WWE Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan could sue those behind the planned Gawker lawsuit film if the project goes too far, it has been claimed. Sources who spoke with TMZ claimed that Hogan has no involvement with the film and that he is “indifferent” about the project. With that said, Hogan could sue those behind the film if they broach too far into his private life.
TMZ’s sources added that Hogan is in a “really good place right now,” thanks in part to his recent new wife and reconnecting with religion. Hogan is also doing charitable work with a homeless shelter in Tampa, the source claims.
Killing Gawker
Killing Gawker is being set up with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s Artist Equity and hopes to launch production in January 2025. Affleck is “eyeing” the role of Hogan while Damon is said to be interested in playing venture capitalist Peter Thiel. A screenplay was reportedly written by Charles Randolph based on Ryan Holiday’s book Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.
The Hulk Hogan-Gawker Lawsuit
In October 2012, Gawker posted a sex tape of Hogan with Heather Clem, the wife of Bubba The Love Sponge. In response, Hogan sued the company and several employees and affiliates who had shared portions of the tape. Hogan sought $100 million in damages and in March 2016, a jury of four women and two men voted in his favor. The wrestling legend was awarded $115 million in compensatory damages, which included $60 million for emotional distress. Three days later, Hogan was awarded an additional $25 million in punitive damages.
Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, paid $10 million to help finance lawsuits against Gawker, including Hogan’s litigation against the company. In 2007, Gawker had published an article outing Thiel as gay without his consent.
Gawker attempted to file an appeal, but in June 2016, three months after the Hogan verdict, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and put itself up for sale. Gawker CEO Nick Denton would also file for personal bankruptcy.
A new film based on the legal case of WWE Hall of Famer Terry Bollea(AKA Hulk Hogan) vs. Gawker is officially in active development. Artists Equity, Ben Affleck’s and Matt Damon’s production company, will produce the movie, which is currently titled Killing Gawker.
“Hulkamania” will be running wild on the big screen, but not what fans have anticipated. The Hollywood Reporter’s Borys Kit reported in 2019 that a biopic on the rise of Hogan’s fame in wrestling was in the works. Hollywood superstar Chris Hemsworth is expected to play the WWE Hall of Famer, with Academy Award-nominated director Todd Philips also attached to the development. However, in a recent interview with Screenrant on May 15, Hemsworth shared that nothing is official yet.
Although the biopic is in limbo, the film based on Hogan’s legal drama is starting to take shape. PWInsider’s Mike Johnson revealed on August 2 that Killing Gawker was being developed and could have Affleck playing the role of Hogan. In addition, it’s reported that the project may launch in January 2025.
Variety’s Katcy Stephan confirmed on August 5 that the film was being developed and added that Gus Van Sant is set to direct it. Van Sant has famously worked with Affleck and Damon as a director on the Academy Award-nominated movie Good Will Hunting.
Stephan reported that no casting has been made yet but acknowledged that there is an ongoing rumor that Affleck will play the WWE Hall of Famer.
What is Bollea vs. Gawker?
The infamous legal battle came after the wrestling legend filed a lawsuit in 2012 and took the media company to trial in 2016 regarding publishing portions of a sex tape involving Hogan and his former friend Bubba The Love Sponge’s wife at the time. It was alleged that Sponge filmed the intimate moment, which Hogan claimed he didn’t know about and didn’t consent to. The incident occurred in 2006, but Gawker obtained footage of Hogan having sex and published an article about it on October 12, 2012.
Hollywood A-Lister Ben Affleck is reportedly interested in playing Hulk Hogan in an upcoming film based on the infamous Gawker lawsuit. PW Insider reports that Killing Gawker is currently being set up with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s Artist Equity and hopes to launch production in January 2025.
Affleck is reportedly “eyeing” the leading role as Hulk Hogan, while Damon is said to be interested in playing venture capitalist Peter Thiel. A screenplay was reportedly written by Charles Randolph based on Ryan Holiday’s book Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.
The Hulk Hogan-Gawker Lawsuit
In October 2012, Gawker posted a sex tape of Hogan with Heather Clem, the wife of Bubba The Love Sponge. In response, Hogan sued the company and several employees and affiliates who had shared portions of the tape. Hogan sought $100 million in damages and in March 2016, a jury of four women and two men voted in his favor. The wrestling legend was awarded $115 million in compensatory damages, which included $60 million for emotional distress. Three days later, Hogan was awarded an additional $25 million in punitive damages.
Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, paid $10 million to help finance lawsuits against Gawker, including Hogan’s litigation against the company. In 2007, Gawker had published an article outing Thiel as gay without his consent.
Gawker attempted to file an appeal, but in June 2016, three months after the Hogan verdict, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and put itself up for sale. Gawker CEO Nick Denton would also file for personal bankruptcy.
Hulk Hogan And Films
Killing Gawker isn’t the first film project to be tied to the two-time WWE Hall of Famer. In 2020, it was announced that Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Cabin in the Woods) would portray Hogan in a biopic of his life. Four years later though, the film has not been made and Hemsworth has admitted that he isn’t sure what is happening.
Hulk Hogan is a pop culture icon at this stage of his career, for a multitude of reasons. At 70-years-old, The Hulkster is still running wild, but he will do so while having a closer relationship to a higher power.
Hulk Hogan’s Spiritual Awakening
Hulk Hogan recently shared a profound moment in his life, undergoing baptism alongside his wife, Sky Daily Hogan. This spiritual experience marked a significant chapter for Hogan, as he expressed his complete surrender and dedication to Jesus.
The two-time WWE Hall of Famer described the event as the greatest day of his life, emphasizing a message centered on love, free from worries, hate, or judgment.
While reflecting on his spiritual journey, Hulk Hogan disclosed in April that he had accepted Christ as his savior at the age of 14. Throughout his life, he attributed his sustained well-being to a combination of training, prayers, and vitamins.
I accepted Christ as my savior at 14yrs old, and the training, prayers and vitamins kept me in the game but now that I am one with God,the main event theme of surrender,service and love makes me the Real Main Event that can slam any giant of any size through the power of my Lord and Savior and so it is,even now brother,AMEN!
I accepted Christ as my savior at 14yrs old, and the training, prayers and vitamins kept me in the game but now that I am one with God,the main event theme of surrender,service and love makes me the Real Main Event that can slam any giant of any size through the power of my Lord… pic.twitter.com/SxcOJJwtRL
Today, Hulk Hogan revealed footage of himself, along with his wife, getting baptized. He mentioned that this was the best day of his life, as his sins were resolved.
Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life. No worries, no hate, no judgment… only love!
Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life. No worries, no hate, no judgment… only love! pic.twitter.com/gB43hTcLU6
Hulk Hogan embarks on this new spiritual chapter, it’s crucial to acknowledge the controversies that have marked his past. One notable legal battle involved a sex tape trial with GAWKER, where Hogan sued the media company for invasion of privacy. The trial brought to light personal aspects of Hogan’s life, leading to discussions on the boundaries between public figures and media scrutiny.
Aside from the GAWKER lawsuit, Hulk Hogan has faced a microscope he never wanted on him for his involvement in a racist scandal and allegations related to a steroids controversy. That doesn’t even include the countless lies he’s been caught in over the years. Despite these challenges, he carried on, and it doesn’t appear that there is any sign of stopping.
In recent Hulk Hogan-adjacent news, his son, Nick Hogan, was recently arrested for DUI, a charge to which he pleaded not guilty. He was arrested in November 2023 when he was on his way home after judging and DJing a bikini contest at Hogan’s Hangout.
Hulk Hogan seems focused on turning over a new leaf as he continues to run Hogan’s Beach Hangout in Clearwater, Florida. While acknowledging his past, Hogan appears committed to navigating this new chapter with a renewed sense of spirituality and dedication to a life centered on love and faith. We’re pulling for him as he enters this fresh chapter, brother.
A number of mainstream entertainment websites are reporting that the January 2017 iteration of the Sundance Film Festival will include “Nobody Speak,” a documentary about the Hulk Hogan-Gawker lawsuit and trial as a featured film. (In the interest of full disclosure, I’m interviewed in the movie.) Here’s the blurb that Sundance sent out:
NOBODY SPEAK: Hulk Hogan, Gawker and Trials of a Free Press / U.S.A. (Director: Brian Knappenberger) — The trial between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media pitted privacy rights against freedom of the press, and raised important questions about how big money can silence media. This film is an examination of the perils and duties of the free press in an age of inequality. World Premiere
Brian Knappenberger, the director, is best known for having previously helmed “The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz” and “We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists” as well as his work on various TV docs-series. There is no word yet as to when and where the film will be available for viewing after Sundance.
Today, the civil trial of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media, founder/publisher Nick Denton, and former editor A.J. Daulerio. continued…but not for long. T0day was all about punitive damages, which are exactly what it says on the tin: They’re designed to punish the defendant on top of compensatory damages, which were awarded to Hogan on Friday for emotional damages ($60 million) as well as lost wages $55 million). After fairly brief (by this trial’s standards) arguments by both sides, the Pinellas Country, Florida jury of four women and six men awarded Hogan punitive damages of $15 million from Gawker Media, $10 million from Denton and $100,000 from Daulerio.
