Lindsay Lohan

t
I
2
4
H
6
q
E
c.
J
J
IJJ
DF#IER STEIN KAHAN
BROWNEWOODSGEORGELLP
MichaelJ. Plonsker(SBN 101235)
mBlon$her@dreicrt!
ein,com
LauraE.Kennedy(SBN256418)
[email protected]
The WaterGarden
162026th Sneet
6th Floor,North Tower
SantaMonica,CA 90404
Telephonc:3 10,t28.9050
3 I 0.828,9101
Facsimile:
Attorneysfor Third Party
LINDSAY LOHAN
I
SUPERIOR
COURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA
t0
FORTHECOTINTY
OFLOSANGELES
lt
(J
lz
qJ
s.(5
*ra
t3
'
)*o
o
t4
vs.
E>
l5
2i
t6
Itl r, r
F>
Eg
Hd
FILEr) couRr
LOSANGELBSSUFEI
t7
SAMANTHA RONSON,an individual,
Plaintiff.
MARTIN GARBUS,sn individual;
DAVIS & GILBERT,LLP, aNewYork
limited liability partnership;BINGI{AM
McCUTCHENLLP, a Massachusetts
limitedliability parrrership;andDOESI
through20, inelusive,
t8
Defendauts.
l9
20
7.1
1Z
23
?fl
cAsE NO. BC 390043
lTheHon. KennethR- Freendn, Dept. 641
NOTICE OF MOTION ANI} MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING
THE VIDEOTAPING OF THE
DEPOSITION OF LINDSAY LOHAN,
SECURINGTHE CONFIDENTIALITY OT'
TIIE I}EPOSITION, AND INSTITUTING
PROCEI}URESTIIAT THE PARTIES
MUST FOLLOW
[Appendixof Norr-CaliforniaAuthorities;
ProporedProtectiveOrder; Declnrationif
JanntMuro; and Declarationof Michnel
Plonskerflled eorrcurrentlyherewithJ
HearingDate: November6, 2008
Time:
8:30a.m.
Department: 64
DateAction Filed: May 1,2008
r--}
Trial Date:
Mav
rtr
\-:
F:
r[:i
fi
F
'aJ
i..t
:>
r ;a .r ;
Et
:)i
+l
Fr
fi',
- :Tfr Tr _- -q
'q:
rTl *t
fF
n.
.a
.|f
i"J
3..J
';r
.
s -.
ltr
Fa
; il
Fr
f,').!{
i*,
-$
-i
J !
i2
(!:r
:+
t.
r-
t:?7
r-:t
t,,:
,{)
b ;ii !i! :i:i
Er clsa
'l!
ft
-{
;U
^r:L
'-'
T.1
e: JtF1i:ll
t7
'-^
..
77
$
r,t t
28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND IVIOTIONFOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
F fl
' -.' :
;1/-
I
I
TO ALL FARTIES AND THEIR ATTORI{EYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thaton November6, 2008at 8:30a.rn.,or assoonthereafter
J
64 of theabove+ntitledcourt,beforethe Honorable
a$this casemay beheardin Department
KenncthR. Freemanof the SuperiorCourtof the Countyof Los Angeles,locatedat 1l 1 North
5
Hill Street,Los Angeles,California90012,third partyLindsayLohan('Ms. Lohan'), having
6
caseby Martin GarbusandDavis
beenservedwith a Noticeof Depositionin theabove-captioned
'1
& Gitbert,LLP f'the GarbusDefendants'),shall,andherebydoes,movefor a ProtectiveOrder
I
prohibitirrgthe videotapingof Ms, Lohan'sdepositionandfor a ProtectiveOrder,securingthe
I
thatthepartiesmust
andinstitutingprocedures
confidentialityof thedopositionvideotapes,
IO
oJ
ll
follow,
TheMotion is madepursuantto CalifomiaCodeof Civil ProcedureSections2017.020,
la
IL
on thegroundsthat (a)if madepublic,thedepositionof Ms.
