CM Punk is off the hook in a civil lawsuit that was filed against him by a WWE doctor for defamation following his exit from the company in 2014.
A jury in Chicago ruled in Punk’s favor after Dr. Chris Amann filed the lawsuit after the former WWE superstar spoke about the treatment he received while under contract and the misdiagnosis that could have resulted in a serious medical condition.
Dr. Amann filed a lawsuit in excess of $1 million against Punk and fellow wrestler Colt Cabana, who hosted the podcast back in 2014.
After testimony that started last week, the jury deliberated for only a couple of hours before handing down a judgment siding with Punk and Cabana in the defamation lawsuit.
Punk was reportedly very emotional after the verdict was read while hugging his wife and fellow former WWE superstar A.J. Lee, who was also in attendance for the trial.
CM Punk has just won his civil lawsuit against WWE Dr. Chris Amann. He was in court all morning here in Chicago. Hugging his wife and crying in the courthouse. All this, four days before UFC 225.
With the trial behind him, Punk will now turn his attention to his fight on Saturday night against Mike Jackson on the UFC 225 main card.
Punk will be making his second appearance in the UFC after suffering a first round submission loss in his debut back in 2016.
While the trial undoubtedly took at least some of his focus away from the fight, Punk can now rest easy knowing that he won’t be on the hook for any kind of financial penalty as a result of the civil lawsuit filed against him.
The Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit has had far-reaching legal consequences. The precedent set by the case is expected to impact the future of journalism and celebrity privacy.
Netflix will be releasing a documentary on the case, and have just released the first trailer for the move:
The Many Facets of Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker
The co-founder of Paypal, Peter Thief, helped bankroll the lawsuit against Gawker. The media company had previously released private information as well.
WWE cut ties with Hogan after the tapes were released, allowing Hogan to sue Gawker for lost revenue.
More information should be revealed in the upcoming documentary.
We’ve got an update on the lawsuit filed by Audience of One Productions against TNA parent company Impact Ventures, TNA CFO Dean Broadhead, production coordinator/former wrestler Ron Harris, and Aroluxe, the production company that owns a minority stake in TNA. As you can tell from the headline, Aroluxe and Harris are moving to dismiss the case. Audience of One filed the lawsuit in late September, during the week where it appeared that TNA would be dead if nobody put in new money by the end of the week. It alleges that TNA has not only been delinquent on payments for Bound For Glory 2015 production work, but was arranging a deal with Aroluxe to replace Audience of One at the same time.
Aroluxe’s basic reasoning for having the case against the company as well as Harris revolves around Audience of One filing the lawsuit in Virginia, where they’re headquartered, on top of, obviously, denying the allegations against them. That’s strictly legalese that we won’t concern ourselves with today. But in terms of newsworthiness, that’s not what jumps out in what they filed with their motion to dismiss. Supporting the motion were two affidavits: One from Harris, and one from Aroluxe founder Jason Brown.
Curiously, Harris says that At all times relevant to the Complaint,I was not employed by Defendant Aroluxe” and “At all times relevant to the Complaint, I was not employed by Defendant Impact Ventures, LLC f/k/a TNA Entertainment, LLC (“TNA”). My last employment with TNA was almost ten years ago.” Brown added that “Aroluxe does not employ Defendant Ronald Dean Harris” and “Aroluxe has never authorized Defendant Ronald Dean Harris to acton its behalf.”
The affidavits don’t entirely ring true, with Harris not working for TNA for “almost ten years” being the most suspicious part. Audience of One’s complaint specifically alleged that Harris emailed them requesting an itemized invoice for Bound For Glory on December 11, 2015. In addition, the complaint states that both Harris brothers were using “@tnawrestling.com” email addresses and “generally held themselves out as employees of TNA.” It strains credulity to suggest that Audience of One would make allegations about specific emails, quoting them in the process, if they weren’t able to produce them in court.