Daulerio, in particular, will be hit hard here. He was considered to have negative $27,000 in assets because of outstanding student loans. and even Hogan’s lawyers told the jury that they weren’t seeking punitive damages from him. One juror even asked if they can punish Daulerio with community service instead of financial damages, but that wasn’t a possibility, and clearly most of the jurors weren’t as (relatively) sympathetic as that one. It’s not yet clear how the compensatory damages are broken up, or if Gawker Media is liable for all of that.
One juror, Salina Stevens, did comment to the press, as recounted by Katie Mettler of the Tampa Bay Times (all others refused to speak to media):
After deliberating for about five hours or so following this morning’s closing arguments, a Pinellas County, Florida jury has ruled for Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) on all counts in his lawsuit against Gawker Media, founder/publisher Nick Denton, and former editor Albert James “A.J.” Daulerio. Hogan had sued them for posting excerpts of a sex tape of him and Heather Cole, then-wife of his then-best friend/radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (Clem shot the video surreptitiously). Hogan had always insisted the video, which was leaked to Gawker by an anonymous source, was shot without his knowledge and consent.
The jury of four women and two men found for Hogan on all counts and awarded a total of $115 million two phases of compensatory damages:
$60 million for emotional damages.
$55 million for economic loss (A number his lawyers came up with based on multiplying how many people they say watched it by the $4.95 bottom end price to access the Vivid Celebs sex tape site).
This puts Gawker in danger, as while they’d likely win on appeal, they may need to post a $50 million bond to appeal the award per Florida law, and there are questions if they can. On Monday, the jury will return to determine what they feel Gawker owes for punitive damages.
UPDATE 7:31 p.m. ET: Gawker sent out this statement from founder Nick Denton, who’s optimistic about an appeal:
Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case. I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury. That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.
We’ll have more on the topic later, so watch this post as well as the front page.
On Monday morning, Pinellas County, Florida, Judge Pamela Campbell will address two motions from third parties in the civil trial of Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former Gawker writer/editor A.J. Daulerio. The matters are Bubba the Love Sponge Clem’s motion to quash his subpoena to testify on Gawker’s behalf and various media companies trying to overturn a previous ruling refusing to release the jurors’ names. As for the jurors, that motion was filed by Times Publishing Company, First Look Media, Inc., WFTS-TV, WPTV- TV, Scripps Media, Inc., and WFTX-TV as intervenors. The situation with them is pretty simple: The news organizations are arguing that the judge’s previous ruling with regards to not releasing the jurors’ names is unconstitutional and overly broad without basis in Florida law.
With regards to Bubba, it’s much more complicated, a topic we first addressed this topic when the story broke last week when it was revealed he intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. Yesterday, in the motion filed by his attorney, Gawker’s theory that it had to do with past lies was…well, not quite confirmed, but here’s what it says:
It may be argued by a party in this cause that Mr. Clem has given multiple statements on whether the plaintiff knew he was being taped while engaging in sexual conduct with Mr. Clem’s then wife, now ex-wife, Heather Clem. Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution. Further testimony under oath on this issue could subject Mr. Clem to additional harm. Mr. Clem could also be subject to prosecution for the act of making the taped recording of the plaintiff and Ms. Clem. Mr. Clem lawfully may invoke his right against self-incrimination on these issues.
With regards to the next to last sentence, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely. From the police report regarding the theft of the DVDs of Hogan/Bollea having sex with Heath Cole (emphasis mine):
I reviewed the case reports and noted that on 10/16/2012 Atty David Houston and his client, Terry Bollea, meet with the FBI at the Pinellas Office. Houston informed them that he had contacted Clearwater PD and the St Petersburg PD reference the filming of his client. He was told that the filming was “out of statute” and was encouraged to contact the FBI.
One would think that at least with regards to that half of the argument, Gawker’s attorneys will point that discrepancy out on Monday morning. As for perjury charges, what Bubba Clem said under oath during his deposition was the version that support’s Bollea/Hogan’s case: That Bollea had no idea he was being filmed. Bubba did say otherwise on his radio show right after Gawker posted the video clips, but he explained during the deposition that he was doing damage control and lying to cover himself. So if that’s the truth, he’d be fine when it comes to perjury on that matter.
As for federal charges of making false statements, that’s probably why Bubba Clem is “pleading the fifth.” Cornell’s Legal Information Institute classifies “making false statements” as being when someone, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” lies in various forms or fashions (see the link for more details.
As noted above, Bollea/Hogan first met with the FBI on October 16, 2012, the day after he filed the lawsuit that’s now at trial. Bubba Clem didn’t settle with him until on or around October 29th, when the settlement was announced. Presumably in the interim, the FBI spoke to Bubba. Most of the contents of the FBI file and motions referring to them are sealed, but in January, the trial judge unsealed (albeit in partially redacted form) two of Gawker’s sealed motions, one of which included the following (again, emphasis mine):
Bubba Clem testified at his deposition that Bollea did not know about the cameras in his house and that Bollea did not know he was being filmed with Heather Clem. But, Mr. Clem told the FBI the opposite, stating to FBI agents that Bollea knew about his cameras and knew he was being filmed during his sexual encounter with Ms. Clem.
In the context of what’s going on now, it sure looks like that was a false statement, both in the literal and possibly legal senses. That said, testifying under oath for the second time that the opposite of what he told the FBI is true for the second time (the first being the deposition) is not a crime in and of itself. But, while yes, it’s not as if he’s not already at risk for federal charges of making false statements if he’s able to get out of testifying here, that may not necessarily matter. Why? If Bubba Clem did lie to the FBI, he would, technically, be incriminating himself by testifying under oath again to the opposite scenario during the Bollea v. Gawker trial.
It certainly makes you wonder if he didn’t know about this when he was deposed, and if that’s the case, why he didn’t know, doesn’t it? This should be a very interesting hearing, and it will start on Monday (March 14th) at 8:30 a.m. local time.
Yesterday (Friday, March 11th) was probably the most mundane day for testimony so far in the trial of Terry Gene Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan, v. Gawker Media, Nick Denton, and A.J. Daulerio. As the final witnesses of Bollea/Hogan’s case, “digital marketing expert” Shanti Shunn and “intellectual property valuation expert” Jeff Anderson weren’t especially compelling, both in terms of capturing your attention and strengthening the plaintiff’s case. Both were badly picked apart by Gawker attorney Michael Berry, who got Shunn to acknowledge that he wasn’t sure about what some of Gawker’s traffic statistics represented and Berry to agree that his methods for determining how the “Hulk Hogan sex tape” post increase the value of the Gawker.com website. It felt like there could have been much better ways to prove the same point, with Anderson’s methodology coming off especially nebulous.
That said there was some probable damage to Gawker and Daulerio, as Hogan’s lawyers read a 2010 email exchange between Daulerio and a young woman who was in a video Gawker had posted showing her having sex in a public restroom stall. She begged them to take it down for obvious reasons, but Daulerio replied that “It’s not getting taken down. I’ve said that. And it’s not a very serious matter. It is a dumb mistake you (or whomever) made while drunk in college. Happens to the best of us.” He also claimed it was impossible to identify the people in the video, but the woman countered that anyone who knew them could easily tell. In January 2011, Daulerio told GQ that he regretted his actions. “It wasn’t funny. It was possibly rape. […] I didn’t really look at the thing close enough to realize there’s maybe something a little more sinister going on here and a little more disturbing.”
After the Terry Bollea/Hulk Hogan side rested their case and the jury was excused for the weekend, Gawker moved for a directed verdict in their favor on most of the counts in the case, which the judge quickly denied. As a layman, it did sound like they had some compelling arguments, but a directed verdict is rare. They have to try, though. At one point, when the various issues of “public concern” were brought up, Bollea attorney Kenneth Turkel cited Toffoloni v. LFP Publishing Group, which happens to have its own pro wrestling connections, as precedent. That’s the case where Paul and Maureen Toffoloni, Nancy Benoit’s parents, sued the parent company of Hustler over nude images of her that were published after she was murdered by her husband, Chris Benoit. Contrary to popular belief, Nancy never asked the man who shot the video to destroy it (it’s MUCH more complicated than that), so the case centered around the issue of “right of publicity.” Eventually, the precedent was set that, in layman’s terms, an article about the person’s life is not a blanket justification for nude images to be reprinted without permission.
Gawker starts presenting their case Monday morning after a hearing dealing with outside motions from:
All told, today felt like the first big win for Gawker so far in the civil trial of Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea’s lawsuit against them. The day started with cross examination of journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley, who began testifying yesterday. Gawker defense counsel Michael Sullivan had his best performance so far, brilliantly setting up Foley to get up exactly the answers he wanted, with Foley seemingly being none the wiser until very late in his testimony.