and2025.420(b)
2025.4?0(a)
13
embaffhssrncnt,
oppression,
undueburden,and
Lohanwill causeher unwarranted
aruroyance,
i)1H
l4
and(b) therequircmentin Defendant's
dapositionnoticethatMs, Loharr'sdepositionbe
expenstr;
Ea
l5
embarrassment,
undueburden,and
videotaped
annoyance,
causesunwarranted
oppression,
il+
l6
cxpeDse,
-fr
qo
l7
Theprotectiveorderrequested
is asfollows:
l8
(l) Only the parties,counsel,andthe cowt reportershallbe presentatthe deposition;
19
(?) The partiesshallexchange
listsof contactinformationfor all attendees
oneweekprior
ta
M
zlB
f;
6
Fl r,l
tr! €
Eq
E
o
?0
to thedeposition;
11
(3) The depositionshallbeheldat Ms. Lohan'scounsel'soffices;
22
(4) The location,date,time.andexistenceof thc depositionshallbe confidential;
23
(5) The depositiontranscriptandthedetailsof thetestimonycontainedthereinshallbe
2d
confidential;
rb
(6) The hanscriptshallonly be submittedto this Courtunderseal;
#
(4 Ms. Lohsn'scounselshallnraintaintheoriginalcopyof thetranscriptandtheparties'
27
counselshalleachroceivoa certifiedcopywith no othercopiesto anyotherpersonexceptfor
28
expertwitnesseswho first signan AgroementTo Be BoundBy ProtectiveOrder;
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTESTIVE ORDER
I
L
(8) Any partywho wishesto ptovidea copyof the transcriptto anyotherindividualmust
first file a noticedmotionfor determinntion
wlth this Court;
3
(9) All testimonytakenat thedepositionshallorrlybe usedfor the instantcase;and
4
(10) Defendants
shallnot havetheright to videoupeor audiotapeMs. Lohan'sdeposition,
Ms. Lohan'scounselmetandconfenedwith counselfor Defendants
Martin Garbusand
6
I
I
9
l0
3u
d,
*A
IA
l't
4+
t5
_trt Uf
2E
EP
ffC I
This Motion is baseduponthisNotice,the attachedMemorandumof Pointsand
Authorities,the Declarationof JenniMuro in supportthereof,the Declarationof MichaelJ.
13
{, H
5cE
wereunableto renchan agreement
andthis Motion fOllowed.
asmaybe presented
by Ms. Lohanat or beforethehearingon this Motion.
(.)TL
s;
regardingthe groundsfor theMotionbetweenAugustl, 2008andAugust6, 2008. Theparties
files andtecordsherein,e{d suchadditionatargumed
Plonskerin supportthereof,thepleadings,
rll
zll
Davis & Gilbert, LLP, GeorgeLirrdahl,by telephoneandby exohaugeof correspondence
DATED;October8,2008
DRE
WOODSGEORCE
LLP
By
16
II
l8
l9
20
2l
zz
23
44
,ii
ft$
tl
ft
2?
?8
NOTICE OT'MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTTYEORT}ER
1
4
4
a
J
r.
rrlTRoDucrrqN
This Motion seeksanorderproteutingthirdpartysu,bpoenaed-deponent
LindsayLohan
4
("Ms. Lohan"), fln intemationally-lcnown
celebrity,ftom the videotapingof her upcoming
a
depositionandinstitutingothcrprocedures
thatthepartiesmustfollow to ensurethe
6
confidentialityof thedepositiontcstiruonyandtranscript.Ms. lnhan doesnot objectto being
7
dcposcd.This Motion is broughton thegroundsthatvideotapingMs. Lohan'sdepositionwitl
I
undulyembarrass,oppressandburdenher becauseof the privatesubjectmatterof theexpected
9
testimonyandthe virtual certaintythat,unlessacsessis significantlylimited,thetranscriptarrd
l0
3
tl
J
videotapeof the depositionwill be illegallyexploitedby themedia.
Ms. Lohanrequested
thatDefendaflts
Martin GarbusandDavis & Gilbert,lf.e 1"the
Sn
GarbusDefendants")
agreeto a stipulatedprotectiveorderpmvidingthat: The substance
of the
=li
1 3 depositionandthe depositiontranscriptbekeptconfidential;the depositionnot be videoteped;ttre
4; (
rA
r't
{;
r X
:IU
E*
Fl r,rr
tr?
depositionbe heldat Ms. Lohan'scounsel'sLosAngelesorNew York office; therebeonly a
1 5 specifiednumberof copiesof thedepositlontranscript(onefor eachpartyandonefor the Court);
3E
16
anyquotationsor teferenceto thedepositiontransuiptbe filed under$eal;thedeposition
EE
A
17
testimonybe usedonly with re$pectto theinstantproceeding;
Ms. Lohan'$coun$elreceivea list
1g
of thc individualsattendingthe depositiononeweekirr advance;the court repofieragr€csto the
I9
termsof thestipulatedprotectiveorder;andno oneotherthflnthe relevantpartiesbc notified
z0
whenandwherethe depositionwill tal<eplace.(PlonskerDecl,tf 8, Exh.B)- Ms. Lohanalso
2L
that the GarbusDefendants
requested
considerlimiting the scopeof Ms- Lohan'sdeposition- a
22
requestthatthe GarbusDefendants
ignored.(Id. at{ 9, Exh.B).
sJv
i6
l)
TheGarbusDeferrdants
fail to articulatea singlereasonfor refusingto complywith Ms.