As for Harris and Aroluxe, we need to look at older versions of the Aroluxe website on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The “team” listing that was on the site most of 2016 with Harris as a member wasn’t there on the last copy available from before Bound For Glory 2015, but it was added by January 25,2016 at the latest. Audience of One alleges that there was a scheme that went on for months after that. In October, Aroluxe’s “team” listing changed drastically, removing not just Harris, but also his brother Don and even Jason Brown. As of this writing, the site no longer lists any members of the Aroluxe “team.” The Harrises could very well be gone from Aroluxe now, but the company’s own website said that they were still important parts of the company for much of the time that it’s alleged they interfered with Audience of One being paid.
For whatever it’s worth, Ron Harris’s LinkedIn page does not mention Aroluxe at all. However, it does not appear to have been updated in quite some time, as the profile photo is very low resolution. His job is listed as “Operations Manager” for Lime Monkey Entertainment from March 2013 to “Present.” What Lime Monkey actually is or does is unclear, as its website is literally just its name in white on a black background with no content. Googling the name finds nothing of substance other than Don Harris’s LinkedIn, which has a similar photo to his brother’s page and lists him as “Co-Owner/Manager.” Tennessee state records list the company’s status as “Inactive – Dissolved (Administrative).”
The latest development in the ongoing battle between WWE and the various wrestlers suing them came today in the form of WWE filing a motion to dismiss the action filed by Marcus “Buff” Bagwell and Scott “Raven” Levy. This is the case dealing with WWE Network royalties, and there are two prongs to it:
That WWE has a legal obligation to pay both wrestlers royalties for WCW footage in general.
Levy’s 2000 WWF contract, because it allows for royalties from videos released in formats yet to be invented and did not specifically exempt royalties from internet and video on demand subscription fees the way current WWE contracts do.
WWE’s motion to dismiss deals with each in simple yet highly detailed fashion:
WWE does not fall under any of the legal criteria that would make it a successor company to WCW, if just because the legal entity formerly known as WCW still exists as the Universal Wrestling Corporation. Both plaintiffs’ WCW contracts also saw them forgo video royalties in exchange for other considerations.
The key language in the contracts is that royalties come from a “direct sale” of WWE home video products, with the references to technology not yet invented referring to formats like Blu-Ray. It didn’t exist at the time of the contract, but, like VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD, it’s a physical product that can be sold and re-sold. There’s also a detailed argument about how there’s legal precedent saying that a “sale” refers to a physical product, not a temporary license like a WWE Network subscription is. WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt also points out that a WWE contract’s royalty structure is pretty much impossible to apply to WWE Network.
No word yet as far as when a ruling should be expected.
On Wednesday, WWE filed a 335 page amended complaint in Laurinaitis v. World Wrestling Entertainment, the lawsuit backed by lawyer Konstantine Kyros that alleges not just claims over brain injuries, but also misclassification as independent contractors and WWE being a racketeering scheme. Most notably, there are several new plaintiffs who have joined the lawsuit, and The Boston Globe ran a feature on some of the new accusations on Saturday afternoon. The new plaintiffs are Ashley Massaro, Perry Satullo (Perry Saturn), David Silva (Sylvano Sousa), Johnny Jeter, Charles Scaggs (2 Cold Scorpio/Flash Funk), Chad Wicks, the estate of John Rechner (Balls Mahoney).
The most attention-grabbing allegations, which headlined the Globe article, came from Massaro, Besides the various allegations related to in-ring injuries, including that she was completely untrained when she had her first WWE match, Massaro alleges that “she was sexually assaulted on a military base in Kuwait” during a “WWE Middle East tour.” According to Massaro, when she got back to the United States, “she was seen by [WWE’s] Dr. [Ferdinand] Rios who interviewed her about the incident.” She says that after the doctor “reported the incident to WWE executives,” they met with her to “apologize for their negligence but persuaded her that it would be best not to report it to appropriate authorities.”