Sullivan completely neutering Foley’s “Cheerios Test” argument. The test is “Would this upset someone eating breakfast?” Foley hasn’t worked in a newsroom in decades, so he has no online journalism experience. Sullivan used that in his favor on his way to establishing that, besides only being an ethical guideline and not law, the Cheerios Test could vary based on readers’ expectations from a specific publication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn7dN2xkgbM
Later, he asked if Foley’s own St. Petersburg Times violated the Cheerios Test with various stories, including one about the famous Vanity Fair cover photo of a nude, pregnant Demi Moore. The end result was getting Foley to say he ran the cover photo in the paper because…people were talking about it. Which is, basically, Gawker’s defense against Bollea/Hogan. On redirect, Hogan’s lawyers tried to classify Sullivan’s line of questioning as equating things like Moore’s consensual photo shoot to Bubba Clem filming Hogan without his consent, but that’s not what they were doing.
In addition the Society of Professional Journalists were not happy with their code of ethics and the law being muddied. The SPJ ethics committee chairman, Andrew Seaman, told CNN that “The SPJ Code of Ethics is not relevant to whether an act is or is not legal. The words ‘ethical’ and ‘legal’ are not synonyms.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W0WI7_T5w
Most of the rest of the day consisted of playbacks of deposition testimony explaining Gawker’s business model and how traffic equals money. Things got a little more interesting when they played testimony from the deposition of Kevin Blatt, a sex tape broker. He had written an offer letter for the video of Hulk Hogan/Terry Bollea and Heather Cole that was solely designed to get publicity for his client, Sex.com. The testimony they played largely undermined a key part of Hogan’s case for a large award of damages, as Blatt explained that male celebrity sex videos aren’t nearly as valuable as those with female celebrities, though it could have value to an ad-supported pornographic website. The only really compelling aspect in favor of Hogan/Bollea was that it was made clear that he was, under no circumstances, interested in selling the video.
Meanwhile, an article by legal analyst Dan Abrams (you know him best as ABC’s legal correspondent on his website LawNewz.com got a bit of attention tonight when CNN’s Tom Kludt tweeted about it. Essentially, Abrams was fleshing out the theory behind a rumor he heard that Hogan has a benefactor of some kind funding his lawsuit to try to take down Gawker. Kludt, while not confirming the story, did say he heard the rumor himself:
These types of cases are always settled, and going to trial risked exposure/embarrassment for Hogan, which has already happened in a number of ways. Gawker must have offered some good settlements, and Hogan holding out for a a big payday, the justice of a jury decision, or both, is not a great idea.
It’s the type of case unlikely to be taken on a contingency basis (percentage instead of upfront or ongoing fees), and the post-divorce/Graziano family settlement version of Hogan/Bollea most likely does not have the financial liquidity to fund the case himself.
Is there anything to it, thought? That remains to be seen. The trial, meanwhile, continues in the morning before adjourning for the weekend.
If everything goes as planned, we’re only 20% of the way through the civil trial in the lawsuit filed by Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former editor Albert James “A.J.” Daulerio. Today, at least as far as the mainstream media was concerned, the playback of Daulerio’s videotaped deposition testimony was the top story. Why? Because he said something stupid.
Daulerio wrote the article accompanying the video on top of making various related editorial decisions. During the deposition, he was asked by Hogan’s lawyer about what would be out of bounds, and this happened:
Q. So it’s fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not that played no part in your decision about whether and what to publish?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your view that any celebrity sex tape is newsworthy?
A. No.
Q. What sort of celebrity sex tapes would not be newsworthy?
A. I couldn’t say specifically.
Q. Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
SETH BERLIN (Gawker Attorney): Objection, cails for speculation, but you can answer.
A. If they were a child.
Q. Under what age?
A. Four.
Q. No four-year-old sex tapes, okay…
[Pivots to a new question]
Newspapers from all over the world quickly jumped on this. From the video and in full context, it’s somewhat obvious that Daulerio, upset by the line of questioning after he answered it, is being flippant, but that’s not how most outlets covered it. That necessitated this statement from Gawker:
He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear.
Still, it definitely felt like Hogan’s side got what they wanted, making him look callous. He also came off especially badly when he said that he didn’t consider having the nudity/sexual contact pixelated in the “highlight” video Gawker made of the sex tape…because he knew he was labelling it NSFW (not safe for work). Overall, a win for Gawker, especially given his overall demeanor, which Anna Phillips of the Tampa Bay Times had the best tweet about:
This is like watching a recalcitrant child be questioned. Mumbling, monosyllabic responses. #hulkvsgawk
Denton also had his own deposition playback, coming off much better than Daulerio in the process. Still no good answer for the lack of pixelation or censor bars, but he said that he was not nearly as intrigued or excited about getting the video as others at Gawker, including Daulerio, were.
As live testimony went, David Houston, Hogan’s personal attorney, was the main event today, trying to emphasize how the video was shot without Bollea/Hogan’s consent, how embarrassing it was, how many sites complied with his cease and desist letter, and so on. It was clear that he had prepped heavily, if just because of how deliberate this moment came off:
Hulkster's lawyer was distraught when he saw the Hogan sex tape on SlutLoad dot com pic.twitter.com/vzeGAm2MBp
On cross examination, Gawker’s counsel did poke some holes in his testimony, though. It took some cajoling to get Houston to admit that he was joking about the video on on TMZ Live in March 2012. What happened there was that He and Bollea/Hogan yukked it up about how they were glad the video didn’t show a man. While not mentioned in court, it was perhaps extra bad judgment since one of their interviewers, Harvey Levin, is openly gay. Also, at first, Houston was insistent that he and Bollea/Hogan were only trying to get the video taken down, not the article accompanied. The problem? That’s not true, and the federal lawsuit that they filed at one point is all the proof you need:
It’s also more than a bit strange that, given the plaintiffs’ legal strategy of differentiating Hulk Hogan from Terry Bollea in very specific ways.
Journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley (no, not that one) closed out the day with live testimony. The Bollea defense team finished their direct examination to close the day and Gawker will question him on cross examination in the morning. So far, his testimony was mostly what you would expect, though all of his testimony relates to professional ethics as opposed to the law so far.
EDIT: Everything up to the lunch break is archived here while you can watch the live stream here.
We continue with Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea (and given the way he’s treating the two personas in his testimony, it’s probably best to keep calling him Bollea for now even if we’re used to calling him Hogan) on the stand being cross examined by Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan after they were interrupted by the end of the business day yesterday. Here’s a quick overview of what’s happened so far today and then we’ll get back into live coverage:
Bollea is continuing to go with the “That’s Hulk Hogan in-character” response to how he acted in interviews about the sex tape. In the TMZ interview with him, they called him Hulk, he was outside of his home, so he was Hulk Hogan. He compared the verbiage about his “rear end hanging out” to Ric Flair’s comedy spots where his trunks get pulled out. “I didn’t think having Hulk Hogan’s rear end hanging out was invasive of Terry Bollea’s privacy.” They admitted an email from Dixie Carter to Bollea where she was surprised by how jokey he was in his TMZ interview about the sex tape, saying it was “beneath him” and she was concerned that his personal lawyer, David Houston, was just trying to get face time on TV with him. She thought he should quell the story, but he didn’t listen, and upon Houston’s advice, he went on TV and kind of made it bigger in the process.
When stills of the video leaked in April 2012, after Bollea/Hogan figured out it was Bubba’s bedroom, Bubba told him Heather must have been responsible and Hogan believed him. Questioning now moving on to Howard Stern asking about how he could be embarrassed by the video given the way Heather talks about him on it. There were some technical difficulties and a break, then they returned. Bollea/Hogan on talking about the sex tape: “I was on an entertainment show and I had to be an entertainer, so I just kept going. […] I was joking about my penis, that’s what I was joking about,” But he went along with it. “The topic was sex and wrestling, I didn’t volunteer the sex topic, he did,”
Now, into live coverage…
10:42 a.m. ET They’re playing the earlier Howard Stern interview where Bollea as Hulk Hogan says that he would never sleep with Heather Cole/Heather Clem because of “man law” since Bubba Clem was his best friend. “On a character driven show, I didn’t want to talk about Terry Bollea and his sex life. […] There’s no reason to do that.”
10:44 a.m. ET “I had to talk to Howard about whatever he brought up.” Hulk Hogan can tell ridiculous lies, Terry Bollea is sitting there under oath. In that mode, is it OK to be dishonest? “In that mode, it’s entertainment.” Gawker clearly trying to establish that he’s a lawyer, Hogan clearly well-prepared. He was protecting his privacy as Terry Bollea. But Terry Bollea is never mentioned once, is he? Bollea/Hogan agrees, with Sullivan’s point being that Stern and others were not distinguishing between Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea. Hogan’s memory is even worse than you’d expect, as he has no idea that the Gawker article and “highlight reel” video of the sex tape were posted concurrently.
10:53 a.m. ET “I didn’t have a problem with [TheDirty.com] publishing stills [from the sex tape].” Did not ask any media interviewers not to ask about the sex tape. Thought that was his publicist’s job and he wasn’t gonna do their job for them. Odd.
10:59 a.m. ET They’re going over the TMZ interview after the Gawker article/video came out, which is when Hogan found out for sure Bubba was involved. He got sick after Mike Walters told him during the interview that the video (actually one of three videos as Gawker had all of them and it wasn’t on the one sent to Gawker) that Bubba says after he leaves that he could retire off the video.