Lohan'sgoodfaith attemptto resolvethismatterby stipulation-Rather,the GnrbusDefendants
?T.
r(lr
+i
4tr1{
to Ms. Lohan'sreasonable
requests
merelyresponded
for confidentialityprotectionsby flatly
f
#
rejectingall of Ms. Lohan'ssuggested
termsfor a proposcdprotestiveorder- Indeed,theonly
21
providedfor their outrightrefusalto evenconsiderMs, Lohan's
the OarbusDefendants
rea$orls
28
NOTICS OF MOTION AND IIIOTION FOR A PROTECTIYE ORDER
I
proposedterms werethat, in their belief, the Court would '*neverorder" suchterms,'*and/or[the
2
terms]arEumecessaryandunasceptable."(Id. at tl 10,Exh. C).
The GarbusDefendants'solemotivationin reflrsingto grantMs. Lohan'sreasonable
J
requeststo ensurethe confidentialityof her depositiontcstimonyaild transuipt is their stated
J
J
lrt
d
-t|0t
+
;a
< ;i
115
=*
5
inteutionthatthey believethat by threateningto takeandvideotapeMs. Lohan'sdeposition,Ms.
6
Lohanwill encourageher friend,Plaintiff Samantha
Ronson('Ronson'), to drop her case.(ld. at
7
Exh. Il). Thesclitigationtacticsareinappropriate.For thesereasorrs,
M$. Lohanrnovesfor a
I
protcctiveorderprohibitingthevideotapiugof herdepositionandinstitutingotherprocedures
that
9
thepartiesmustfollow to prot$ctthe confidentialityof live testimonyandthe deposition
l0
hanscript.
ll
il.
l2
:>
;to
=d
Hl A
A
This caseis, in essence,
a malpracticecasebroughtby Ronsonagainsther former
l3
attorneys,DefendantsMartin Oarbus(andhis firm Davis& Gilbert,LLP) and localcounsel,
l4
BinghamMcCutchen,LLP, The undedyiugcasefrornwhich Ms. Ronson'srnalpractice
15
allegationsarisewas a defarnationactionbroughtby Ms. Ron$onagainstwell-knovmbloggerand
l6
self-proclaimedcelebritygossipMario Lavandaria(doingbusinessasPerezHilton), aswell as
11
SunsetPhotoandNews,LLC ("SunsetNews")(ownerof CelebrityBabylonwebsite)arrdJill
r8
Ishkanian("Ms. Ishkanian")(editor-in-chiefof CelebrityBabylon). Ms. Ronson'sdefarnation
r9
z0
claimsin that actionrelatedto a seriesof postingsMr, Lavandatia,Ms. Ishkanian,and$unset
21
involvingMs, Lohanon May 26,?:0Q7.Ms. Ronsonwasin the carwith Ms. Lohanwhenthe
?2
accidentoccurred.The allegedlydefatnatorystaternents
included,amongotherthings,$tatements
23
by Mr. Lavanderiathat: (a) Ronsonhasbeen'toxic'oto Lohan;(b) "[a]ccordingto new repdrts,
w
Ronsonhasbeensellirtgout Lohanto thepaparazzi";(c) Ronson"allegcdlyentercdinto an
f:i
with Lindsay,evencreating
agreetnent
with a photoagencyto tip themoff to herwhereabouts
ilJ ,,r
=z
EA.C.E
tr",
Ncws authoredandpublishcdon their websitesin earlyJune2007conceminga caraccident
'I .:
t6
photo-opsfor them";(d) "the cocainethatwasfoundin Lohan'scar after her crashrnayhave
27
beenRONSON's!";and (e) "[w]ith ftiendslike SamanthaRonson,Lindsaydoesn'tneedany
28
werebasedonallegedlydefamatorystafsmsnts
enemies."Many of Mr. Lavanderia'sstatements
NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTION F'ORA PROTECTIVEORDER
I
in anarticleon the CelebrityBabylonwebsitearticlethat leviedsimilsraccusstions
againstMs,
L
Ronson.
l
to represent
Ms. Ronsonretainedthe GarbusDefendants
her in hcr defamationaction
4
againstMt. Lavandaria.$hewss alsorepreserrted
by local Califomiacounscl,Bingham
)
McCutchen,LLP. Basedon thc ailegeddefrciencies
of theirrepresentfltion
of Ms. Ronsonin her
6
defamationactiorragainstMr. Lavandaria,l\4s.Ronsonfrled this actionfor malpracticeagainst
7
theGarbusDefendants
LLF onJuly 15,200S(Case.No. BC 390043).
andBinghamMcCutchen,
I
Ms. LohanandMs, Ronsonhavebeenacquainted
for severalyearsandarefriends.
