The Lawsuits Thread

[Judymac]

One last thing...let's not forget there are people she is trying to protect with this request for the protective order, like her sister who is in the videos and whom she said she was "protecting" from being hit but never gave any statements and was never listed as a witness in the dv charge. There is also her friend Amanda de Cadenet who was in one of the surveilance videos and supports Amber through her work doing stupid interviews. She was never listed as a witness either.

I am not sure if you are saying that Amber can protect people from testifying. A protective order does not mean that she can protect anybody from testifying. Johnny's side can subpoena on any of Amber's friends/relatives if they think it will help their side. If a person is subpoenaed they must testify. if they refuse to testify they can be held in contempt of court. A person who is in contempt of court can get jailed, fined or both.

[Judymac]

I think the request for production reports is desperation. It won't matter if she gets the information. A good attorney like Mr Waldman will prove that it is irrelevant. Even if he was late to work or perhaps hungover, it does not prove that he committed domestic violence. It's interesting that they listed Raquel Pennington's address as the Eastern Columbia Building. They probably don't have a current address so they are sending it to the last known address. I am also surprised that they did not redact the addresses of the other people.

[meeps]

I think the request for production reports is desperation. It won't matter if she gets the information. A good attorney like Mr Waldman will prove that it is irrelevant. Even if he was late to work or perhaps hungover, it does not prove that he committed domestic violence. It's interesting that they listed Raquel Pennington's address as the Eastern Columbia Building. They probably don't have a current address so they are sending it to the last known address. I am also surprised that they did not redact the addresses of the other people.

No, it wouldn't prove, that big bad Johnny abused poor little innocent Amber - that was sarcasm aimed at Ms Heard, if anybody was in doubt But it could prove, that Disney had other reasons for firing Johnny as Jack. And one of his claims is, I believe, that Ms. H.'s ongoing campaign against him made him lose one of his favourite roles ...
One problem for her is, that Jerry Bruckheimer has said quite a long time ago, that Johnny was at work, as he should be, one time they discussed those rumours of Johnny being late or not showing up at all. Bruckheimer said, it was not true.
So how will she explain that away?

[Judymac]

I think the request for production reports is desperation. It won't matter if she gets the information. A good attorney like Mr Waldman will prove that it is irrelevant. Even if he was late to work or perhaps hungover, it does not prove that he committed domestic violence. It's interesting that they listed Raquel Pennington's address as the Eastern Columbia Building. They probably don't have a current address so they are sending it to the last known address. I am also surprised that they did not redact the addresses of the other people.

No, it wouldn't prove, that big bad Johnny abused poor little innocent Amber - that was sarcasm aimed at Ms Heard, if anybody was in doubt But it could prove, that Disney had other reasons for firing Johnny as Jack. And one of his claims is, I believe, that Ms. H.'s ongoing campaign against him made him lose one of his favourite roles ...
One problem for her is, that Jerry Bruckheimer has said quite a long time ago, that Johnny was at work, as he should be, one time they discussed those rumours of Johnny being late or not showing up at all. Bruckheimer said, it was not true.
So how will she explain that away?

I honestly don't think that Johnny was fired in the way people think of a firing. The reason why I do not think that he was fired for being an abuser is that Johnny is still doing hospital visits as Captain Jack Sparrow. I know that Johnny invented the character of Captain Jack but Disney has a trademark on the character. That means that the character is owned by Disney. When the character became popular, Johnny probably had it written into one of his contracts that he could continue to use the character for good purposes. He has continued to use it for good purposes. Disney is very image conscious. If they really thought he was an abuser they would probably take him to court to stop him from using the image of Captain Jack Sparrow. I think the news media jumped on this as a nasty firing and that assumption has persisted. The more something is hyped, the more people are interested. I absolutely do not believe that Amber Heard had the power to get him fired from Disney.

[meeps]

Thanks a billion for that cheering point of view

[hollyberry]

I vividly remember Johnny turning up at a school in the UK, while filming Pirates IV. They were doing a historical study of pirates and one of the little girls wrote to Captain Jack asking for his advice. Someone sent it to the studio just for a joke and every one was stunned when Johnny turned up along with other cast members in full get up!
The little girl was thrilled to bits, as were her classmates!