11:03 a.m. ET Bollea/Hogan thought he was going to have a heart attack. “Man up with this Bubba thing and it is what it is. [Now] I knew who he was,” so he was able to rationalize the situation and call himself down. It hit him HARD.
11:08 a.m. ET Bubba’s betrayal was one of the hardest things he ever had to deal with. Did he ever see TMZ’s copy of the video with Bubba’s admission? No. Did he ever ask TMZ to show it to him? No. With litigation inevitable, why talk to the media about all of this in such detail? “It was OK to talk about it. We were getting barraged with the media and trying to make it go away.” Trying and failing to get Gawker to take it down fueled the fire.
11:11 a.m. ET Bollea/Hogan got calls from Vivid Video, and they thought it was all a stunt he was in on. Was he concerned everyone thought it was “another wrestling angle where Hulk Hogan was trying to con us,” he kind of says yes. He never had a problem with the article, he says, it’s just the video. “Whatever they put up, I don’t even know.” You never had a problem with the article? “Well, I wasn’t happy about it.” But you included the article in your initial complaint. Bollea’s lawyer objects, Judge Campbell sustains it for some reason and won’t allow Sullivan to argue the objection. Well then.
11:20 a.m. ET Somewhat circular conversation about how his guard was down when Heather propositioned him because he was at an all-time low. When did he get his guard back up? He never did. He’s still at an all-time low? No. He thinks he’d give in to other women who propositioned him? No. But he never got his groove back as Hulk Hogan, it seems like he’s saying. We move on to video of the press conference from when he filed the lawsuit.
11:23 a.m. ET Was he concerned he’d draw attention to the story? No, he had to do something to “stop Gawker from what they were doing to me. […] I don’t know how you could increase the attention more than Gawker did.” He testified at deposition that there weren’t as many reporters there as at the O.J. Simpson trial. Umm…OK? Did he expect his press conference would draw that level of attention? “I did not know what to expect.” Shifting focus to “the privacy of Hulk Hogan.”
11:27 a.m. ET Sullivan read a quote from Bollea/Hogan’s deposition explaining the distinction between the privacy of Terry Bollea and Hulk hogan, which ended with the word “brother.” Now Bollea/Hogan testifying that he’s concerned about Hulk Hogan’s privacy but it’s kind of been given away, anyway, because he’s lost his anonymity. People have taken pictures of him in the bathroom or showering after a match. But nobody invades his private business in his home or a friend’s home.
11:30 a.m. ET If fans ask him about his private life, he answers in character as Hulk Hogan, especially since they don’t address him as Terry Bollea. “I never go down to Terry Bollea,” he said in his deposition. Now: “Not outside the house.” Everyone expects him to answer as Hulk Hogan.
11:33 a.m. ET Never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for his emotional distress. Now hashing out pro wrestling being worked as far as how “predetermined” is more accurate than “fake” due to the physicality. Oh my God, it looks like they’re getting him to talk about how he wasn’t sure if Andre the Giant would let him win…and now he’s asking what a “work” is. This is going to be something. “It’s like dancing with someone.”
11:35 a.m. ET “When a work goes well, it goes quite smoothly, right?” Can two good workers working together look quite real? Yes. Can the term “work” be used outside the wrestling world? Yes, however you want. Oh boy, you can see where this is going. Now, does he consider himself a celebrity? Yes.
11;42 a.m. ET Was he concerned how the “Hogan Knows Best” storylines about trouble in his marriage to Linda would affect public interest in and perception of his marriage? No, not really.
11:48 a.m. ET Didn’t have a problem with a reality show scene where he his pants down and they played fart noises? Not really though he wasn’t crazy about it. Now onto his second book. He doesn’t seem to understand that he got an author credit for his ghostwritten memoir. Now onto what he wrote about his affair with Christiane Plante from his daughter’s record company.
11:51 a.m. ET Sullivan read this from Hogan’s book: “Next thing I know, the two of us started kissing. Not to sound perverted or anything, but it was fantastic. Here I am in my fifties now, and this was a really attractive thirty-four-year-old woman, with dark hair and a curvaceous body. . . . It was such an emotional and physical release. We didn’t have sex that night, but it opened the door.” Talk about how much the affair was covered. Now more about how personal the book was and how he was OK with that.
11:55 a.m. ET Now going over his first book. Extra layer of changes on top of him and the ghostwriter because it was a WWE book. And now we move on to Hogan’s appearance on Bubba the Love Sponge’s radio show via telephone on October 20, 2006. Did Bubba call him Hootie? Yes, it was a joke because that was the name of Bubba’s dog.
12:01 p.m. And now the topic is Hogan saying on Bubba’s show that if people bought his daughter’s record, he’d respond to the question “How big is your penis?” and then explaining all of that in relation to his ring and shoe size. This is actually happening. Now he’s saying he’s talking about how he was talking about Hulk Hogan and not Terry Bollea. “Seriously?” Yes. Oh my God. Now the Hulk Hogan vs. Terry Bollea thing again. This whole discussion has to be seen and heard to be believed.
Hogan: "I do not have a 10 inch penis….Terry Bollea's penis is not 10 inches." Draws snickers, including from the Gawker camp. #hulkvsgawk
12:05 p.m. ET Now talking about Howard Stern asking Brooke Hogan/Bollea, Terry/Hulk’s daughter, about her sex life. Bollea/Hogan saying it was uncomfortable since they were asking about Brooke Bollea even though they were there as the Hogans…which feels like it contradicts his thoughts about himself.
12:08 p.m. ET More of the same, then an objection & sidebar when Sullivan asks what he thought of Stern saying he wanted to take Brooke’s virginity and what he meant when he responded by saying “Howard, she’s the right height.
12:13 p.m. ET They’re still conferring with the judge.
12:19 p.m. ET Whatever they discussed, they broke for lunch when they were done. We’ll be back at 1:30 p.m. ET.
1:35 p.m. ET We’re back, but the jury isn’t…it appeared that Gawker’s lawyers were asking for guidance as to what was fair game with regards to the Brooke-related stuff.
1:41 p.m. ET Cross examination is done and now Hogan/Bollea’s lawyer is questioning him on re-direct to re-iterate the emotional toll of the video.
1:44 p.m. ET Hogan was mobbed by people asking about the sex tape leaving the courthouse yesterday. Physical and emotional toll of the video included trouble eating and sleeping. He was worried about talking to kids as Hulk Hogan because he felt like there was a cloud over everything.
1:48 p.m. ET Explains how going on Howard Stern opens up opportunities for other mainstream interviews, which can be tricky as a pro wrestler. Now back to the Howard Stern post-sex tape interview.
1:53 p.m. ET Did his book that discussed his affair include photos of the woman? No. Of Heather Clem? No. Naked photos? No. Him having sex? No. Now comparing his comedy semi-nude scene on Hogan Knows Best to a nude scene in a mainstream movie. Bollea/Hogan says he saw a movie with John Cena recently (“Trainwreck”) which had “John Cena on top of this comedian, Amy Schumacher, having sex with her in this movie.” Yes, “Amy Schumacher.”
1:55 p.m. ET Reiterating how TheDirty.com pulled the stills from the sex video after getting a cease and desist from him. How the mainstream interviews didn’t show anything.
1:57 p.m. ET Reiterates not consenting to the video or anything Gawker did. Re-direct is over, do the jurors have any questions? They do, and submit them in writing. I didn’t realize that was a thing?
2:00 p.m. ET Juror asked for the timeline of the still photos vs. the video. TheDirty.com posted the stills in April 2012, while Gawker’s edited video was posted in October 2012, but the judge answered that. And Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea has been excused.
With opening arguments completed, it’s time for what may get more attention than anything else in the trial of the civil lawsuit that Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) filed against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former Gawker editor/founder A.J. Daulerio. Hogan will be the first witness in his case starting today at 1:00 p.m. ET, and we’ll be bringing you live coverage of his testimony right here since it’s likely the biggest “event” of the trial, at least that we can predict. The whole trial is being streamed live by both WTSP (the CBS affiliate station in Tampa, Florida) and Wild About Trial, a court buffs’ website.
One would expect that this will take a while, possibly lasting until the end of business today. In his opening argument, Hogan attorney Shane Vogt made a point of saying that Hogan will completely own up to his infidelities and whatnot, arguing that it has no bearing on whether or not clips of a video of him having sex that was shot without his consent should be put online for the whole world to see.
Keep refreshing starting at 1:00 p.m. ET to follow along.
1:09 p.m. ET Hogan’s lawyers are actually starting by playing the deposition testimony of Heather Cole, the woman in the video with Hogan. She’s not going to be appearing as a witness, so this is how the Hogan side is opening their case. Will include some notes here while checking if it’s know how long this will run.
1:25 p.m. ET Bubba Clem comes off terribly here, with Heather saying he could be “intimidating” and that he was “”loud… aggressive in the way that he would talk to someone… until you did what he wanted.” She sounds like she’s choosing her words carefully. This is pretty brutal, though, especially in the context of the case: “He would continuously berate you until you did what he wanted. Whether it was in the privacy of your own home, or publicly.” She said that she doesn’t recall Bubba told her he was recording the encounters with Hogan, though there’s video proof that he did tell her.