I
Despitehertmgentialrelationshipto the instantcase,Ms. Lohanwasthe first witnessthatthe
l0
in this case.The CarbusDefendants
GarbusDefendants
subpoenaed
havealreadyexpressed
their
J
lr
ll
intentto questionMs. Lohanaboutthedetailsof thedrugsallegedlyfoundin thecarsndof her
o
1 2 allegedromanticrelationshipwith Ronson.(Id. at lf 4)- This line of questioningis sopatently
o
d
o
+0
l3
andshouldnot be permitted.AlthoughMs. Lohanis willing to
inelevantandinappropriate
IH
v5
l4
discussthe factsof the case,it is not appropriate
to permitherto be embanassed
or harassed
or to
E}
l5
havethe depositionrecordedby videotape,whereit will most+€rtainlybe Icskedto the medis
2F
r6
andthepublicat large.
H co
o
l7
; -qt
Fl ct
EE
Ms. Lohanopposesthevideotapingof ber deposition.Ms, Lohanis a world renowned
t8
movie$tar,televisionactress,musicartist,andmodel. Shehasappeared
in manymovies
t9
including"I Know Who Killed Me," "GeorgiaRule,"'TustMy Luck," "A PrairieHome
20
"MeanCirls', "FrcakyFriday",and"The PatentTrap",and
Companiour""HerbicFuily Loaded"o
2l
telwision shows,includingthepopulartelevisionseries"Ugly Betty," "SaturdayNight Live,"
22
"E! TrueHollywood$tory," andmultipletalk show tncluding"The View", "Entertainment
21
Tonight,""Late Night with ConanO'BrierL""Late Showwith DavidLeneman,""Ellen: The
M
EllenDe0eneresShof', "The TonightShowwithJayLeno,""Today",and"The EarlyShow."
'lii
tp
(Declarationof JenniMrlo fl 3) Ms. Lohanis alsoa highly acclaimedmusicartistwho release
da
l' l
to
platinumalbum,(Muro Decl.{ ai. Ms, tohart is alsoa modelandhaspreviouslyendotsed
27
severalcompanies
includingMiuMiu andProActiv.(^[d,at tlf5]. Curreutly,Ms. Lohanendorges
28
theItalianclothingaompanyFomarina,aswell astheclothingoompany6126(of whichsheis a
NOTICE OF MOTION AND IT{OTIONFOR A PROTECTTVEORDER
I
founderanddesignetl.(ld. at tl 5), Ms, Lohenhasalsoappeared
on thc coverof $everalfashion
2
magazines
includingMuie Claire,BszaarandElle.(/d. at { 5).
3
4
lawsuit,themediahassoughtto obtflin andpublishconlidentialinformation,photographs,and
5
vidco rccordingsat everystageof this liligation. (Id. at 1l9, Extrs.B andC. ) To satisfythe
6
public'svoyerristicdemandfor informationaboutMs. Lohan,themediagocsto staEgering,
often
7
criminellengthsto obtainphotographs
of Ms. Lohan- andsuoceeds,
in partby luring potential
I
sourcesof illicit materialwith largesumsof money.Indeed,themediaevenvideotaped
Ms,
9
Lohanbeingservedwith the depositionsubpoena
at issuein this Motion,andcirculatedthe
l0
J
iJ
I!
In light of Ms, Lohan'sincrediblyvisiblecelebritystatus,sincethe initiationof this
videotapeon TMZ andotherintemetgossipwcbsites,(Id. at{|l 9-I l, Exhs.B andC).
II
Thereareno soctrritymeasures
sufficientto ensurethatthevideotapesof Ms. Lohan's
lz
depositionwill notbe madepublic, Immediatelyuponreceiptof the GarbusDefendarts'
z-d
TJ
theGarbusDefendants
DepositionNotice,Ms. Lohan'scoufl$€laontacted
rcgardingMs. l,ohart's
$;
; 6^
v5
t4
andproposingthetermsof a StipulatedProtective
objectionsto havingher depositionvideotaped,
=7
15
Orderto protecthds-Lohan'sconfidentialityandprivacythroughoutthis litigation.(Plonsker
3E
i.O
l6
in goodfaith to negotiatewith theGarbus
Decl.t[3, Exh. B) Ms. Lohan'scsunselattempted
ts 91
g.
t7
Defendantsconcerningthetermsof the $tipulatedProtectiveOrder,but their efforts were
I8
TheGarbusDefendartsfailedto articulateevena singlereasonjustifuingthe
urrsuucessful.