The complaint has no further details about the sexual assault allegation, like if Massaro was accusing a co-worker or a member of the military. WWE not being called out by Kyros for a cover-up does suggest the latter, though. It looks like Massaro is referring to a June 2006 tour where she was joined by Maria Kanellis, Jimmy Hart, and Ron Simmons. When the Globe asked WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt for comment on Massaro’s allegations, he did not refer to them directly, instead directing them to Judge Vanessa Bryant’s comments in dismissing Kyros’ wrongful death lawsuits against WWE a few days ago.
Mark “Henry Godwin” Canterbury’s section of the complaint has been rewritten to explain the context of the release he signed in June, which part of the procedure for him being admitted into drug rehabilitation on WWE’s dime. From the complaint: “The document disavows any duty to Canterbury, seeks to make Canterbury’s entry into Rehab contingent on him not being able to cite the WWE’s rehab payment in any legal proceedings, and seeks to release the WWE from any personal injury claims.” It had been suspected that some wrestlers who WWE had sent to rehab had signed such agreements, but this is the first time it’s been confirmed publicly. Canterbury “states he believed it was paperwork for the facility.”
Kyros is now attempting to tie work for WCW and ECW into the allegations, arguing that WWE is their legal successor. Technically speaking, WWE only bought WCW’s assets (the company continued existing under a new name to fulfill legal obligations) and ECW’s intellectual property. In an email, he explained the legal strategy by saying that the legal concept of “successor liability” is “used to prevent companies from transferring only assets and not liabilities” and it’s “widely used in asbestos litigation for occupational diseases that developed many years later from acquired companies.”
WWE will likely address the new allegations in some form when they move to dismiss the lawsuit.
On Monday, I examined how Hulk Hogan returning to WWE for a WrestleMania appearance may not be as cut and dry as WWE welcoming him back once his lawsuits against Gawker are officially settled. The sex tape leak itself had never really damaged Hogan; the publication of his racist comments in July 2015 was what made him a pariah. In May, he filed a lawsuit against everyone who he believed was involved with blackmailing him with the recording of his comments and later leaking the transcript to the National Enquirer, including Gawker. In light of settling both cases with Gawker, the big question becomes whether or not Hogan wants to keep the second case going against the other defendants, since that would keep the story of the racist comments alive in the media.
Early Tuesday afternoon, we got the answer, as David Houston, Hogan’s personal attorney, confirmed via email that “Gawker will be settled in both cases[,] not the other unrelated defendants in case two.” “Case two” is the aforementioned lawsuit over the extortion and leaking allegations. The remaining defendants include those named by FBI & Tampa Police as being involved the alleged blackmail scheme along with various associates in the radio community who he believes were also involved with the Enquirer leak. Thanks to Gawker’s bankruptcy, the lawsuit had been on hold since about a month after it was filed.
Analysis: This really feels like a miscalculation on Hogan’s part. With the Gawker settlement, the story about the racist remarks was going to fade away to a mainstream media who largely conflated the two cases. Now? He’s keeping it alive and literally in the public record. While it’s understandable that he would want to go after his alleged blackmailers, as he wanted them prosecuted and they weren’t (for reasons that have not been made public), it’s a potentially disastrous calculation from a public relations point of view.
With this in mind, does WWE continue easing him back to the company, or do they avoid going further than recording WWE Network documentary talking heads with him, like they have done recently? The safer route is the latter, or maybe even outright cutting ties again.
Nate Rau of the The Tennesseean, the paper of record in Nashville, live tweeted today’s hearing in Corgan v. Impact Ventures LLC, where Billy Corgan attempted to get an injunction against the company. Rau also filed an article after the hearing, and here are some of the key takeaways from his coverage…
Corgan’s side was largely what we already knew/had reported, with the exception being that at one point, his lawyer slipped and revealed that TNA’s debt to Anthem Sports and Entertainment (Fight Network parent company) is now $1.8 million. It had been $1.1 million before the latest round of TV tapings, so it looks like TNA spent $700,000 for that week of shows. Since it included Bound For Glory, that’s probably more than the average block of shows due to both the extra day and the live satellite time required for pay-per-view, which TNA didn’t put down the money for until late in the previous week.