(Hogan is definitely up next, by the way)
1:28 p.m. ET Terry Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan, takes the stand. There appear to be some internet connection issues at the courthouse as he starts and gives basic background information about his life.
1:38 p.m. ET: It’s back, though we’re still mostly on Hogan’s upbringing and early life. Hogan is reaching for words, as he somehow starts talking about seeing wrestling at the “Armenia” only for his lawyer to correct him with “armory.”
1:40 p.m. ET Yes, we get the story about Hiro Matsuda breaking his leg, but only after Hogan’s lawyer feeds him a question to answer with the word “kayfabe” and explain what it means. Is wrestling hard on his body? Talks about his injuries.
1:49 p.m. ET Now we’re going through Hogan’s early career. He said that Jerry Jarrett gave him a $800 per week guarantee and bought him a car. I’m…not sure I believe that. Now we’re up to him going to the WWF. They’re trying to humanize him with all of this background.
1:53 p.m ET Rocky III now. Hogan is going through his usual stories, which aren’t necessarily true, though Jarrett apparently DID by him a car. But anyway, even though he just testified to it under oath, he was not fired by Vince McMahon Sr. for wanting to shoot Rocky III as far as anyone else knows. Now we’re up to his 1983 WWF return.
1:58 p.m. ET: “That’s when it really took off. When we quit trying to insult the public’s intelligence. It’s just to entertain.” The Hulk Hogan character is described as a loud, all-American good guy. And now the judge wants a comfort break that will also allow them to fix some technology issues (presumably the streaming hiccups and Hogan’s microphone).
2:12 p.m. ET: We’re back. Hogan’s mic works now. Talking about his celebrity. Nobody outside of his home ever really calls him Terry anymore. Talks about how he’s usually accommodating when fans ask for autographs. Talks about one time he said no: Guy aggressively approached his family in a restaurant and got his cigarette ashes in Hogan’s wife’s food. Has a doctor friend who he can be Terry Bollea around, plus a few other local friends as well as his family.
2:14 p.m. ET So why IS he wearing a bandana in court? His wife would berate him about his baldness during arguments and talk about wanting to be with someone younger. It’s a self-confidence thing. Also:”I have an exceptionally large head.” Explains that even though the bandana is part of the the signature Hulk Hogan “look,” he wears it for different reasons as Terry Bollea.
2:18 p.m. ET Now claiming he wrestled 400-450 times a year. No. Seriously, no. Said that he had a lot less friends than he thought he did when he was wrestling. Had at most three close friends. Finds it harder to trust people than he used to. Who were his close friends? Jimmy Hart, Ed “Brutus Beefcake” Leslie (but they grew apart when Leslie got remarried to someone who Hogan doesn’t get along with), and formerly Todd/Bubba Clem.
2:23 p.m. ET Hogan outlining how he and Bubba became friends. Bubba was with Hogan in the hospital room when his father died. Bubba held Hogan’s father in his arms as he died. Line of questioning moves to Hogan’s marriage to Linda. Didn’t really have any arguments until 1986. Bad problems started from around 2004-2006 when “Hogan Knows Best” got going and peaked around 2006-2007.
2:29 p.m. ET Explaining how “Hogan Knows Best” was, basically, a work (“soft scripted” is the term for that type of “reality” show). They were told what to say most of the time but “were hoping for magic” in terms of some kind of spontaneous moment.
2:31 p.m. ET Hogan explains how the bloom came off the rose when they realized how much work “Hogan Knows Best” was. Third season was…difficult. On-camera, Linda was “very professional,” but off-camera Linda was distancing herself from Terry and talking about wanting to finally move back home to California.
2:37 p.m. ET Marriage was basically done when Linda moved out. Now we pivot to Bubba and Heather offering for Heather to have sex with him. Started with half-joking sounding propositions like “Heather wants to see you naked!” Hogan “didn’t know Heather very well at all” even though she was his best friend’s wife. They continued hounding him about him sleeping with Heather to the point he asked them to stop.
2:40 p.m. ET “I thought those people cared about me.” Said he “let [his] guard down” one time at Bubba’s house (the only place he “felt safe” during his divorce) and that led to a sexual encounter with Heather, than two or three more (Bubba filmed three). Bubba rarely invited him over; Hogan had only been there a few times before. He got there, they had a group hug, Heather led him to the bedroom, Bubba handed him a condom, and told him he’d be in his office while they had sex. But first: Hogan asked Bubba if he was filming the encounter. Bubba snapped back with a “How could you even ask me that? I’m your best friend!” type of rant.
2:43 p.m. ET “I was on a publicity tour for Total Non-Stop Action, a very small company…”
2:47 p.m. ET “Could you explain to the jury what TNA is or was? Are they even still in business?” They’re still going over how he found out about Gawker’s article/video, etc.
2:51 p.m. ET They’re playing Hogan’s “Showbiz Tonight” appearance during that media tour about TNA that ended up becoming about the video. At the time he said that the whole sex tape thing (both in general and Bubba’s betrayal) “Hurts worse than any back surgery… worse than my son going to jail…”
2:57 p.m. ET How did he feel when he found out about the Gawker post/video? From the description it sounds like he had a panic attack, pretty much, though he didn’t describe it that way. His lawyer, David Houston had to talk him down. At that point, he considered Houston his only real friend.
3:03 p.m. ET Hogan looks like a complete shell of himself listening to the Howard Stern interview from right after the video went up. Playback over, back to questioning.
3:15 p.m. ET Last 10+ minutes mostly Hogan talking about how embarrassed he was. Was even embarrassed for his Hulk Hogan character, not just as Terry Bollea. Direct examination done, break then cross examination by Gawker’s counsel.
3:48 p.m. ET Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan cross examining Hogan, laying groundwork about the Bubba friendship. Does he miss Bubba? He misses the Bubba he THOUGHT he knew. He was on Bubba’s radio show 50-100 times. They had heated arguments when he asked Bubba if he was involved in the sex video materializing when Hogan asked him after screen grabs showed up online. Moving on to the Gawker post now.
3:52 p.m. ET Sullivan comes off much better than Berry did, with a comforting voice. Sounds more like a guy just doing his job, while Berry sounded flippant. Talking about how good a liar Bubba is to convince Hogan he knew nothing about the video. Hogan testifying now he didn’t know he was being recorded. Bubba and Heather never said only like “You can only have sex with Heather if we can record it.” Sure sounds like Gawker is laying groundwork for something here.
3:58 p.m. ET Hogan doesn’t remember Bubba telling him anything about security camera installation in his bedroom. They’re about to play a clip of him on Sirus/XM’s “Busted Open.”
Hulk Hogan on the defensive as Gawker atty tries to show inconsistencies btw depositions and his testimony today. pic.twitter.com/Vt1thZnXU6
4:03 p.m. ET Clips now of Hogan saying Bubba “I know you have cameras, are there cameras in there?” Hogan thinks what he said to Bubba was “You’re not filming this, are you?” The situation felt too weird. Why’d his mind go straight to am I being filmed? Just a weird gut feeling.
4:07 p.m. ET Hogan knew there were security cameras, but they were never pointed out and he didn’t know there was one in the bedroom, much less facing the bed. He didn’t read the commentary alongside the video on Gawker at the time, and it appears he didn’t until his deposition, which he doesn’t remember. They’re jogging his memory with the transcript. Hogan has a notoriously bad memory.
4:14 p.m. ET Berry catching Hogan in lies about watching the Gawker video. Testified in deposition that he didn’t watch the edited Gawker video. Said on multiple TV shows that he watched anywhere from a minute of the video to the entire 1 minute, 40 second video. Says he lied on the TV shows because he was “on autopilot.” Definitely strange, though. Why not say “I just couldn’t look at it, I know what my lawyers told me” or something similar?
4:20 p.m. ET Hogan said he was kind of in the Hulk Hogan character when he made those media appearances even though the topic was something that happened to Terry Bollea. Something leads to a bench conference with the judge and lawyers. Which just ended…
4:29 p.m. ET It was “a constant badgering” of Bubba and Heather propositioning the whole situation for close to two years. Bubba had bragged about being a swinger, even on the radio. Laying further groundwork about Hogan’s friendship with Bubba and how well he did or didn’t know Heather. Hogan moved into their house for a short period after his wife filed for divorce, which was after he had sex with Heather. Was uncomfortable being there, concerned they’d egg him to resume the affair. But Heather never made advances while he lived there and Bubba didn’t push the issue, either.
4:32 p.m. ET We get a bench conference when Hogan’s lawyers object to questions about if Bubba ever told him about videos of Heather with other men. And then we adjourn for the day. Michael Sullivan will continue his cross examination of Hulk Hogan tomorrow morning.
The lawyers are discussing some scheduling issues after the jury was sent away for the day. Guessing nothing of note happens here, but if there are any real developments, we’ll keep you updated.
That’s it for today. Things are getting…interesting.