l9
videotaping,andfailed to presentany alternatevetsionsof the StipulatedProtectiveOrder.(Id. al
20
Ms, Lohan's
stonewalled
fl 10,Exh. C). Rather,the GarbusDefendanls'counselsimultaneously
2I
efforts at an out-of court compromisetc speedup the deposition,anddemandedthatthe
zz
depositionbe helda$soonaspossible.Indeed,the GarbusDefendants'counselevensuggested
g,
Itt lr:
=d
21 thatMs. l,ohanconvincoRonsonto dismissthis case,in orderto avoidher (Ms. Lohan's)
M
deposition.(1d.at Exh.B). Theparties'informaleffortsto resolvethis matterhavebeen
L. i
1.5
unavailing,forcing Ms. Lohanto bringthis Motion. (/d. fltfl l3).
fd
t/l
27
tl/
2g
ul
NOTICE OF ITIOTIONAND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
I
m.
,)
MAY FE TSSUEqUEONA SITOWTNG
OF "cOO_pCAUSE:
3
"For goodcauseshown,"theCout maymakeanyorder'Justicerequiresto protectany...
4
deponentfrom unwarranted
annoyafise,
embaffflssmerlt
or oppression,
or undueburdenand
\
expense."Cal. CodeCiv. Proc,$ 2025.420(b).Sucha protectiveordermaydircctthatl'the
6
depositionbe takenonly on specifiedtermsandconditions,"andthat "the testimonyberecorded
I
in a mannerdifferentfrorn thatspecifiedin thedepositionnotice." Cal, CodeCiv, Proc.$
I
2025.420(b)(5)and (bXB). It may alsoditect that *the depositionbe takenat a placeotherthan
I
that specifiedin thedepositionnotise". Cal.CodeCiv. Proc.$ 2025.420(b)(+).Thediscovery
l0
rule$"give thetrial courtwide discretionin makingsuchordersss maybe necessary
to protsct
1
u
J
thepartiesfrom abuseor misuseof theirdeposition."Mgskowitzv, SuperiorCourt.137Cal.
Irl
(.?t,/
E
A pp.3d313,316(1982),
o
ztB
13
tR
!d E
t4
copyof Ms. Lohan'sProposedProtectiveOrderis filed concurrenflyherewith.
EF
15
w.
s;
Id ru
2g
This Motion setsfotth goodcausofot the Courtto issrrrthe requestcdPrshctive Odcr. A
VIDEOIAPINGOFMS,
"Goop qAUsE',ExIsTsHEREBEC4:U.S4,IHE
16
LOITAN' $ .DEPOSITIONWILL EMBARRAqF, OPPRESS.ANp UN.qULy
Ll
BURDEN MS. LO.ETAN
18
Depositions
"arenot publiccomponents
of a civit trial[;1.".in general,theyareconducted
14 V
HtE
H
ca
l9
in privateasa matterof modempractice."Seattle.IimesC,.o.
v. Rhinehag,467U.S.20, 33
20
(1984). In this case,however,the GarbusDsfendants
wouldforceMs. Lohanto endurenotjust a
2l
privatedeposition,but possiblysn unchecked
mediaevent. Becausethe videotapewill be
2?. covetedby themedia"because
somemediawill stopat nothinglo stealandexploitthevideotape,
23
Ms. Lohanwili be embsrrasscd,
burdenedanddamagedthercby,good
andbecause
oppressedo
a$
causeexiststo protectMs- Lohanfrom thevideotapingof herdeposition.
rtt
r|
TheLos AngelesSuperiorCourthasrccentlyprohibitedthe videotapingof a celebrity
r8
deposition,dueto theextremelikelihoodthatthetapewill be "leaked,"resultingin undue
27
embanassmentto
thecelebntydeponent.For example,on October27,2006,theLos Angeles
2E
SuperiorCourtruledthatEritrey Spears'depositionin her oustodydisputewith Kevin Federline
NOTICEOF MOTIOHA,NDMOTIONFORA PROTECTIVEORDER
i
shouldnot bevideotaped,
reasoningthatgivenMs. Spears'oelebritystaus,thepotentialleakof
2
sucha videoto the internetwouldcauseher'hrudueembarrassment."
(PlonskerDecl,fl lZ, Exh.
J
E)' Indecd,in otherCiruuits,where"thsreexistedthepossibilitythat thetaposwouldbeabused"
4
thecourtdsniedtheplaintiffs requestto recordthedeponent'stestimony.See,e.g.,lnf I Union.
5
UAW v. J{pt'l Capcusof Laboj Commiltees,
s25F.Zd323,324(2"dcir. lg?5) (denying
6
plaintiffs requestto audiorrcordthedefendant's
deposition).
T[e Vi$gotaneWould E.eof,Extraordinrry MediEInterest.
I
A.