TNA’s attorney argued that the company is not insolvent, and a lot of his claims were met with guffaws on Twitter. Even if TNA had defaulted, he said that the contract, which would give Corgan Dixie Carter’s 92.5% of the company, is illegal under Tennessee law, adding that it would“make a loan shark blush.” It seemed as if much of his argument was based around chiding Corgan for arranging a “heads I win, tails I lose” deal as opposed the legality of it all, though.
As for Anthem? Their attorney said that the company is willing to pay off Corgan’s loan minus a transaction fee that TNA owes him, which largely echoes what their press release said last week. Ray wrote that Anthem “owns licensing rights to TNA’s lucrative video library,” but it’s still unclear just what that means. Taken literally, it sounds like Anthem can license the back catalog both for The Fight Network and to third parties to make back what it loaned TNA.
Earlier today, WWE filed various motions in the consolidated lawsuits that deal with both claims related to WWE’s treatment of brain injuries as well as the alleged illegality of the company’s contracts. One of the exhibits was something that WWE sent the plaintiffs back in August, which is proof that a whopping 19 of the over 50 wrestlers pursuing the lawsuit signed away their right to sue. Previously, when Rene Dupree tried suing over WWE Network royalties. a similar conflict came up. Those who WWE claims signed away their right to sue are:
Jazz (Carlene Moore-Begnaud), stemming from her signing a contract on January 18, 2007 that entitled her to a $13,000 advance on royalties.
Rodney Mack (Rodney Begnaud), Jazz’s husband, who signed an identical contract on the same date.
Henry Godwin (Mark Canterbury), who signed on June 15th of this year “from any and all personal injury claims, now known or later discovered, arising out of or related to [his] past affiliation with, or performances rendered to, WWE.”
Adam Bomb/Bryan Clark (Bryan Emmett Clark, Jr.), who signed a contract that, effective January 9, 1996, released WWE (then Titan Sports) from any future claims, after he was cut by the promotion.
Mohammad Hassan (Marc Copani), who signed a similar contract to Clark effective September 20, 2005 when he was released.
Blake Beverly (Mike Enos), in what appears to be a similar situation to Clark and Copani when he signed a contract as part of his release effective September 9, 1993.
Demolition Ax (Bill Eadie), who, “with the knowledge, advice, and consent of his legal counsel,” signed a settlement agreement on May 25, 2001. Eadie had been engaged in a lawsuit against WWE (then WWFE) for almost a decade over, among other things, the rights to the Demolition gimmick.
Mantaur (Michael Halac) released what was then Titan Sports from future claims as part of signing a contract that released WWE/Titan from future claims when he was let go on July 24, 1997.
Boris Zhukov (then James Harrell) signed away future claims in a similar situation on February 28, 1991.
Kamala (James Harris) did the same on September 9, 1993.
Marty Jannetty signed contracts dated both February 9, 1993 and September 15, 1995, that taken together, released WWE (then Titan Sports) from future claims.
Mark Jindrak appears to be in similar straits to most of the above wrestlers, with his release of WWE effective July 12, 2005.
Black Bart (Rick Jones) released WWE from their claims in a contract dated January 11, 1991.
Road Warrior Animal (Joseph Laurinaitis) released WWE from future claims via a contract dated June 6, 2006 related to him being cut.
Shane Douglas (Troy Martin) was in a similar situation effective December 19, 1995.
Ahmed Johnson (Anthony Norris) also has a release of WWE tied to his March 6, 1998 termination.
Jimmy Snuka (James W. Snuka-Reiher) released Titan/WWE on November 15, 1991.
The Warlord (Terry Szopinski) released Titan/WWE on May 18, 1992 after he was cut, and signed another contract (possibly a legend/nostalgia deal) on January 8th of this year that did so as well.
The Berzerker (John Nord) released WWE from claims in another possible nostalgia contract dated January 15th of this year.