The jury selection process in the trial of Terry Bollea (professionally known as Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media et al is finally complete after four strange days. Wednesday was completely bananas and Tuesday somewhat less so before things finally wound down today and the jury was picked. The demographic makeup of the jury, as reported by the Tampa Bay Times among others, is four women and two men, with another two women and one man as alternates. All said they had little to no knowledge of the case, and they had a wide range of views on the role of the press. One of the women who was picked said that “If I find something of interest or concern to me, I tend to look it up. I tend to do a lot of investigating,” seemingly indicating a willingness to hear out both sides.
It’s interesting that the jury’s ratio of women to men is two to one. Comparisons of what happened to Hogan (sex tape made without his consent and eventually sent to a gossip website that published a small portion of it) to “revenge porn” have been fairly common with in legal arguments themselves as well as the media. You’d think that women (or at least younger women), might be more inclined to be more put off by Gawker as a result, though there could also be a distaste for Hogan for his infidelities. It all comes down to how well the lawyers questioned the jurors and if the jurors answered honestly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AtbuCwl3nA
Meanwhile, Wild About Trial has a piece focusing on Hogan’s potential “hometown advantage,” since the trial takes place at home in Pinellas County, Florida. “Almost all of the people” that they spoke to mentioned things like Hogan’s charity/fundraising work, that he’s always friendly and amenable to fans who want his autograph and/or a photo, and so on. One reporter told them that “everyone around here either went to high school with Terry, will lie and tell you they did, or knows someone who did.”
Also, the New York Times and HLN have good articles about why exactly this case is important. Both are well worth reading, and we’ll also have our own case primer up shortly to explain why the case is important and what you need to know to follow along.
As far as the jury selection process itself, here are today’s highlights:
When Michael Sullivan, one of Gawker’s lawyers, was asking the prospective jurors what they thought about First Amendment rights, one member of the panel, a pastor’s wife, said they were “abused” too much. “Accuracy on the Internet is not guaranteed. That is something that has to be addressed.” She had concerns about the video being posted without Hogan’s consent, especially since a less than flattering photo of her had been posted on Facebook. ”I like the idea of ‘do no harm.'”
Male potential juror on if he would be able to “follow the law” if he didn’t agree with the content that was published: “Probably not.”
One woman who was dismissed: “I have an issue with ‘public concern.’ I’m not sure how a sex tape is any of my concern. I just don’t understand how that’s freedom of speech.”
Gawker lawyer citing the rape allegations against Bill Cosby: “Should the celebrities have the power in our society to decide what is and is not publishable?” None of the potential jurors said yes. Later: “There’s no place in the jury box for sympathy.”
The trial proper should last about three weeks and begins with opening arguments this Monday, March 7th. There will be a “pool” camera feed for media use and it’s expected to be streamed online in some form. We will have full coverage throughout.
With a hearing scheduled for tomorrow to address some disagreements about what deposition testimony can be used during the trial, there were hopes that jury selection in the trial of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker would end today. It didn’t, as they didn’t have a jury as of 5:00 p.m. local time, so it looks like tomorrow’s going to be a marathon day for Hogan and his lawyers. As for the jury selection process, it wasn’t quite as ridiculous as it was yesterday, but still had many strangely entertaining moments.
As noted by ABC Chief Legal Correspondent Dan Abrams in the above video from Good Morning American, jury selection in this case is tricky because both sides more or less agree on the facts of the case. As a result, this jury is going to be interpreting the law: Hulk Hogan needs jurors who are outraged, while Gawker needs jurors who are vociferous defenders of First Amendment rights, especially since Abrams feels their argument is better suited for an Appeals Court than a jury.
The jury selection here, as in most televised trials (the trial proper be streamed online when it starts this Monday, March 7th) is not televised, so what you’re reading here is mostly sourced from the Twitter feeds of CNN’s Tom Kludt. Here are some of today’s highlights:
Gawker issued this statement as the jury selection started for the day: “We are defending the First Amendment against Hulk Hogan’s effort to create a world where celebrities can promote themselves around any topic, in this case sex, and then veto how the media covers their lives. This tape shows Hulk Hogan having sex with his best friend’s wife, and in fact the tape was made by his best friend Bubba who also appears in the video. Hulk Hogan bragged about his sex life for years, denied this particular sexual encounter, and now thinks his own choices are worth $100 million somehow.”
Actual quote from one of Hogan’s lawyers: “Show of hands, how many of you watch ‘SVU’?”
Kludt described Kenneth Turkel, a member of Hulk Hogan’s legal team, as “really yucking it up with the potential jurors”
One female juror had never really heard of Hogan before this week’s process started. She wouldn’t have recognized him out in public and “just knew he was a fighter of some sort,” but not if he was a boxer or a wrestler.
When the prospective jurors in the room were asked if they had any negative biases against Hogan coming into this process, nobody raised their hand.
One lawyer (I believe for Hogan) asked, half-jokingly, if any potential jurors were upset by Hulk Hogan body slamming Andre the Giant or turning heel to join the NWO and become Hollywood Hogan.
A male potential juror felt that Hogan was “not serious enough” about his son Nick’s car wreck (which caused severe brain damage to passenger John Graziano), but still felt he could be impartial.
Only five of the 91 potential jurors there had heard of Gawker.
When asked about the limits of media, Potential Juror #4 said that ”the New York Times gets away with a lot of stuff politically that they aren’t held accountable for.” Then they talked about Howard Stern.
The lawyers conferred at the bench and the sound in the media room was turned off when a female potential juror said that she felt uneasy serving on a jury in a case about a sex tape due to “personal experiences.”
One woman said that it would be impossible for her to be impartial because “It goes against my personal beliefs, and my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Another female potential juror on the sex tape: “Do I want to look at it? No. Am I willing to, as a citizen? Yes.”
One male potential juror cracked a joke: “Unfortunately I had no excuse to not be here.”
One of Hogan’s attorneys (I believe Kenneth Turkel) asked THIS: “NSFW. How many of you are familiar with that acronym?”
No potential jurors were familiar with Gawker founder Nick Denton or former editor (as well as writer of the Hogan article) A.J. Daulerio. They’re co-defendants with Gawker as a company. Gawker’s lawyer joked that they need to talk to their public relations staff.
When asked about Gawker’s other websites, one man said he reads Jezebel, their women’s issues site. None of them read Kotaku, Gawker’s video game site.
36 potential jurors were dismissed at 5:00 p.m., with 70 returning tomorrow for the final jury selection. Nine of the 70 will be picked.
We’ll have more tomorrow, and in-depth coverage starts with opening arguments this Monday, March 7th. We’ll also have a guide to everything that’s going on in the case by the end of the weekend.
After the potential juror pool was narrowed down yesterday with the initial questionnaire, people getting hardship exemptions, and so on, things got a lot more interesting today when it comes to jury selection the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker (officially Bollea vs. Gawker) civil trial. Today was the first day of voir dire, the session where lawyers from both sides question jurors to look for potential biases that could help or hurt their cases. There were 106 potential jurors yesterday when the dust cleared, and today, the attorneys for both sides started to question them. The result was an utterly bizarre spectacle that unfortunately wasn’t broadcast due to restrictions by the judges (the trial proper will be streamed online starting Monday/March 7th) and resulted in some amazing Twitter content.
Probably the most worrisome panelist was Potential Juror #13, a woman who said that she didn’t hold any bias against Hogan for his use of the N-word. “I don’t know how it made me feel. I may have thought, ‘Oh how sad.'” That isn’t inherently a problem. This quote, however, is: “Frankly, if I could talk about that word for a minute, it’s a double edge sword. A certain race can say it, but a certain race cannot. It’s just not right that that happens.” Somehow, she wasn’t excused, and will return tomorrow for further questioning. The other potential jurors mentioned were, while clearly less potentially malevolent, as entertaining if not much more.
On top of that, Judge Pamela Campbell, after imploring the jury pool to avoid news coverage of the case, went off on a tangent about the quality of online journalism…well, or her perceived lack thereof. “There used to be investigative journalists,” she said. To some, it sounded like a “dog whistle” rant about Gawker and it came off as wildly inappropriate.
Here are some of the highlights from 35 potential jurors being questioned:
Way less people than you’d expect had heard of Gawker.
Potential Juror #5 had information about her posted online without her consent: Her weight. Potential Juror #6 also had an ex-girlfriend smear her in some way on MySpace. Yes, MySpace.
Potential Juror #8 was the first male questioned. “I don’t follow a lot of mainstream media. I’m not a mainstream media kind of person. […] I’ve heard the word Gawker..But I don’t really know anything about Gawker.” He had, however, heard of Gizmodo, Gawker’s gadget site, as well as Jalopnik, their car site, but didn’t appear to know it was part of Gawker Media.
Potential Juror #10, a local bar employee who said that “[Hogan] seems to enjoy the circus atmosphere that follows him. Sex with a friend’s wife, although consensual, seems a bit slimy,” before adding that “I’m very opinionated.” She was excused, of course
Potential Juror #11 saw parts of the Hulk Hogan/Heather Cole sex video at the center of the case…on Gakwer…right? “No, on porn sites.” He’s a “former wrestling fan” (to quote Kludt, not the juror) who listens to Bubba the Love Sponge sometimes and said that what he’s learned about Hogan’s private life “lessen[ed]” his opinion of theHulkster. “Seems to me like a rather inappropriate arrangement. One man’s wife is one man’s wife and…should remain that way.” He also had negative feelings about Gawker, though: “The idea that [the video] was received in good faith does not seem possible to me.” He was the second to be dismissed/excused.
