property, and in some jurisdictions, pursue supplemental proceedings designed specifically to identify resources available for judgment satisfaction. Cosby’s absence from depositions, while frustrating to Motsinger’s legal team, does not prevent enforcement efforts—it simply removes one tool from the process. The reality is a sobering one: even judgments for tens of millions of dollars can prove difficult to collect from elderly defendants in declining health. Courts have broad discretion in such cases to prioritize ongoing medical care and living expenses, which can substantially reduce the portion of a judgment ultimately available for satisfaction. This is not unique to Cosby; it reflects a broader limitation of the civil justice system when pursuing judgments against elderly or institutionalized defendants.
Motsinger’s Perspective and the Plaintiff’s Position
Donna Motsinger accused Cosby of assaulting her in 1972, then waited more than five decades before pursuing legal action. The $59.25 million judgment represents validation of her claims and a concrete award meant to compensate her for the harm she alleged. However, a judgment is only meaningful if it can be collected, and the defendant’s health barriers directly affect that possibility.
From Motsinger’s perspective, Cosby’s absence from the deposition removes an opportunity to extract information about his finances, assets, and payment capacity. While depositions can be emotionally demanding for plaintiffs as well, they serve a practical purpose in enforcement: clarifying what the defendant actually owns and what resources are available. When Cosby does not appear, his legal team effectively controls the flow of information about his circumstances, and Motsinger’s attorneys must pursue collection through other, potentially slower and more expensive methods.
Legal Precedent for Health-Based Absence from Proceedings
Courts have long grappled with the question of how to proceed when a defendant’s health makes participation impossible. In some cases, courts have allowed trials to proceed without the defendant present, with defense counsel managing the case in their client’s absence. In other instances, particularly when the defendant’s personal testimony is crucial, courts have postponed proceedings. The rules vary by jurisdiction and by the specific stage of litigation—trials are treated differently from depositions, which are treated differently from appeals.
One notable limitation is that the law does not clearly resolve whether a plaintiff has a “right” to a defendant’s deposition if the defendant’s health makes attendance genuinely impossible. Courts balance the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining information against the defendant’s inability to comply. In Cosby’s case, the documented nature of his disabilities—legal blindness and mobility limitations—provide stronger grounds for relief than a generalized claim of poor health. The specificity matters: “I am legally blind and cannot travel” is more persuasive to a court than “I am not feeling well.”.