This development is unlikely to sit well with Judge Vanessa Bryant, who is presiding over the combined cases. She’s had less and less patience with the plaintiffs and their lawyers as of late.
On Monday night, WWE got some major good news in the concussion lawsuits spearheaded by lawyer Konstantine Kyros. Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven) ruled that the more recent “concussion lawsuit,” Laurinaitis v. WWE (the one with 50+ wrestlers on board and Road Warrior Animal as lead plaintiff) must be consolidated with the existing ones. While technically, the only two plaintiffs left in the existing suit are Vito LoGrasso and Evan Singleton, the case is officially known as “McCullough v. WWE” from when it was consolidated with Russ McCullough’s since-dismissed case.
WWE is also looking to get the Marcus “Buff” Bagwell and Scott “Raven” Levy WWE Network royalties lawsuit consolidated with the others, as “Laurinaitis” addresses royalties and the legality of WWE contracts on top of the issues with head injuries. WWE had another victory last week, when an appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs’ appeals of some of the dismissed cases can’t proceed until Judge Bryant rules on various related issues in the consolidated cases.
Rob Naylor, who worked as Creative Assistant under Dusty Rhodes in Florida Championship Wrestling/WWE NXT from 2011 to 2013, tweeted some interesting stuff over the weekend. He kept formats, memos, and other documents from his time with WWE and decided to make some images of them public…
Format sheet for the first Full Sail University pilot taping in 2011 (note the puns):
Another gem. Before there was "NXT" – a secret pilot was taped at "Full Sail". Dream dubbed it "Project H" #1stdraftpic.twitter.com/jqJOr8nRLr
A list of indie wrestlers from 2012 that Naylor would sign if he could, which he was asked to make by Triple H’s assistant (the note about Alex Shelley being clear of a TNA contract is most likely due to TNA’s lawsuit against WWE and Brian Wittenstein being an ongoing matter at the time):
Naylor also mentioned that he found other things going through his collection of records, like performance reviews and a list of tips from Ricky Steamboat on how to work babyface, so hopefully there’s more to come.
Yesterday, we told you about the reports that Gawker was seeking to bring on outside investors for the first time as a way of making sure that legal fees for defending Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit don’t bleed them dry. Today, it’s official: The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are reporting that Columbus Nova Technology Partners, a Silicon Valley investment firm, is buying a minority stake in the company. In addition to helping to pay legal bills, the new cash infusion will help fund growth initiatives.
Jason Epstein, managing director of Columbus Nova, will get a seat on Gawker’s board. He told the Times that “We have been attracted to the company because of the authenticity with which they approach all storytelling. I will have no input on the editorial, or the editorial mix. Any changes will be driven one way or another by Nick and the team.” Gawker refused to comment on the specifics of the deal itself, but company founder Nick Denton did speak to the Times about the site in broader terms.
WWE talent booking contracts have become almost commonplace online, thanks in large part to WWE’s own filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As a public company, all of World Wrestling Entertainment’s executive officers need to have their contracts released in SEC filings. Since WWE has multiple executive officers who also happen to perform for the company, that means that their talent contracts are all public and we see the current WWE contract whenever they re-sign. Older contracts have also come out in lawsuits over the years, as well, along with other internal pay documentation.
But one thing that I don’t recall seeing before is an official WWE termination letter. In one of the ongoing series of concussion-related lawsuits from wrestlers and their families represented by lawyer Konstantine Kyros, one was filed by WWE last week. Specifically, it’s the 2008 termination letter for Nelson Frazier Jr., then known as Big Daddy V, also known as Viscera and (King) Mabel. WWE outside counsel Jerry McDevitt filed a motion where one issue covered was Frazier’s place of residence, so he filed Frazier’s termination letter to show where he lived when the two parties ended their relationship. Here’s the full letter, minus personal information that I redacted:
There are a few key takeaways here beyond just the curiosity of seeing one of these:
This is a notice of his termination being effective three months later. It’s tricky to figure out precisely how that relates to the conventional wisdom that there’s a 90 day “non-compete” period, as what WWE allowed during that period has changed at times. Here, it’s pretty clear that there are still 90 days left that the wrestler is still under contract and there’s nothing about being allowed to work elsewhere. These days, wrestler can usually pick up non-televised indie bookings while still being paid his or her WWE guarantee for 90 days, which can be fairly lucrative. One unique example is Daniel Bryan, who was re-hired before the 90 days were up after his abrupt firing in 2010.