8
of Ms, Lohan'sdepositionwouldbe of extraordinaryinterestto print,
Videotapes
v
andintemetmediafor two rea$oils.First,themediaandpublicclamorfor anything
broadcast,
t0
sunoundingMs. Lohan,andcelebdtiesin general,is enormous.Ms. Lohan'srepresentatives
t1
receivedaily inquiriesfrom mediaaroundtheworld requestinginformationaboutMs. Lohan's
1''
personalandprofessional
life. (Muro Decl.tf 6), Mediarequestsfor detailsaboutthis lawsuit
t3
from Ms. l,ohan havegoneunanswered
becauseMs. Lohanbelievesthis caseshouldbetried in a
l4
courtof larv,andnot in a televisionstudioor on anintemet"gos$ip"blog. (/d. at J[9). As
15
discussed
above,themediahasalreadyrecordedandreleaseda videotapeof Ms. Lohanbeing
3F
Eq
l6
servedwith the depositionsubpoena
at issuoin this Motion (/d. at fl I l, Exh. C). Thereis no
Hm
t7
reasonto assumethat a videotapeof Ms. Lohan'sdepositionwouldbe of anylessinterestto the
l8
media.
A.
J
-l
rt
-
trl
*
qr:
40
{E
v5
4E
F qr
-g
l9
andinformationaboutMs. Lohanis seemingly
Second,the marketfor illicit photographs
20
insatiable.Ouesimplyneedsto "google"Ms. Lohan'snameor funeinto TMZ!, E! News,or
nl
just how marketable
Tonightto understand
photographs
Entertainment
andinformationaboutMs.
22
of Ms. Lohan'depositiontestimonyin whichshe
Lohanare. (/d. atll 8). Thus,videotapes
23
will beuniquelyvaluableto tabloid
respondsto the GarbusDefendants'publicaccusations
43
,i,,
andinternetblogs.
televisionshows,print publications,
LI
fr,6
[i
B,
27
thirstfor informationaboutMs. Lohanasdescribed
To satisfuthepublic'sunquenohable
28
ebove,themediawill go to greatandoftenillegallengthsto obtainprivateinformationaboutMs.
The UnrearoneblvHitrlr.Iri4Flihoodof the Videof.qpl:'sTheft and Exnloitrfio.!
and Eludlntome.
is Undulv Oppre.ssive
NOTICE OFMOTION ANI} MOTION F(}R A PROTECTIVE ORDER
I
Lohan. (Muro Decl.,tl 12). Tabloidstyletelevisionshowsandpublicationslure sourcesby
2. payingtensof thousandsof dollarsfor stolenphotogaphs,recordingsof privercconvcrsatiorls,
5
J
andconfidentialmedical,relationship,
andcareerinformation.Moreover,it is well reportedthat
4
tabtoidsregularlyobtainprivatcinformationby bribingOovemmentofficials,inducing
5
employees
of celebririesto divulgettreiremployer$'confidences
andto stealtheiremployers'
6
personalitemsandcoufideiltialdocuments,
buyingillegally.obtained
medicalrecords,
a
I
wiretappingtelephones,
stealingU.S.rnail,andall too frequently,buyingstolenvideotape.Once
I
suchrnaterialis obtained,the rnediaFxploitsit to thefullcstextenrprofitable.
9
In addition,with thelaunchof internetwebsitessuchasTMZ, El Online,PerezHilton,
1 0 Dlisted,Egotastic,xlTonline,Thesuperficial,Daily Mail, YouTube,My$pace,andFacebook,
J
J
evenamateurcomputerusersareableto post,access,
andmodify stolenor illicit videoon the
ll
Un
internet,WhenCalifornia'sCivil DiscoveryAct wasamended
to perrnitthevideotapingof
M
_ r.4
:;o
t1
deposilions,
theplethoraof intemetvehiclesthat,allow thoposting,shnring,acccssing,
and
+a
fR
s6
1 4 modifyingof audioandvideocontentsimplydid notexist,or at leastwereonly knownlo a small,
=F
15
computersawy minority. If Ms- Lohan'sdepositionis allouredto be vidcotaped,thereis a real
16
andsubstantial
risk thatthe contentsof thevideonpe(aswell asspliced,modified,spoofed,aircd
.trJ p1
F='
2
E
;iO
n
Htr
o
andre-airedversionsof it) mayappearon thcsewebsites,for accessby thepublic at large. This
l8
possibilitypose$a substantialrisk of unfairprejudiceto Ms. Lohffn,andbiasof thepubtic,rhat
t9
couldbeeasilyprevenledby a ProtectiveOrderprohibitingthevideotapingof Ms. Lohan's
20
deposition.In orderto preservetheintegrityof thejudicial process,andMs. Lohan'sprivacy,it
2l
is imperativethat this CourtissuesuchanOrder.
