The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:10 pm

When the judge said they may not be admissible, and would be decided at Limine. Essentially, when AH team reviews them, they will pick out what helps her defense. Depp team will argue that they aren't relevant to the defamation claim, and the judge will decide what if any of his medical mental records become part of evidence.

As far as no announcement on the IME, I think it was prudent to let some things slide. Yes, it was denied, but insisting on a statement to the press just gives Kaplan more tabloid time to talk about the medical and mental records they are getting. Or complain about a missed document. In other words, no Depp statement goes unanswered. Sometimes silence works in your favor.

Ragdoll
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:08 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ragdoll » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:53 pm

Do you guys know if the depositions will go up on the court website? It should have been Ellen Barkin's yesterday and Josh drew's today

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:07 pm

I've followed allot of JD's lawsuits and read documents. The only time I've seen a deposition uploaded to the website is if it is being referred to in a motion and then attached or parts of it attached as an Exhibit. I don't expect to see just depositions uploaded on their own. But I was surprised to see Ellen Barkin's Subpoena uploaded since there are no documents required. This could be an NYC rquirement?

Ragdoll
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:08 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ragdoll » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:33 pm

Ah, so we'll just be kept in suspense about what Josh Drew is gonna say, basically until he's a witness on the stand

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:25 am

Chocolat wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:24 pm
ForeverYoung wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:02 am
Waldman has no made any statements about it to The Blast or any other tabloid site. If he did, it would be all over the place.
It is curious as to why Adam Waldman didn't make a statement about the denial to the IME request from Heard.
It seems like this win in Johnny's favor would merit some kind of announcement regardless of any documents she was granted, like his medical records. I do remember that when the judge granted Heard to see his medical records, he added that the records may not make it to trial, or some words to that affect. So, if I understand it correctly, in other words, the records would basically have no bearing at trial.
I agree that the mainstream media needs to report positive news about Johnny. My guess is that the old idea of sensationalism still sells far more than any good news.
I have developed a theory lately about why the mainstream media keep sticking to the story of Johnny being the abuser instead of the other way around. As I say; it's only a theory. And it is only part of the explanation, I am sure. But could it be, that the journalists and editors do not like the idea, that the woman can be the emotionally stronger part in a relationship?
Not smarter or sweeter in this case, but somebody who never second guess herself, and is quite sure, she's always right even when she isn't.
They might even think, that they are sort of doing Johnny a favour by not spreading the news, that a 'girl beat him' ...
Or is that too far fetched?

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 9656
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:28 am

It's certainly possible that some journalists slant their stories in a warped, twisted way but only if it will provoke interest and click bait toward their website. It's been my observation that if one of the mainstream media outlets prints their hot story, others will follow suit in the same manner because they monitor views and that equals $$ for their site. The publication fails if a headline doesn't have impact in order to draw in readers. Johnny and Amber are a hot topic of sorts....but not as much as The Kardashians or the rapper of the month. Years ago, when Johnny was labeled the Bad Boy of Hollywood, he got a lot of press coverage. Then he settled down with Vanessa, had their children and all sensationalism about him mellowed out. Today with all the chaos surrounding him with his crazy ex, the media has brought him back to being the Bad Boy once again. That is how they want to sell their stories. Really.....no one cares about Amber Heard unless she has her top off. And in due time, that too, will fade away.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
myfave
Posts: 6077
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: South
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by myfave » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:44 pm

I totally agree Chocolat :rose:
"Hello South Carolina" ...............*swoon*

justintime
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:03 am



Is this in regard to TMG’s allegation in their rebuttal to JD’s lawsuit vs them that they’d “heard” or “were told” something about Johnny being abusive to AH? The same thieves that were being sued by JD for millions of dollars AND WERE FOUND GUILTY? The same group that includes Joel Mandel, one of the guilty party who is said to have promised he “would destroy Johnny Depp”?

Seems to me, before anything this pack of scumbags has to say is treated as “credible” in any legal proceeding much less in one against someone they’ve just lost millions of dollars to, AH better be forced to produce evidence of that credibility or be flat out denied.

In fact, if AH is so eager to go back a few years in her desperation for evidence to validate her claims of DV and thereby undermine the defamation lawsuit, why not try cleaning up her own act a bit. Go to the heart of the matter, and once and for all produce an Official Police Report that reiterates the events of May 21st, 2016, as she claimed in her TRO request statement. She has NEVER filed that Report and there’s only one reason - if she did, it would be a lie, and filing a false Official Police Report is a felony, i.e. a crime.
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:51 am

That’s my post BTW IFOD is quoting

I mentioned she was suing TMG dats ago and linked The Blast article that mentioned it. I since found another more in-depth article but not available outside the USA. Here are the links.

TMG inadvertently made themselves a target for Amber because of the claims they made in their filings re knowledge of “abuse”, Johnny lies to authorities and hush money they supposedly paid. They refused to comply with her subpoena claiming a protective order from the settlement. Also, if they are truly being investigated by any Federal agencies this wouldn’t be helpful.

I find it interesting no one reported on this. Her stans will probably send it to Daily Mail. They seem to have a direct pipeline. The lawsuit was filed Oct 29

The Blast

Daily News

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:04 pm

Hearings for Rocky case have been continued.
"Update on Rocky for today: 10/21/2019 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court" to 12/17 (that's the next date shown on the site)

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm

LA Court website being a bit glitchy, but I thing Buckley (lawyers) vs Johnny settled

“01/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 17 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal”

The Bloom case has the same notation after they announced a settlement. Docs not uploaded yet

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:51 pm

Good. One more case to put to bed. :bedtime:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:44 pm

I’ll be glad to know this one is over. Johnny stood his ground for quite some time against this powerhouse legal firm despite Buckley pushing the optics to an ugly corner with their recent lien threats. Hope he walks away with a fair settlement and it’s reported as such. Guess that’s asking a lot.

Interesting side note: Tina Tchen, new President and CEO of Times Up (Kaplan’s baby) as of October, 2019, left her position as partner at Buckley LLP to take over her new post.
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:53 pm

Adam claimed they over charged. Ed White with Power of Attorney claimed JD would pay when able. I don’t think the right hand was talking to the left hand. I believe Buckley was paid reasonable fees as they should have been. Maybe there was cross coverage with so many attorneys involved. We will see or not

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:05 am

Lbock wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:53 pm
Adam claimed they over charged. Ed White with Power of Attorney claimed JD would pay when able. I don’t think the right hand was talking to the left hand. I believe Buckley was paid reasonable fees as they should have been. Maybe there was cross coverage with so many attorneys involved. We will see or not
It's quite possible they did overcharge but they are still entitled to a reasonable fee within the retainer agreement for their services. They probably settled somewhere in between.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."