The wrestler being told to pay “particular attention” to the “promoter intellectual property” section of their contract is essentially telling them not to use their WWE names. In the case of Frazier, page 25 of his 2007 contractsays that the WWE intellectual property is Viscera, Vis, Big Vis, Mabel, M.O.M., Men on a Mission, Ministry of Darkness, Corporate Ministry, and The World’s Largest Love Machine.The previous page says his IP is just his real name.
Wrestlers must return “any tangible property” of WWE that they took possession of during the course of working for the company, “including, without limitation, costumes, accessories, inventions, and any title belts.” Since the wrestlers buy their own costumes, it’s hard t figure out what any of those could be other than the title belts.
Overall, though, there’s nothing too surprising here. It just helps demystify the inner workings of WWE a bit, and that’s always fun.
Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker is the pro wrestling news story with the most wide-reaching “real world” consequences, and rolls on next week with a hearing on Wednesday, November 18th. An amended notice about the hearing went up today, and it outlines which topics will be covered, time permitting, over the course of the hearing. All of the matters mentioned in the notice were raised by Hogan’s side, and they include:
1. Hogan’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs on discovery rulings:
This was covered in detail here at SEScoops about two weeks ago. The short version is that Hogan’s side is accusing Gawker of violating the rules of discovery (the process that includes document production, deposition testimony, and so on) in bad faith. This would put them on the hook for Hogan’s fees in the discovery issues where he had to fight them in court, which total $427,665. Most of that comes from attorney’s fees with less than 10% being from court costs. Hogan accused Gawker, of, among other things, making it difficult to secure some depositions and doing things designed to drag him into court so often that he’d drop the case for financial reasons.
2. Hogan’s motion to compel complete production of documents in response to financial worth discovery, reconsideration of a related ruling, and a request for sanctions:
This sort of ties into #1. Hogan has won previous motions for additional financial information from Gawker, and Gawker has refused to produce some documents. Specifically, Gawker hasn’t provided Hogan with a “Transfer Pricing Study” that shows exactly what Gawker pays Hungarian sister company Kinja. Last year, one of Hogan’s discovery requests specifically asked for the study, but Gawker said the only versions that existed were confidential, covered under attorney/client privilege. Hogan is moving for sanctions against Gawker because a privilege log (filing that outlines what the other side can’t see due to attorney/client privilege) as an “economic analysis” instead of a “transfer pricing study.” Gawker insists it’s still privileged, Hogan’s side argues it’s not.
Similarly, Gawker founder Nick Denton is saying he does not have records of his family’s trust, which the court ordered him to produce. Hogan’s side is saying that’s ridiculous. So this all comes down to whether or not Gawker is acting above board.
3. Hogan’s motion to determine the confidentiality of court records, specifically an affidavit filed by Charles J. Harder (one of his lawyers):
Like #2 tying into #1, #3 ties into #2, because the affidavit is in support of the financial worth discovery motion. It looks like Hogan wants Gawker’s information out there.
Those will all be covered for sure on Wednesday. The following are listed as being dealt with “time permitting,” so they may be held off for a later hearing…
4. Hogan’s motion to strike Gawker’s affirmative defenses:
Gawker’s most recent answer to Hogan’s most recent amended complaint includes two “affirmative defenses,” which are that Hogan is:
* Committing a fraud upon the court.
* Violating recent Florida’s statutes that bar Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP, or essentially a lawsuit filed solely to censor a legal exercise of free speech).