This is why Johnny has so many fans - few megastars are as generous with their time.

[ForeverYoung]

One last thing...let's not forget there are people she is trying to protect with this request for the protective order, like her sister who is in the videos and whom she said she was "protecting" from being hit but never gave any statements and was never listed as a witness in the dv charge. There is also her friend Amanda de Cadenet who was in one of the surveilance videos and supports Amber through her work doing stupid interviews. She was never listed as a witness either.

I am not sure if you are saying that Amber can protect people from testifying. A protective order does not mean that she can protect anybody from testifying. Johnny's side can subpoena on any of Amber's friends/relatives if they think it will help their side. If a person is subpoenaed they must testify. if they refuse to testify they can be held in contempt of court. A person who is in contempt of court can get jailed, fined or both.

Sorry, what I meant was that it seems to me she is trying to protect certain names that come up in discovery from being revealed to the public. Her attorneys can always do motions to quash the subpoenas but of course it doesn't mean they would win.

[RumLover]

Even if Heard's team could convince a jury that Depp was fired from Pirates for other reasons, it would not mean that the jury would find Heard had not defamed Depp. It would also not prevent any perjury charges against Heard and her witnesses.
It could reduce the amount of damages. If a jury thought damages should be a lesser amount, say $5m, that should still be a win for Depp and a loss for Heard.

[ForeverYoung]

Frankly, I don't think Johnny cares about the money. What he cares about is exposing the truth and clearing his name.

[justintime]

Frankly, I don't think Johnny cares about the money. What he cares about is exposing the truth and clearing his name.

I agree, ForeverYoung, on both counts: JD’s caring about the money is trumped far and away by his caring about CLEARING HIS NAME and knowing people around the globe have not only been exposed to the truth, BUT ARE GIVEN REASON TO BELIEVE it. “GLOBAL” truth exposure and “GLOBAL” reputation restoration are not a conceit; Johnny has been horrifically defamed globally and deserves to be exonerated globally to whatever extent possible.

That said, I believe with all my heart that it is, unfortunate but true, the substantial monetary award by a JURY IN A PUBLIC TRIAL that will ultimately not only carry the day for Johnny but be the redeeming trumpet call to the masses on every rung of the ladder - while simultaneously providing an easily referenced visual for the lazy media - heralding Johnny’s innocence into the foreseeable future. I’ve said it before and, cynic that I am, believe it still: payable or not, appealed or not, nothing initially catches the public’s eye or screams innocence more loudly or permanently in our gnat-like memories than long numbers with no decimal point and lots of zeroes. And don’t tell me AH doesn’t have the money - thus far, she’s proven financially resourceful beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. Get the funds or go to jail. My bet is, she’ll find it a good time to get creative.

[ForeverYoung]

Yes, I concur Amber has some money but she has not worked since Aquaman which is why she keeps hooking up with men with money to pay for her legal bills, imo. She bought a house that she needs to take care of plus that $50K a month lifestyle she had with Johnny and his credit card.

[Quin55]

Wait a minute. Her side wants production schedule notes from the last "Pirates" that he filmed? Isn't the larger point that after all her shenanigans in the media that hurt his reputation, Disney announced the next Pirates - the next one with no production notes yet - will not include Johnny? After her lies made him a media target, the rats at Disney used the opportunity as an excuse to disengage with the actor who brought them billions of dollars. A big part of that media blitz was the Washington Post article. (Sadly, the news giant of days past used terrible judgement by printing that one-sided, one-source story.) Johnny should have had a say about when he would no longer make Pirate movies. That clout was taken from him - after he earned it. He lost a potential $20M in earnings. That's a result of defamation. Weird path for her lawyers. What will it prove? He was late to the set? Needed hand surgery after she speared him with broken glass? Was recovering from a Mersa infection? Hey lawyers, if you are relying on her for information - hello, you have a pathological liar for a client! Sigh! And when he wins and she has to find the $50M, she will no doubt hit up her sickeningly rich friend who owns Tezla. (One of her sleazy elevator men.) I don't imagine that I.O. has that much cash stashed away. Hurry up, February!

