On the night of December 15 into the early morning of the 16th for about seven to nine hours, on PACER were the filings of Elizabeth McNamara’s Declaration in support of her client, Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary Judgment with exhibits A – HH.
After the seven to nine hours that the documents were on PACER for the whole world or those of us with PACER accounts to download, Ms. McNamara filed a letter with the Court dated December 16. She was both advising the Court that the exhibits had been filed in error and requesting that she be allowed to file her Declaration corrected. Her letter went on to state she had contacted the other counsels in this case and had also contacted the Clerk of Court to remove the documents because some of them should have been filed under Seal. The Court granted this request on December 17, and Ms. McNamara got a “do over” on December 19, however, she also filed corrected versions of ALL of Rita Cosby’s filings that were due and had been filed with the Court on time by the Court’s Ordered due date of December 15. We have not yet completed rechecking those documents compared with the Originals filed on December 15 to see if any of them had been changed or redacted. However, all of those filings from both December 15 and December 19, minus the infamous document number 73 remain on PACER for everyone to download.
Rose Speaks.com did in fact download that now infamous filing of docket number 73, the Declaration of Ms. McNamara with all of the exhibits attached. We have struggled since the morning of December 16 as to whether to put up these documents including the Exhibits marked “confidential” or “highly confidential” filed with Ms. McNamara’s Declaration. We have pondered whether any of the other parties and/or their legal counsel involved in suits in other jurisdictions, (I. E. Texas both federal and state; California probate, South Carolina etc.), some of which have the same parties in those cases had downloaded the documents. Since they, [the papers], were put up in error by Ms. McNamara then that brings up the question of was any of the three versions of the Agreed Confidential Orders the Federal Court in New York had issued previously, each time tightening up the previously filed Agreed Order to protect the privacy of the parties? I have to say on a side note that what Ms. McNamara filed in error, makes those fourteen pages of Rita Cosby’s deposition filed by Lin Wood back in November 2007 look like a minor mistake and one hopefully that NOONE ever refers to in the future. Like with these papers, Rose Speaks.com had on November 29 - 30 downloaded those papers at 11 A. M. making Lin Wood releasing them to Art Harris after 5 PM on November 30 a moot point.
However, I regress to other days and other papers filed in error and not under Seal as the Federal Court in New York had intended and displayed by the additional Orders issued by the Court. The infamous document 73 with exhibits contained four of the eight excerpts of depositions referred to in Ms. McNamara’s Declaration. These excerpts of depositions were clearly marked confidential. I cannot begin to imagine the horror and personal violation that each of the four people whose excerpts were filed in error must feel. Some of the excerpts referred to delicate financial information with exhibits attached including one of the person’s social security number. The other filings that were marked confidential or highly confidential were multiple documents filed in the California Court regarding Dannielynn’s paternity in the fall of 2006. Clearly, both the California Family Court as well as Larry Birkhead never intended for any of these documents to be filed for the world to read. The documents ALL showed “highly confidential” marked on each of four exhibits of documents, including affidavits involving that suit filed under Seal as is my understanding required in Family Courts in California where a minor child is a subject of the suit. Mr. Birkhead’s attorney Michael Trope placed “highly confidential” on those documents before releasing them per a Court Order.
Other documents filed in error included the copy of the Royal Bahamian Police Affidavit filed by Ford Shelley on November 17, 2006, after the fight about Horizons had become front and center both in the Bahamas Courts as well as the Court of public opinion. There is also a partial filing of Howard K. Stern’s Affidavit filed with the Royal Bahamian Police dated September 10, 2006.
Ms. McNamara, in her Declaration, has marked exhibit R as being filed under seal and showing it redacted on her declaration as to the contents of the exhibit, in actuality all ten exhibits marked as exhibit R were filed by Ms. McNamara, some filed on December 16 and the rest filed on December 19 with the “do-over”. Exhibit R refers to the Court Proceedings, in the Bahamas related to Daniel Smith’s death and inquest.
After almost a week of discussions between Ken and myself weighing the “right of the public to know” versus the “right of privacy of these individuals” we have made a decision as to what to put up from this infamous filing of document 73 and what not to put up. We will NOT put up any of the four excerpts of depositions with exhibits filed in error. We will NOT put up any of the documentation involving the filings under Seal in 2006 with the family courts in California marked “highly confidential” in the accidental filing by Ms. McNamara on December 15. We did upload those exhibits that referred only to the CDs filed with the Court that were marked either “confidential” or “highly confidential”. We are also making available to download exhibit X, which is a brief excerpt from the book “Big Beautiful Doll” by Eric Redding. Although that exhibit is marked confidential since anyone can buy the book we felt like nothing in the Stern vs. Cosby case would be compromised. Exhibits BB and CC are identical except for about 15 pages marked “confidential” or “highly confidential”. Since this appears to be hand written notes by either Rita Cosby or her ghost writer Bruce Littlefield, those pages have been redacted and removed from what is available for you to download.