Hogan’s side, of course, is arguing that the case can’t be a SLAPP, because the heart of the matter is Gawker publishing clips of Hogan having sex that were shot in private without his knowledge or consent. As for the vase being a “fraud upon the court,” Hogan’s side argues it’s not an affirmative defense. Cornell’s legal dictionary defines an affirmative defense as “a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.”
5. Hogan’s stipulation and motion to amend/modify 10/27/15 order on motions to determine confidentiality:
Both Gawker and various outside media companies have filed motions this year to get various sealed filings unsealed with the idea that Florida’s public records laws were being violated. This applies to not just the FBI records from their investigation into Hogan being extorted with the sex tapes, but all sorts of other exhibits and motions. They range from financial information to a magazine photo spread of him with naked women with who knows what else in between. Hogan is willing to let some of the exhibits be unsealed as long as the filings they’re supporting are left sealed, and his side’s suggestions will be considered.
That’s a lot to cover, so if they don’t have time to cover #4 and #5 this will bleed into a second hearing. Some past hearings have streamed live on Florida TV station websites, so keep an eye out and we’ll let you know if this one is streamed, but either way we’ll keep you updated.
The latest chapter in the drama between Gawker and Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) came yesterday, with Gawker attempting to file a stay to block a judge’s ruling while they file an appeal. That’s the ruling from last week, when Judge Pamela Campbell ruled that a forensic investigator can be hired at Hulk Hogan’s request to search Gawker’s computers and phones. The goal? Discovering if Gawker violated a court order in their lawsuit.
Hogan is suing because Gawker published excerpts of a sex tape shot without his permission on a friend’s home security system, and insisting that Gawker is playing dirty. The allegation/ That the leak of Hogan’s racist comments that got him fired by WWE came from Gawker, and that they sourced sealed documents to facilitate said leak. While not the only sealed documents in the lawsuit, everything from the FBI’s investigation into Hogan being extorted via the sex tapes has been sealed from the public.
Gawker is arguing that there is little basis for such a wide examination of employees’ and in-house counsel’s computers. They also cite their earlier filings when they responded to Hogan’s attempt to get the investigation going, which shed more light on, among other things, exactly what Gawker received from the FBI. With the argument being that there’s barely even circumstantial evidence that Gawker was behind the leak, they state that:
* A timeline of what’s contained in the Hogan/Heather Cole sex tapes was circulating in New York and Tampa radio circles by March 2012.
* Other parties who were well aware of Hogan’s racist comments before this past July included Bubba Clem, Heather Cole, Nik Riichie of TheDirty.com, the source of an October 2012 item in the Philadelphia Daily News, Keith Davidson (the lawyer who tried to help a client sell the videos to Hogan or extort money from him depending on your view), Davidson’s client, numerous federal investigators, and TMZ’s Mike Walters,
* Gawker didn’t have most of what was released by the National Enquirer in the first place, with what they have from the FBI being incomplete. The audio of the FBI sting on Davidson (where Hogan, his lawyer, and Davidson watch the videos) “simply does not include most of the quotes reported by the Enquirer.”
The radio community timeline, which Gawker got in discovery, “does not contain the racist language published by the Enquirer. It also does not reference Bollea’s use of homophobic slurs, as reported by the Enquirer.” Davidson’s transcripts, which Gawker’s lawyers got from the FBI, also don’t match what the Enquirer published.
Specific examples of quotes that the Enquirer had that Gawker’s lawyers didn’t included some of the most damning ones. That includes “I guess we’re all a little racist. F**king n***er,” which is probably the most cited one because it’s used to refute people who say Hogan’s not a racist.
* Gawker never had proof of the racist comments “in large part because Bollea successfully thwarted Gawker’s efforts to obtain that proof or take any discovery about the contents of the timeline and transcripts.”
Hogan had, under oath, represented to the court and the Special Discovery Magistrate overseeing the sealed documents that he besides what Gawker got in 2012, he “had no knowledge of the existence of any other tapes.” In actuality, he watched all three (the one Gawker got, the one with the racist comments, and one more) during the FBI sting. He also claimed that any allegations of racist comments on the videos were lies fabricated by an extortionist.