22
practicessf clandestine
Giventhesewell-estahlished
information-gathering,
the
,1
videotapes
from Ms. Lohan'sdepositioncouldreadilybe stolen,by anynumberof means,andby
?A
t[:r
anyone- personuelat eithercouflse|slaw firm, office buildingpersonnel,videotapecompany
{5
personnel,
ot virtually anyoneelsewith intentionalor accidentalknowledgeofthe videotape's
I
lt
tl
ffi
existence.If the videompes
werelodgedwith thecourtat anypoint,theycouldeasilybestolen.
27
canbe "stolen"by way of duplication-Nobodyeverknowsthe losshas
Moreovor,the videotap€s
28
explodeontothomedi4 becauso
ocourreduntil thevideotapes
the originalsarestill on hand.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORITER
C.
I
,}
Embarr$+Ms. Lohe&
Thereleaseandexploitationof thedepositionvideotapes
would unjusti{iablyinvadeMs.
J
4
Lohan'sprivacy,andas a result,is brudensome
andoppressive.As a recentcourtnoted,prior to
orderingthatspecifrcproceduretbe institutedto protectthe confidentialityofa celebrity
6
deposition:
7
"The judicial branchof government,irrsofaras it dearswith civil
s
cases,iEa systenfor theresolutionof whatusuflllyareprivate
9
disputes.while manymembersof the public havean intrrest in
l0
everyimaginabledetailsaboutthelife of a rock star,virtually all
1
Il
haveaninterestin enswingthateveryonein our societyhave
!ll {
rlL.
aecess
to a fair andimpartialjudicial systemwithout havingto pay
J
o
zH
{;
:E Fi
{ ;i
v5
=7
iu :rr
2E
ilq
pn
-F
o
'
13
too high a priceof adrnission
rn theformof thesurrenderof
ri
r't
personalpnvacy. Thus,courtmustbevigilantto enEurethattheir
15
prose$ses
8renot usedimproperlyfor purposesunrelatedto their
16
role."
ra
rr
PaiqlsyParkEFterprisg$.
Inc. v. ttptqwnProductiqlrs,d/b/a
uprou4, 54 F. supp.zd 347,?49
t8
(S.D.N.Y.1999)(ganting a protectiveorderapplyingstriotlimits on videotapingwherethe
t9
plaintiff objectedto thevideotapingbut shouldhaveexpectedto be deposedbecause
he initiated
2Q
theaction0n the specificcaute$of action).Evenbeyondtheburdensinherentin exploitation,
2l
however,is the concernthatthevideotapefootagewill be editedor distortedto caus€specific
na
Lt-
harmto Ms' Lohan. (Muro Decl.ll l3). "Soundbytes"
oreditedsegment$
fiom a videotapecould
23
be usedout of contextto distortMs. Lohan'swords,andto "color" thepublicperceptionof (and
a.*,,
asa result,the success
o{) Ms. Lohan'stelevision,theakical,rnusical,andmodelingpro1ects.
+L
4l
v.
,1.,!
THE4URpENq.ON
MS.LOHAITOurlryEIcHANy BE_!ryFrT
TOTrilE
il' 1
M
GARBUSDEFENDANTS
.t4
To establish"goodcause"generallyrequircsa showingthatthe burdensassociated
with
LI
28
the discoveryrnethodoutweighthe benefitsto be receivedthereby. CaI. Code Ctv.Proc.
NOTTCEOFMOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTTVE()RDER
I
,}
$2017.020(a)-In a goodfaith effort to weightheburdenon Ms. Lohanagainstthe bencfrtthe
GarbusDefendantsexpectto rcceiveftom the videotaping,Ms. Lohan's coun$elToquested
that
3
theOaftus Dcfendants'oounsel
articulatethepurposeof their demandfor videotaping.(Plonsker
4
Decl. ll 3, Exb. B). The OarbusDeferdants'$ounselfailed to atticulatetrvenonereason,t/d. at 1l
)
10,Exh.C).
6
J
tll
Thereareno legilimatereasonsfor videotryingMs. Lohan'sdeposirionwhich would
1
I
outweighthe significantburdenandrisk to Ms, Lohandiscussed
herein, It thusappearsthatthe
I
purpo$eof the videotaprngis a hollow anernptto capitalizeon the media'saggressive
prusuitof
9
infotmationaboutthis casc,andto usethis leverageto harassandpressweMs. Lohaninto
l0
convincingMs, Ronsonto dismissthis case.This abusiveobjectiveis onefrom urhichtheCourt
u
should,in its discrttion,protecta deponent.Mo*owitz v. $uperiqlFourt(1982)137Cal.App.
l2
3d313,316.
t3
vI.
d.