More jurors than you’d expect only knew Hogan from local news stories about his divorce and his son’s car wreck.
A female potential juror had “party” photos posted of her on Facebook without her consent and the offending party refused to take them down. “That makes me feel kind of victimized.”
Potential Juror #19, a self-identified “devout Christian,” singled Hogan out as a “sinner” for his infidelities.
A male who saw the edited sex tape (presumably the Gawker post) on where he found it: “I couldn’t tell you the website. Someone was like check this out.”
Potential Juror #22 was dismissed for sharing mutual friends with Bubba Clem and Heather Cole. On serving on this case’s jury: ”Probably not a good idea.”
This happened:
Attorney: Do you follow wrestling? Juror: “Yeah, when it was real back in the day." #hulkvsgawk
The day started at 9:00 a.m. local time. They didn’t find anyone who was offended by Hogan’s racist comments until Potential Juror #46 at around 3:38 p.m. “I know the plaintiff has used a word that I find abhorrent.” Also: ”I find the amount [$100 million] that’s been requested in this case to be…very excessive.” Guess what happened.
On Gawker: “It’s a fairly well known phenomenon.” On the nature of the affair, paraphrased by Anna Phillips:
Juror says the fact that the sex was extramarital bothers her. What if the husband approved? That's even worse, she says. #hulkvsgawk
One man wrote “I’m on Terry Bollea’s side” and “I like Hulk Hogan” on his questionnaire.
As paraphrased by Tom Kludt: Potential Juror #80 said that Pat Robertson’s 700 Club evangelical Christian television show was “one of his primary news sources.” A few minutes later, presumably from the same man: “I don’t know anything about Gawker. Never seen it. The name to me would imply a site that shows pornographic material.”
The day ended with a guy wearing sandals who wasn’t sure if he could be impartial because “I have a very pleasant memory of Hulk Hogan.”
That’s it for today. We’ll have more tomorrow, and remember that full coverage of the trial proper starts Monday.
On Monday, Gawker filed a motion to exclude deposition testimony of a corporate representative of MindGeek during the trial in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against them, which starts this coming Monday, March 7th. MindGeek is the company behind a ton of different pornographic websites, including many of the “YouTube of porn” types of websites. The reason this all came up is because Hogan, is trying to determine the damages that he should be awarded if he prevails over Gawker at trial, is arguing that for each person who viewed Gawker’s “highlight reel” of the video of him and Heather Cole, he should get the “standard price to access and view” a celebrity sex video. To determine this amount, Hogan will be calling Shanti Shunn, an e-commerce expert, as a witness who will testify that the video was viewed 4.46 million times and that the views should be multiplied by the $4.95 fee to view Vivid Video’s celebrity sex website.
In a deposition, Shunn conceded that he had no experience with the pornography business and the he wasn’t aware that Vivid puts its celebrity videos on PornHub (one of MindGeek’s free sites) for free viewing. Part of Shunn’s expert report was that to see Vivid’s celebrity videos, they HAD to pay at least $4.95, so Gawker deposed MindGeek via corporate designee Brett Goldenberg just 13 days ago on February 18th. Goldenberg’s role was to establish that an explicit five minute video of Kim Kardashian and Ray J, which is owned by Vivid, had been legally streamed 105,771,119 times via the official “Vivid Celebs” PornHub channel as of March 18, 2015. The inference, of course, is that Shunn’s method of calculating damages for Hogan isn’t valid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uvEhrmhIzI
In the same deposition of Goldberg, Hogan’s lawyers tried to get information about what type of revenue is generated by videos being viewed at PornHub, though the MindGeek lawyer shut down a lot of that questioning. They also tried to get Goldenberg to answer questions about the PornHub terms of use, user-uploaded videos requiring the consent of everyone appearing in them, etc. to try to bolster the privacy claims at the center of their case.
Hogan’s side is trying to get the deposition thrown out, but Gawker argues that they were granted approval to take the deposition by the judge, that they stayed within the agreed parameters, and that there’s no reason for Hogan’s motion to be granted. The conclusion of Gawker’s pleading reads as follows:
Plaintiff has failed to offer any meaningful basis for the Court to revisit its July 2015 ruling that Defendants could secure testimony from MindGeek that celebrity sex tapes can be viewed for free at PomHub in light of the expert testimony proffered by Plaintiffs expert that a person would need to pay at least $4.95 to watch those tapes. Moreover, nothing about Mr. Goldenberg’s deposition presents the compelling circumstances to warrant the drastic remedy of excluding his testimony.
We’ll have more later going over ridiculousness of today’s jury selection process.
As first reported yesterday by Capital New York, Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker took a curious turn yesterday during a brief hearing in Pinellas County Court. With most of the lawyers appearing via phone conference, the stated goal of the hearing was for Judge Pamela Campbell to deliver her outstanding rulings on matters not decided during last week’s marathon-length hearing. After ruling in favor of Gawker on one motion, she suggested the two sides re-enter mediation to try to come to a settlement. The perception of Campbell from those following the case is that her rulings have been heavily slanted towards Hogan (but not necessarily to the point of improprieties or anything like that), so what happened yesterday came as a bit of a shock.
The motion granted was filed on December 22nd, Gawker had filed requested “access to corrected and unredacted DVDs produced by the FBI” stemming from their lawsuit against the federal law enforcement agency. Back in 2012, the FBI had investigated Hogan’s allegations that he was being extorted by whoever had stolen security camera videos of him having sex with Heather Cole at the home she shared wth then husband Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. That led to a sting operation where the FBI seized the three DVDs of Hogan and Cole, and the video of the sting itself took up two DVDs, so the FBI ended up producing five DVDs to Gawker in their lawsuit to get the records of the investigation. Gawker had issues early on with the DVDs having glitches and edits that shouldn’t be there, but it was eventually rectified. Only the lawyers for each side can see the videos, which they were not sent copies of, and Gawker wanted to see them again.
Judge Campbell watched all five DVDs over the weekend, and it seems as if she noticed something that she thinks the lawyers for both sides missed. “I know that at our hearing on all of the motions in limine, which I believe was last July 1st, there were motions — there was a motion in limine from the plaintiff on the issue of racial slurs, and that part of it we need to revisit. I think after you all have had an opportunity to review the DVDs, you will see that.” It’s difficult to know exactly what they discussed or even what was being argued other than that it involved Hogan’s use of racial slurs, but she also added that “after the attorneys have an opportunity to look at those DVDs, I’m going to suggest that the attorneys or that you go back to mediation. I’m not going to require it, but I think you’ll see why.” She also made a point of saying that the lawyers should re-listen to the audio CDs of the sting operation before they get the opportunity to watch the DVDs.
With so much of the relevant information being sealed/confidential, understanding why she thinks they should try to settle is going to be incredibly difficult. There had been two previous attempts at mediation and obviously neither went well. Hogan attorney Charles Harder told Capital New York that the results of the next mediation session “depends on what Gawker’s side has to say. If they are going to say what they’ve said in the past, I don’t see any chance of settlement.” Harder also made news yesterday for representing another plaintiff in a new, otherwise unrelated lawsuit against Gawker.
It’s not a secret that Gawker’s future is at stake in their legal battle with Hulk Hogan. Hogan is suing for $100 million in light of Gawker publishing excerpts of a sex video that was shot without his knowledge, and a judgment of anywhere close to that size could mean the end of the company or bringing on outside financing. Even though legal experts believe that Gawker would win on appeal if they lost at trial, Florida law requires posting a bond amounting to the award plus interest if you’re appealing the figure.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that International Business Times reported today that Gawker is calling for an “extraordinary general meeting” this Thursday to approve a new class of shares in the company that would be sold to raise money. Citing their editorial independence, founder Nick Denton had never sought any outside funding before, but the game has changed thanks to the lawsuit.
With the Hulk Hogan trial beginning in early March, Gawker Media is fortifying its finances to ensure full resources are in place for the continued cost of litigation. Gawker Media is the most heavily trafficked digital media company that has not raised institutional funding and continues to grow at double-digit rates, with significant untapped opportunity across its seven core brands. Until now, Gawker Media has been funding the Hulk Hogan legal expenses from general revenues and given the expenses of continuing to defend our First Amendment rights, the management of Gawker Media has concluded that additional financing should be locked in before the trial begins.
Gawker refused to provide further comment, but the Wall Street Journal is reporting that “person familiar with the situation” told them that “the process of securing outside funds has reached an advanced stage.”
Hulk Hogan secured another victory in Pinellas County Court today in the latest hearing in his lawsuit against Gawker. As you may know, back in October 2012, Gawker was anonymously sent a copy of a sex video (shot on a security camera without Hogan’s knowledge) showing Hogan and Heather Cole having sex in the bedroom she shared with then-husband Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Gawker edited the video into a “highlight reel” mixing sex and banter, released it accompanied by an article about the video and celebrity sex tapes in general, and promptly got sued by Hogan.
