The Lawsuits Thread

[AdeleAgain]

The phone hacking scandal - and the tabloids being forced to stop doing it - has been another crisis for British tabloid media. A friend of mine who was a cub reporter on the Daily Mail (don't judge her, she's a good person, was young and has moved on) said that it has really caused a problem for the Sun/News of the World. They relied on it for scoops. They used to get massive stories and build them up to a crescendo for the Sunday editions. Now they find it much harder to get a good story that gets sales and clicks up. Johnny gets clicks. You only have to look at any of the papers tweeting headlines about him - he'll have likes in the hundreds and loads of comments (mostly in his favour) - whilst the Kardashians etc barely rate more than a few likes. It is fascinating. The more I think about it the more I've come to realise (apologies, most of you got there much quicker) that the 'Wife beater' headline must have had a primary source. They were not doing it just on rehashing an old story (even though the story offered not one piece of new evidence or even an angle, just a misinformed opinion).

[RumLover]

Johnny described Katherine Kendall as "primary source from the #metoo movement" for the Sun's "wife beater article".
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tm ... rd-doc.pdf page 9

www.tmz.com/2019/01/22/Johnny-depp-ambe ... wsuit-sun/

It might be that the Kendall represented the #metoo movement's opinion of Depp and JK Rowlings.
I think it unlikely that the Sun would have published the article and submitted a truth defence when sued unless they had a source much closer to Heard.
Conspiracy or incompetence?
If they published without confirmation from Heard, then I call it incompetence
If they published with confirmation from Heard, then Heard broke the confidentiality agreement (which also said her friends could not discuss the marriage.)
If Dan Wootten is not going to take the stand, then he can't be asked about source(s).
It is another reason I think Heard does not want to be a witness. She could be asked if she broke the confidentiality agreement by being a source.

[Moonbeam]

RumLover, I am having trouble getting that link to work. Is there another perhaps?

[Judymac]

Johnny described Katherine Kendall as "primary source from the #metoo movement" for the Sun's "wife beater article".
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tm ... rd-doc.pdf page 9
It might be that the Kendall represented the #metoo movement's opinion of Depp and JK Rowlings.
I think it unlikely that the Sun would have published the article and submitted a truth defence when sued unless they had a source much closer to Heard.
Conspiracy or incompetence?
If they published without confirmation from Heard, then I call it incompetence
If they published with confirmation from Heard, then Heard broke the confidentiality agreement (which also said her friends could not discuss the marriage.)
If Dan Wootten is not going to take the stand, then he can't be asked about source(s).
It is another reason I think Heard does not want to be a witness. She could be asked if she broke the confidentiality agreement by being a source.

Is this what you are referring to?

https://dam.tmz.com/document/db/o/2018/ ... fc5f89.pdf

[RumLover]

Is this what you are referring to?
https://dam.tmz.com/document/db/o/2018/ ... fc5f89.pdf

Looks like the same document.
I have used the following (I kept a reference list for years and I checked was still working before posting)
www.tmz.com/2019/01/22/Johnny-depp-ambe ... wsuit-sun/
www.tmz.com/2019/01/22/Johnny-depp-amber-heard-beat-strike-lawsuit-sun/
tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0122-Johnny-depp-amber-heard-doc.pdf

but entering them as links does not seem to be working although it works with copy and paste.

[justintime]

“The NYT Commits More Reporters to Their Depp Vendetta” from Robert Turner at Medium.
Very disturbing implications; validates what we think we’ve been seeing wrt the ramped-up and relentless, “truth-less” persecution of JD. Is Mr. Waldman who, apparently, has been a thorn in the NYT’s side for years the real target?
Also, I didn’t know AH wrote an op-Ed in the NYT this past Sunday, according to Mr. Turner (“On Sunday she was allowed to pen an op-Ed in the NYT. The message is clear. We’re sticking with Amber. Again, the question why?). Did anyone happen to read it?

[ForeverYoung]

Nope and that would be pretty stupid on her part but she loves the attention of another lawsuit, I guess.

[meeps]

If Dan Wootten is not going to take the stand, then he can't be asked about source(s).

How can he refused to do that/be allowed by the court not to take the stand, when he is involved up to his eyebrows in this?

[Granny576]

Spent hours on Mel Gibson. Similarity of smear tactics by the NYT. With the same intent.

[RumLover]

If Dan Wootten is not going to take the stand, then he can't be asked about source(s).

How can he refused to do that/be allowed by the court not to take the stand, when he is involved up to his eyebrows in this?

I don't know. There have been a couple of quotes from Depp's lawyer about it including
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... laims.html

Mr Depp's attorney Adam Waldman said: 'Today's pre-trial review was largely a hearing of the Sun's attempts to first publicly smear, and then seek to exclude the testimony of multiple witnesses against their friend Amber Heard. Seeking to hide the truth is ironic because ''truth'' is the Sun's defense. The defense of truth is also ironic because the Sun's own reporter and fellow Defendant Dan Wootton refuses to testify in support of his own story.'

[meeps]

Well, thanks anyway for the quote, RumLover
We will just have to wait and see, I guess, if the judge accepts him chicken out like that ...

[ForeverYoung]

It seems Dan Wooten would rather jeopardize the case than reveal his sources.

[Larkwoodgirl]

I think the Sun is going to settle this case. Without anyone to testify on behalf of the Sun, they have no case. If they settle, the Sun should have to admit that Wooten's article was in fact false, and should throw Wooten under the bus.

[ForeverYoung]

I believe they had offered settlement once before and Johnny said no.

[AdeleAgain]

It seems Dan Wooten would rather jeopardize the case than reveal his sources.

As an editor, protecting your sources is a noble tradition. But so is admitting when you got a story wrong. Wooten must have had a very direct source to go out on a limb like that.

He could still testify and invoke his editorial position and say he has to protect his sources. Doesn't stop him answering other questions. If he has behaved with journalistic integrity then he really shouldn't fear, indeed he should be used to having to defend himself. For him not to take the stand would seem to indicate that there is either negligence or some other aspect to the case that he does not want in the public domain.