[ForeverYoung]

I think the request for production reports is desperation. It won't matter if she gets the information. A good attorney like Mr Waldman will prove that it is irrelevant. Even if he was late to work or perhaps hungover, it does not prove that he committed domestic violence. It's interesting that they listed Raquel Pennington's address as the Eastern Columbia Building. They probably don't have a current address so they are sending it to the last known address. I am also surprised that they did not redact the addresses of the other people.

I don't think the addresses are redacted because that is the way the documents were filed with the court and these are official court documents from the court's site. (If another site copies from the court documents, then I believe they would have to redact.) This is what I meant by why I think Amber is seeking a protective order. Now... if any of her friends or family, or anyone else that gets subpoenaed have any enemies, those enemies would know where the people live, or their last known address. Not sure why they used the penthouse apartment number because she was living with Amber after she moved out.

[Ruby Begonia]

Update from The Blast on the Brooks v Depp City of Lies case:

Johnny Depp Accuses Alleged Assault Victim of Failing To Turn Over Medical Records by Ryan Naumann

Johnny Depp is calling out the crew member suing him over an alleged assault, saying the man has no proof of his injuries.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Depp is back in court defending himself in the lawsuit brought by Gregg “Rocky” Brooks.

In his suit, Brooks accuses Depp of drunkenly punching him on the set for “City of Lies”. Depp denies the allegations and got another crew member to back him up.

In newly filed documents, Depp is adamant he “never punched Mr. Brooks that night or any other night.”

The actor accuses Brooks of never being able to identity any “tangible injury that actually resulted from the alleged incident.”

Depp claims Brooks has never received medical treatment over the alleged assault. He also accuses Brooks of failing to present any medical bill or record.

He adds, “Plaintiff has never so much as taken over-the-counter pain medication as a result of the alleged incident.” Depp calls the claims in the lawsuit “not fictitious” and “trivial.”

Depp says Brooks has not been damaged by him, let alone the $70,000 + he is seeking. The actor wants the case dismissed immediately.

A judge has yet to rule.

Earlier this year, Brooks sued Depp accusing him of punching him on the set of the upcoming film "City of Lies."

Brooks, who was a location manager, claimed he was trying to enforce permit restrictions on the set on April 13, 2017. They were filming the film about the deaths of Tupac and Biggie Smalls in Downtown Los Angeles.

The location manager claimed they had a permit to shoot until 7:00 PM outside and 10:00 PM inside, and Brooks was able to get the permit extended multiple times to accommodate the actor who wanted to direct a longer version of a scene but could not get any more extension.

He then told the director the shooting would have to halt production, and the director allegedly told Brooks “Why don’t you tell that to Johnny Depp?”

Brooks went to get an on-set police officer to help him tell Depp, but before he could Depp approached him yelling, “Who the f--k are you? You have no right to tell me what to do!”

He tried to explain the situation but then Depp allegedly punched him twice in the lower side of his rib cage. Depp is accused of yelling, “I will give you $100,000 to punch me in the face right now!”

Brooks claimed Depp’s breath smelled of alcohol and said the actor's bodyguards had to intervene to stop the situation. He was fired from the film three days later when he refused to sign a release over the incident.

Depp fired back at the lawsuit demanding it be tossed out of court.

The actor denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the lawsuit and says his alleged actions were done in self-defense.

He accuses Brooks of willfully and maliciously acting out and conducting his activities in a way that made him fear for his safety on set. Further, he claims Brooks did not comply with the directions of his employer and, as a result, is demanding the entire case be dismissed.

Back in December 2018, Brooks dismissed "City of Lies" director Brad Furman and only continuing on with his case against Depp.

[Lbock]

I think this is great. Johnny basically saying put up or shut up. If Brooks doesn’t come up with concrete evidence in their answer, I think Johnny might file a formal judgement for dismissal