The Lawsuits Thread

[ForeverYoung]

Brooks is not seeking relief for bodily injury. He only said in the complaint that he was hit. In the end, he is seeking relief for:

General damages
Punitive damages (emotional and psychological distress - such as humiliation and embaressment)
Cost of suit
Such other and further relief as the court may redeem

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.co ... int-wm.pdf

[Lbock]

He dismissed some of his Cause of Actions but is still suing for:
1) Assault & Battery
2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3) Negligence
10) Negligent infliction of Emotional Distress.

He dismissed the other causes (4-9) along with his dismissal of Brad Furman. So he is still claiming Assault & Battery

[ForeverYoung]

The media was reporting the allegation of Johnny hitting Brooks for a headline, imo because it sounds better than "Set Manager Alleges Johnny Depp Yelled and Humiliated Him in Front of the Production Crew." The stories are too far apart. He says Johnny hit him because he wanted production to end, Johnny says it was self inflicted and never hit him, then all of a sudden we have set witness with pics who says that Johnny was protecting a homeless woman. The only thing I can really believe is that there was an exchange of words that should not have happened.

[Lbock]

I can't buy the documents at this time, but it looks like Rocky is opposing Johnny and wants to bring in his drug/alcohol allegations and his dispute with AH

09/25/2019 Opposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE N0.4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)

09/25/2019 Opposition (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE N0.2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING ALLEGED DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE BY JOHN C. DEPP, II)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)

As of now, they are unproven allegations and would be highly prejudicial, I imagine. With AH, at the very least, the police cleared him back then. I assume the best they have for the drugs/alcohol would be the Rolling Stone article (in his own words). But that didn't necessarily take place or affect his working on City of Lies. He only stated he drank while writing his memoir until he couldn't see from tears.

UPDATE:
Johnny's team filed too. I'd love to know what that paragraph is all about that Rocky wants excluded. Happened right before the "incident" apparently.

09/24/2019 Opposition (to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Paragraph 12 of the Film LA Monitor Report)
Filed by John C. Depp (Defendant); Infinitum Nihil (Defendant)

[Larkwoodgirl]

Brooks is not seeking relief for bodily injury. He only said in the complaint that he was hit. In the end, he is seeking relief for:

General damages
Punitive damages (emotional and psychological distress - such as humiliation and embaressment)
Cost of suit
Such other and further relief as the court may redeem

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.co ... int-wm.pdf

So basically this is just a big nuisance suit. It seems to hinge on the alleged assault and battery charge. If he cannot provide evidence to the assault, (based on what I have read, it didn't happen) then I think the rest of his claims will be dismissed.

[ForeverYoung]

So basically this is just a big nuisance suit. It seems to hinge on the alleged assault and battery charge. If he cannot provide evidence to the assault, (based on what I have read, it didn't happen) then I think the rest of his claims will be dismissed.

I'm not sure. If he has no real medical records and there are witnesses to prove he was not hit then he won't get any money for that. I work in place where people get yelled at and "humiliated" in front of their peers all the time but if I were presented with an agreement not to sue I would think twice about signing it no matter what happened. The guy just looks like a big cry baby to me jumping on the Depp gravy train but a Judge could see this as a case where certain people should be held accountable for harassment in the workplace, if in fact, there is evidence of that really took place here. All this is just my opinion based on what I have seen and read and my having a lawyer in the family who has now passed on but I learned a lot.

[Lbock]

Rocky Documents are up. Rocky wants past Drug and Alcohol allegations in. It has allot of typos and is filed by his original attorney. I can only preview the first page, but it is stating he has witnesses...

"A. Defendant Depp's Drug And Alcohol Use Is Relevant and Material To This Case.
Plaintiff and his witnesses paint a specific picture of what transpired on the set during the
filing of City of Lies. Defendant John C. Depp, II ("Defendant Depp") was question and blamed
other for the delays in the production, however, testimony will reveal, the stress and delay caused during the filing of City of Lies which culminated in his conduct of April 12, 2017, were... "

[Lbock]

Also, first page to include AH in Rocky argument. (Also filed by his original attorney)

"Plaintiff, Gregg "Rocky" Brooks ("Plaintiff') hereby submits his opposition to Defendants'
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING
DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD AS
follows:
A. Defendant's Propensity For Violent Aggressive Behavior Is Relevant To This Case.
Plaintiff contends in his complaint that Defendant John C. Depp, II ("Defendant Depp")
was violent and aggressive towards him without provocation, while Plaintiff was doing his job...."