In a hearing on July 1st, a few weeks before the leak, Hogan’s lawyers claimed that if a video with the racist comments existed, then the audio may be from an impersonator hired by the extortionist. They also argued that the rumors of such comments may have been coming from the extortionist. On top of that, it was argued that mentions of the FBI investigation shouldn’t be allowed in the case because it was “predicated on these tapes purportedly saying something that they don’t say.”
* The DVDs of the sex videos Gawker has are heavily edited. None of the racist comments were included. At the time of the leak, “reprocessed” versions of the DVDs (there were issues with the first one) had not yet been seen by Gawker’s lawyers.
— Lachlan Cartwright (@LachCartwright) July 24, 2015
* The Enquirer and its reporters have always claimed that Gawker was not one of their five sources for the articles. They also worded the articles to make it clear that the sources had access to the unedited videos themselves, or at least it seemed that way.
Regardless of your feelings as to the main case and whether Hogan should win that, it does seem like Gawker has a very compelling argument when it comes to this. While the appeals court itself has generally favored Gawker, this attempt at getting a stay is with the trial judge, who has seemingly favored Hogan. It should be interesting to se where this goes, and we’ll keep you apprised of any updates.
According to a recent St. Petersburg Tribune report out of Florida, Gawker.com is asking the judge in their case against Hulk Hogan over the infamous Hogan sex tape to give them access to Bubba The Love Sponge’s home in order to survey the home security set-up.
Gawker.com, which was the website that leaked footage of Hogan’s sex tape with Bubba’s ex-wife Heather Clem, contends that he knew he was being filmed.
One of the main points of contention from Hogan is that he was unaware that he was being filmed, which is why he believes his privacy was violated by Gawker.com, Bubba and Heather Clem.
Hogan initially settled his lawsuit against Bubba out-of-court, but then rolled all of his legal efforts into one suit against Gawker and Heather, who is alleged to have “had a role” in leaking the footage.
Gawker.com wants access to Bubba’s home to survey the security system to find out if it’s reasonable that Hogan could have been unaware that he was being filmed despite living in the home for a period of time.
For more details, check out the complete St. Petersburg Tribute report at TBO.com.
Former AWA World Tag-Team Champion Doug Somers claimed during a recent Undisputed Wrestling Show interview that he plans to refile his lawsuit against WWE over alleged unpaid royalties he feels he is owed.
“I am refiling,” Somers said of the lawsuit. “He [Vince McMahon] is not going to get away with it. He bought my lawyer. To be that conquerer in any business or sport, you have to be a low-life son of a bitch, and he [Vince McMahon] is.”
During the interview, Somers also spoke about how he is suffering from amnesia and Parkinson’s Disease due to multiple concussions he suffered in the ring during his pro wrestling career.
You can check out the complete Doug Somers interview online at BlogTalkRadio.com.
According to a new TMZ report, WWE Superstar John Cena is being sued for $15,000 by a construction worker who was involved in a remodeling project at Cena’s home in Florida in 2010.
The report states construction worker Dale Ducharme was severely injured, with claims that Cena failed to provide a safe working environment to perform work on the house.
Ducharme is claiming a scaffold used during the remodeling was “defective or damaged,” and that Cena was responsible for the safety of the equipment.
For more information on this story, visit TMZ.com.
Boxing champion Floyd Mayweather won a lawsuit against a music producer who claimed he illegally used a song of his during his WrestleMania 24 ring entrance, when he squared off against WWE Superstar Big Show in one of the main events of the evening.
The music producer, Anthony Lawrence Dash, sued Mayweather in 2010, claiming Mayweather did not have the rights to use the song at the annual wrestling pay-per-view. Dash sued Mayweather, WWE and others for a reported $150,000 in damages, but a judge recently ruled in Mayweather’s favor.
According to the ruling, Dash was not entitled to a cut of the profits from Mayweather’s use of the music, as he couldn’t prove Mayweather, or WWE, made any money off of the song.