_t !
o
+o
+4
gBpERMAy BEI.$suFp-I_HAr
A pROT.ECrrvE
rHE
SECURES
4^H
14
C0NFTpENTIALITv!4 THEDEPO$ITION
IIID.EOTAIESANp INSTTTUTES
=F
l5
EBqcEpUEFSrHAr rHq PARTTES
ivrusTFottqw
3
E
ilq
16
If thi$ Coutt is not inclinetlto grantthird partysubpoenaed-deponent
LindsayLohan's
v5
14)r,r
F;
ilH
d^
t7
reque$tfor a protectiveorderprohibitingthe videotapingof her deposition,Ms. Lohan
l8
respectfullyrequeststhatth6 Courtgraflta protectiveordersecuringthe confidentialityof the
t9
depositionvideotapesandinstitutingprocedures
thatthepaftiesmustfollow. As discussed
20
to protecta deponentfrom unwarranted
abov6,whereit is necessaxy
annoyflnce,
embanassmen!
2L
only on
the courtmay Eranta protectiveoder "[tJhatthedepositionbe traken
or oppression,
27
certainspecifiedtermsandconditions"Cal. CodcCiv. Pro. $2025.42(b)(5)
and"[t]hat the
23
testimortybe recordedin a rnannerdifferentfrom that specifiedin the depositionnotice." Cal,
u
CodeCiv. Pro. $2025.42(bX8).In this case,Ms. Loharrwill submita ProposedProtecliveOrder
t:i'
&t
with her proposedsafeguards.
rs
ill
27
lrl
rf 'l
28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND T{OTION FOR A PROTECTIVE OR.DER
I
vil,
z
3
As discussed
above,Cal.Code.Civ. Proc.$ 2025.420(b)(4)
allowsrhata protectiveorder
4
maybe grantedto requiretlat'1he depositionbe takenat a placeorherthanthat specifiedin the
5
depositionnotice." Evenfor depositiortof non-celebrities,
counselshouldagreeon thelocation
6
for the depositionthatis convenicntto ttrepartiesandaccommodates
the numberof individuatsto
1
be present.CEB "Civil DiscoveryPraotice"$ 5.24. Wherecelebritiesor publicofficialsare
I
involved,however,additionalconcernsregardingthe safety,security,andprivacy of the deponenr
I
apply,andshouldinfluencethepanies'selectionof anappropriate
depositionlocation,
l0
CL
J
.l
lrl
Wherethe noticingpartyhasselectedaninappropriate
depositionlocation,the}aw
1l
permitsa courtto exercisereasonable
controloverits process,suchasthe imuanceof anorder
o
o
Z:B
t2
ohangingthe locationof deposition.PalomarRefining-Cpmp.
v. Prentice.57 Cal.App.2d g54,
t3
95?(1943)' Where,ashue, thercis insatiablemediaintcrestin the subjecrmattErof the
IH
sE
E}
l4
deposition,andthe noticingparryhasdemonskated
a penohantfor invplvingthemediain every
l5
aspectof litigation,it is well within thesourtosdiscretionto issuean orderensuringthatthe
;F
l6
depositionlocationis onewherethedeponent's
privacywill be protected.As discussed
above,
lrl m
d-
t7
everymemberof societyhasaninterestin ensuringthatall membersof society"haveaccessto a
t8
fait andimpmtialjuditial systernwithout havingto pay too high a price of admissionin the form
t9
of thezunenderof personalprivacy." PaisleyPark,54 F. Supp.2d at 349.
t;
l4 sr
rz
EP
20
2l
Here,Ms- Lohanrequests
theCourtto orderthatherdepositionbe heldin hercounsel's
LosAngelesor New York office,astheselocationswill haveprotectiorrs
in placeto secureher
2?. privacyandsafety.
2\
ill
ffi
i ll
*
't1
f6
ut
ltl
27
ul
z8
ill
NOTICE QF M(}TION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE OEDER
V[I.
",
e
J
CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoing
reafton$,
Ms.Lohanrcspectfully
reque$ts
thatthisCourtissuethe
requested
ProtcctiveOrder.
4
\
J
DATED:October
8,?008
WOODSGEOROE
LLP
6
7
I
Ai6il+;f"{it'iia'f*v
LTNDSAY
LOHAN
9
l0
3u
J
Ev
o
zl X
+;
tF
13
14
r6
=E
15
?E
t6
'.rl "r
F;
EA
;E
Ho
tt
l8
r9
70
21
22
23
a*
tL'i
/-
E5
!b
27
28
NOTICE OF'MCYTIONAND MOTION F'ORA FROTECTIVE ORDER