[ForeverYoung]

Just to be clear:
Rocky has one motion and Johnny has 4. There is a Final Status Conference on 10/7/19 so maybe the Judge will her these motions on that date. This was copied from the court's listing, with some revisions of my own to help understand it better.
https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?

09/13/2019 Rocky's Motion in Limine (NO. 1)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 1 to Bifurcate the Punitive Damages (Emotional Distress) Phase of the Trial)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 2 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Alleged Drug and Alcohol Use by John C. Depp, II)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 3 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Other Lawsuits)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 4 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Disputes with Amber Heard)

09/24/2019 Johnny's Opposition (to Rocky's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Paragraph 12 of the Film LA Monitor Report)

09/25/2019 Rocky's Opposition ('Johnny's MOTION IN LIMINE N0.2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING ALLEGED DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE BY JOHN C. DEPP, II)

09/25/2019 Rocky's Opposition (Johnny's OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE N0.4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)

[Lbock]

The Blast has a new article about Rocky that has snippets of the documents. It was a downer so I didn't post here, but has been updated with Adam Waldman's Statement, YAY! Making some sense now...

Depp's lawyer, Adam Waldman, tells The Blast, "What to do when your punching hoax against Johnny Depp is disproven by multiple eyewitnesses and date- and time-stamped photographs? Try to link up with the other hoax that is also disproven by multiple eyewitnesses and photographs. How do we know? Rocky Brooks' lawyer threatened that she was "working with Amber Heard’s lawyers," although one hoax has nothing to do with the other. Throw in a few irrelevant smears against Johnny Depp for his past addiction and recovery, and you have the inadmissible-in-court PR strategy of every one of his opponents. Litigation is evidence- rather than PR-based, as our opponents continue to learn the hard way."

[justintime]

Thanks a bunch, Lbock! I’ve read the court docs - all, at least once. I’m not a lawyer, no lawyers in this house to bounce anything off, just making myself crazy trying to make connections remembering this bit, that event, those pics, which date, etc. . . BUT, when Mr. Waldman has something to say I stop, read, and think. I indulge the hope that, just maybe, we can afford to “believe in humans” a little while longer.

[Ruby Begonia]

Thanks to Lbock, Justintime, ForeverYoung and everyone else who's paid for/posted documents from the LA Court site re the Brooks case.

Since the defamation case against Heard has not been decided, how can they use the unproven allegations from that case to support Brooks' claims? I know that lawyers from either side can allege whatever they want until a case is resolved, but this doesn't seem kosher. Maybe that's what Waldman means - it's PR and not anything that will be admitted for use in court. Kind of like doctored text messages, undated or original photos, etc.

[ForeverYoung]

I can't understand why Brooks attorney would want to hook up with Kaplan. Amber is losing that case and whatever evidence she presented there has no dates and times stamped so there is no real proof to support the allegation that Johnny is violent and abusive, imo.

[Chocolat]

The bottom line here is proof which Heard has not shown that could ever stand up in court. Lawyers stress the importance of proof be supported by facts. If Amber Heard had any legitimate proof that she was abused, she would have had the media on it like a monkey on a cupcake. She tried to make it look like she had proof with the fake, undated photo she sold to People Magazine and that awful set up video she secretly taped of Johnny. All she got was Johnny slamming cupboard doors. For Pete's sake, I do that if I stub my toe. The latest stunt was Kaplan showing Judge White a photo of Johnny that has no bearing on the issue at hand. My guess is Amber is feeding Kaplan this nonsense in her desperate attempt to manufacture her proof. Again, if she had any real evidence she would have the Daily Mail posting it all over their site.

[Lbock]

Does anyone know when the Brooks/Depp trial is set to start? Have any witness lists been submitted on either side? Has a Judge been assigned yet? Thank you - don’t remember reading anything about the particulars of this proceeding, unlike the others.

I found the judge's name on a recent filing:
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. HOLLY J. FUJIE, DEPT. 56
10/21/2019 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Jury Trial