The Lawsuits Thread

[Joni]

This thread has veered off topic, please let's keep it focused on the legal case. Thank you!

I guess we should start a separate one for the body guards. I guess you are able to move whatever comments would be suitable to the new post. Thank you

I wasn't referring to the lawsuits by the body guards. What I consider to be off topic are the posts delving into what affect, if any, these lawsuits have on Johnny's career, and speculating on why the gossip rags and websites do what they do. I'd rather not move this thread in that direction.

[Lbock]

This thread has veered off topic, please let's keep it focused on the legal case. Thank you!

I guess we should start a separate one for the body guards. I guess you are able to move whatever comments would be suitable to the new post. Thank you

I wasn't referring to the lawsuits by the body guards. What I consider to be off topic are the posts delving into what affect, if any, these lawsuits have on Johnny's career, and speculating on why the gossip rags and websites do what they do. I'd rather not move this thread in that direction.

Oh no, I agree with you there. But I thought we should to separate the lawsuits too. I wasn’t being snarky, I promise.

I know you weren't, Lbock!
~Joni

[AdeleAgain]

Sorry my bad! I was ranting.

[tralala]

Johnny sued "The Sun" for defamation against him and J.K.Rowling.
The article in "People":

[justintime]

Finally.

Thank you, tralala!

[Sweeney Todd]

Best news in a while! Hope he wins and finally proves his innocence.

[SnoopyDances]

Johnny sued "The Sun" for defamation against him and J.K.Rowling.
The article in "People":

Johnny Depp Sues U.K. Tabloid for Defamation Over Story Slamming Him and J.K. Rowling
ALE RUSSIAN June 04, 2018 06:01 PM

Johnny Depp is suing a British tabloid for libel over a story calling the actor a “wife-beater,” and criticizing Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for standing by him.

On Friday, the Pirates of the Caribbean star filed suit in the U.K. against the The Sun through its publishing company, News Group Newspapers Limited, as well as columnist Dan Wootton, who authored the post, titled How can J.K. Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife-beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE.

The article appeared in print on April 28, 2018 and was posted on The Sun’s website on April 27, 2018.

Depp is suing for £200,000 pounds in addition to £10,528 in legal fees, as well damages to be assessed by the court, according to the documents. He is also asking for an injunction restraining the paper from “continuing to publish” allegations of spousal abuse. According to British law, Depp’s attorneys will have 14 days to produce evidence supporting their claims, which a lawyer for the actor says they will do.

In December, the Harry Potter creator gave a statement in support of the actor’s casting as Gellert Grindelwald in the Fantastic Beasts movie series, writing, “The filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.”

Some had lobbied against Depp’s casting following his contentious divorce from ex-wife Amber Heard, during which the actress accused him of abuse (strongly denied by the actor).

Taking Rowling to task for her support, Wootton wrote, “Rowling is proving herself to be the worst type of Hollywood Hypocrite here. Her claim that she is ‘genuinely happy’ to have Depp star as the central character, dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald, in her big-budget film sequel Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald provides him total rehabilitation in the eyes of the movie industry. She is condoning behavior that she would be loudly slamming on social media if it was a male executive making the same decision.”

Depp first appeared briefly in 2016’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, with a much larger role in The Crimes of Grindelwald, out Nov. 16.

[meeps]

How will he prove, that he didn't do anything to AH, if neither of them are allowed to talk about it? In one way I applaud him for fighting back, but in another I wonder and worry. As per usual

[tralala]

I think he can fight the fact that they wrote about the accusationas as if it was a proved thing. But I'm not a lawyer so someone else could probably say more.
P.S. But yeah, I thought it was the clause that was stopping him from spreaking up any sooner.

[Ruby Begonia]

Ironic that People mag is publishing this like they're objective bystanders, considering their cover shot is featured in the Sun's article.

Good luck, Johnny! Media: ye be warned!

[reindeermoon]

I suppose his lawyers know exactly what to do. The case was dropped by a judge, the lawyers can speak about the lack of evidence. He was not arrested nor was there a trial. Do we know all the documents from that case? If there are some court papers, maybe also papers from the deposition, the lawyers might send them to court and Johnny did not say a word.

[Ruby Begonia]

I suppose his lawyers know exactly what to do. The case was dropped by a judge, the lawyers can speak about the lack of evidence. He was not arrested nor was there a trial. Do we know all the documents from that case? If there are some court papers, maybe also papers from the deposition, the lawyers might send them to court and Johnny did not say a word.

Doug Stanhope recently said in an interview that he was free to talk about his knowledge of the Depp-Scum relationship and that it needed to be told. He is just waiting for the opportune moment, so to speak. No way Johnny could let the "wife beater" headline stand. The slander and libel have gotten so out of hand, they need to get the truth out. But how many will listen?

[SnoopyDances]

I think he took action because the article made it sound like the allegations were fact, instead of using the journalism standbys "allegedly" or "accused."

But I also think he is standing up for JK Rowling. The article came out slamming her statement and support of casting Johnny. We know Johnny doesn't really care what is said about him, but he will defend friends, family, and colleagues.

I would think a retraction and apology for the article would suffice. I assume the lawyers tried that first before a suit was filed.

With upcoming premiers/promotions/press junkets, I'm sure both of them want to get this matter laid to rest as soon as possible.

[SnoopyDances]

Johnny filed the suit in the UK. Here are some articles related to UK libel laws and how they differ from US libel laws. Very interesting.

In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

Under the new rules, libel tourism is less common. It is no longer as easy for people with little U.K. presence to bring these lawsuits in British courts. The law now says someone making a libel claim must demonstrate that a defamatory statement will cause "serious harm."

This one is interesting in that Johnny doesn't live in the UK, but Rowling does. Since she is mentioned in the original article, I wonder if she is considering a similar suit or just having her mentioned in the article will help his case.

HOW TO WIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT IN THE UK
In order for a claimant to succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the following must be true:

The statement in question must be a negative false statement of fact;
The statement in question identifies or refers to the claimant;
The statement in question was published.

DEFAMATION DEFENSES IN UK
Acceptable defenses in a U.K. defamation case are:

Justification (truth);
Qualified Privilege (defendant did not act with malice; reporting of proceedings in a foreign court);
Reynolds Privilege (subject matter was sufficiently in the public interest, journalists researched carefully and behaved responsibly);
Absolute Privilege (fair and accurate reporting of domestic court proceedings); or
Fair Comment (matters of legitimate public concern that constitutes a comment, rather than a statement of fact, which an honest person could make on those matters [i.e. critique or film review]).

JURY OR JUDGE UNDER UK DEFAMATION LAW
In the UK, most defamation cases are settled out of court. If parties can agree, the jury can be dispensed in favor of a single judge. There are statutory provisions permitting a trial by a judge alone, if the case involves a significant number of documents or complex technical issues.

LIBEL TOURISM AND THE UK
Why is the UK known as the “libel tourism” capitol of the world? Aside from a “no win, no fee” contingency, damages awarded to libel claimants are high. As the term suggests, libel tourism is the practice of non-UK citizens or companies using UK courts for defamation cases because existing laws in the British Commonwealth favor plaintiffs. However, since the passing of the UK Defamation Act of 2013, libel tourism is expected to decrease.

[meeps]

I love your take on it, SnoopyDances; that Johnny wants to defend Rowling It sounds right to me, that our gentleman would want to do that
But I kinda dislike, that this will give Ms Heard more publicity. Bad publicity, if he wins, yes. But some say, all publicity is good publicity ...
Oh well, I can live with that, if this court case could make the gossip journalists a bit more cautious in the future