Today, they were in court for a hearing where the judge would rule on a number of motions, most importantly Gawker’s latest motion to dismiss the case outright. As I covered in both the December 28th and January 4th issues of Figure Four Weekly for F4WOnline.com subscribers, the motion to dismiss was filed under seal because it was confidential according to the terms set by the judge. All we really knew was that the motion was arguing that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of fraud by Hogan and his attorneys. This is what Gawker’s motion to determine the confidentiality of the court record said:
Concurrent with this motion, Gawker is filing its Motion to Dismiss, and the Exhibits attached thereto. The Motion to Dismiss argues that plaintiff Terry Bollea has engaged in a systematic fraud on the Court to conceal the existence of additional sex tapes depicting him having sex with Heather Clem, including one that shows him making racist statements. As explained in the Motion to Dismiss, the effect of plaintiffs fraud was to cover up key evidence on many core issues relating to liability, credibility, and damages. In particular, plaintiffs year long fraud suppressed evidence of the existence of an alternative and intervening cause for Bollea’s alleged distress following Gawker’s publication of brief, grainy excerpts from one tape, and an alternative explanation for why the tapes depicting him and Ms. Clem had value and what that value actually is. The full extent of plaintiffs fraud only became clear on November 30 and December 2, 2015, when the FBI produced hundreds of unredacted records to Gawker’s counsel.
It seemed like they were alleging that Hogan and his lawyers had lied about a number of things. Today, in court, Gawker’s lawyers got deeper into this, though a lot of it was not in open court due to the restrictions. Among the misrepresentations that Gawker’s counsel listed were Hogan’s lawyers saying that:
Gawker was the target of the FBI’s investigation into the sex videos (They weren’t; it was an alleged extortionist).
The FBI investigation was still ongoing in 2014 (It wasn’t; the investigation had been closed in 2014).
There was only one sex video long after they had learned there were three, with there being two that Gawker didn’t have and one of those two having Hogan’s racist comments.
Nobody had tried to sell the sex videos back to him. (Allegedly, “sex tape broker” Keith Davidson had on behalf of his clients)
There was no way of knowing if there was actually an additional video containing racist comments and that even if it did exist, the audio could have been manipulated by the extortionist hiring a Hogan impersonator.
Gawker’s lawyer stressed that the judge had made rulings based on these misrepresentations. Hogan’s lawyer was very bombastic when he responded, but mostly said that the misrepresentations (both sides were barred from using the word “lie”) were just disagreements and that they applied to damages, not issues central to the case. Gawker then cited caselaw showing that fraud with regards to damages can be grounds for dismissal.
Judge Pamela Campbell denied the motion to dismiss, started to explain why, and then decided to announce it was time for a lunch break. It wasn’t clear what she was about to say or why she stopped.
More later, as the hearing is still ongoing with regards to other motions.
Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker rolled on this past week. First, Gawker president and General Counsel Heather Dietrick conceded that the company will probably lose at trial. Then, Gawker filed a stay to attempt to freeze and overturn a ruling allowing their computers to be searched for evidence that they leaked Hogan’s racist comments. Now, the latest big move is from Hogan’s side, who filed on motion on Tuesday demanding that Gawker reimburse his attorney’s fees and other court costs stemming from a number of discovery issues in the case.
Discovery is the pre-trial procedure where the two sides get information from each other as well as third parties via document production, answering interrogatories, and deposition testimony. For example, Hogan’s 1998 WCW contract was everywhere last week. How? It became public record in the famous racial discrimination lawsuits against WCW because it was filed as an exhibit by the plaintiffs, who got it from WCW during discovery. There are of course a number of very specific rules governing discovery, and in the case of Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) is saying that Gawker is in violation of a bunch of them.
Hogan is asking for $427,665 ($392,475 in attorneys’ fees and $35,190 in court costs) stemming from the abuses that his side his claiming Gawker has committed throughout the discovery process. His lawyers are arguing that Gawker is doing this specifically to raise costs to the point that the case is too expensive for Hogan to litigate. As for their accusations of wrongdoing, they include:
* That “Gawker repeatedly refused to produce any documents or information related to” sister company Kinja/Blogwire Hungary. It’s alleged that they continued to do this even after the Special Discovery Magistrate overseeing the case ruled in Hogan’s favor. “Eventually, Gawker’s delay tactics required Mr. Bollea to sever Kinja from the case simply to secure a trial date.”
* This: “Gawker attempted numerous times to turn discovery into an inquisition into Mr. Bollea’s private life. At the start of this litigation, Gawker wanted to know the name of every woman Mr. Bollea had sex with over the course of a decade. Gawker wanted to know if there were sex tapes other than the illegal recording that had been sent to Gawker [Note: There were, but they were other illegally made recordings], and Gawker repeatedly asked witnesses at deposition about Mr. Bollea’s private sex life. Gawker also wanted all of Mr. Bollea’s medical records, even though Mr. Bollea did not seek any damages based on any claim that Gawker’s actions led to his seeking medical treatment.”
The claim is that Hogan had to spend “large amounts of money” just to go to court to protect basic privacy rights. And that’s even after the judge issued an order prohibiting discovery of that nature.
* Gawker filed 24 third-party subpoenas in the case, “many of which were not tailored at all to the First Amendment defenses in its case,” instead seeking “private information” that violated the judge’s protective order. Among those served subpoenas were Dixie Carter, TNA Wrestling, WWE, Bischoff Hervey Entertainment, Hogan’s lawyer David Houston, Keith Davidson (the lawyer representing the mystery person who tried to extort Hogan using the sex tapes), and Matt Loyd (a former Bubba the Love Sponge employee). Hogan says he cooperated with all of the subpoenas.
* Gawker objected to a subpoena to their loan broker in an attempt to determine the worth of the company.
You get the idea: Hogan’s side is saying that Gawker tried to block legitimate discovery because they knew it would run up costs for Hogan. while the other side made ridiculous requests to further run up said costs. Where exactly the truth lies, who knows?
As for the costs themselves, Hogan has a total of eight lawyers working on the case at rates ranging from $295 to $550 per hour. In determining costs that Gawker were owed, Charles Harder, one of Hogan’s lawyers, wrote in a sworn affidavit that not only did he did not include travel costs, but all hourly billings were rounded down instead of up.
So for example: When responding to Gawker’s exception to the ruling on discovery about Hogan’s sexual partners, four of his lawyers billed a total of 27 hours ranging from $395 to $550 each for a total of $12,390. That’s on the lower end of some of these itemized arguments, as they ranged from $6,315 to a whopping $72,960 (five lawyers working a total of 160 hours).
Set for March 2016, the trial in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker (for publishing clips of a sex tape shot without his knowledge) is still several months away. As we wait it out, Heather Dietrick, Gawker’s President and General Counsel, made a surprising admission according to Capital New York: She thinks they’re going to lose.
During a Gawker staff meeting this past Thursday (October 22nd), Dietrick said “It’s probably difficult to win the case entirely, outright, knowing the jury that we’re facing, but it’s possible. More likely than not, we end up with a really small judgment that we can easily carry and we appeal that,” Hogan has sued for $100 million, and Florida law requires that to appeal a judgment, the losing party must post a bond for the full amount plus two years’ interest. Gawker founder Nick Denton has said in the past that a judgment of that size would kill the company or require him to sell a equity stake.
Dietrick added that “It’s quite possible that Hogan just gets a very small judgment against us, and then we have to make the decision: do we appeal that and incur further fees to vindicate the First Amendment rights that we know we’re on the right side of, or do we simply say, OK this very small judgment is a win and makes it very difficult for Hulk Hogan, who’s spent a lot of time on pursuing this case and could walk away with something very small[, to keep the lawsuit going].”
If there’s a large judgment, she’s now saying they’ll appeal expecting the appeals court to allow them to pay a smaller bond.”The rights at stake are so important , not just to this story but to other stories that we do and stories that every news outlet does, that I expect that the appeals court will allow us to appeal, which means allowing a reasonable bond that we’re able to post. The appeals court in question has generally ruled in their favor so for (seven out of eight times) in matters pertaining to the case.
Late last week, we told you about the latest development in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker for publishing clips of a sex video recorded without his knowledge. Various news agencies and media companies, most notably the Associated Press and Scripps, had filed a motion to unseal the FBI case file of the investigation into an extortion attempt made using the sex videos. Gawker had successfully sued to get a copy of the case file, but the judge overseeing the Hogan case made it “eyes only” to each side’s lawyers it when they filed the information in court.
This means that it’s sealed off to everyone else, including Gawker founder Nick Denton and the media. Hence the motion to unseal it, which could be bad for Hogan because we now know the contents include the transcript of his racist tirade among other things. The media companies argued that with Florida’s open records laws, the judge in the Gawker-FBI lawsuit ruling the case file was public record, and the sealing being highly unusual, the records should be made public.
Well, on Friday, we told you that, per the Associated Press, Judge Pamela Campbell had ruled against the motion just a day after it was filed. No reason was given, which was strange. Well, it turns out that the Associated Press actually messed up a story about themselves, as they issued a correction last night. It turns out that the motion struck down last week was an earlier attempt to unseal from the Summer. The timing appears coincidental.