We hope you understand what we have gone through this week as we struggled with what we felt was the appropriate documents to put up for all to read. We hope each of you understand those documents we elected not to put up was strictly based on the fact we firmly believe those person’s involved, especially Dannielynn, “rights to privacy” trumps you the public, “right to know”.
Lawyers make mistakes as this filing clearly demonstrates. Hopefully, throughout the rest of the lawsuits involving these same people and lawyers, Lin Wood included, instead of the “mantra” of, (fill in the blank with a lawyer’s or party’s name here), cannot be trusted will now change. Our hope is that based on this horrible accident that in the future, as exampled in the case where Wood released 14 pages of a deposition, that the “mantra” of not being able to trust a lawyer and/or party will now be replaced with a sincere apology. As well as to figure out how to avoid in the future damage done by this type of mass filing of confidential papers which were available to the world via PACER for seven to nine hours.
These documents are in our download section, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
There will be two more articles up today. One debunking either Hachette’s filing for Summary Judgment including declarations and exhibits or the debunking of Cosby’s filing for Summary Judgment including declarations and exhibits. The second article that will be put up today will be about Casey Anthony and what happens now in that sad saga since the remains of Caylee have now been found.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
In the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, on December 11, 2008, there was a letter addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Elizabeth A. McNamara requesting the Court for permission to file Motion for Summary Judgment for Rita Cosby and Hachette Books under seal. The Court DENIED the request to file the papers under seal “except that the parties may file a set of papers publicly, with confidential exhibits omitted and references to any confidential matters redacted, with a second complete and unredacted set that will be filed under sealed”.
Looks like the New York Court is going to allow us to see publicly some of the information that Cosby and Hachette is attempting to show in the Motions for Summary Judgment due to the Court by December 15.
What do you think we will be allowed to see and gleam for the filings due on Monday? Debunking chapter 13 will be up this weekend, lot’s to discuss in this case as well as several others we are following.
Remember that ALL documents filed in this case are in our download section, opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
This first article of a three-part series will deal with the letter to the Honorable Denny Chin, Judge for the Southern District of New York, in Manhattan from Rita Cosby’s attorney Elizabeth McNamara dated November 26. This letter was endorsed by Judge Chin and made into an Order regarding the extra pages in the Motion and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment that both Cosby and Hachette Books will be allowed to file in this defamation case with extra pages in the Reply by Howard K. Stern and put on PACER on December 2.
Many of us wondered when the column by Thomas Zambito appeared in the New York Daily News dated December 3, why the attorney for Howard K. Stern, L. Lin Wood did not release a statement refuting Mr. Zambito’s article. It could be argued that this column could potentially taint any jury pool of this case, which has for the most part subsided from the mainstream media.
I have no answer for that but let’s talk about the sensationalism of the title; “Anna Nicole Smith’s pal Howard K. Stern is beyond being libeled”. The short column goes on to state in part that “…Stern’s reputation is so bad that not even… claiming he and Smith’s boyfriend were gay lovers is libelous, the author’s lawyer claims.” The column quotes from the letter by Ms. McNamara to Judge Chin stating, “Given the mountain of negative news stories that were previously published about plaintiff, Mr. Stern is libel-proof.” The column ends with a strange reference of, “He [Stern] cites one in which Cosby quotes actress Jackie Hatten claiming she walked in on Stern performing oral sex on Larry Birkhead - the father of Smith’s baby.” Whoa Mr. Zambito, what a finished and by the way do you know where Jackie Hatten is, and has Cosby found this important witness that she might need to appear if this case goes to trial?
Mr. Zambito seems to have the “celebrity beat” of federal suits in the Manhattan Federal Courts. In 2005, Elizabeth McNamara gave Mr. Zambito a couple of quotes from another suit she was involved in with the Manhattan Federal Court.
So both articles aside in this first of a three part series let’s look at what Ms. McNamara is stating will be the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s main claims in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
1. Lack of actual malice
2. Parts of the passages are not defamatory
3. Parts are substantially true or constitute protected opinion
4. Given the mountains of negative news stories that were previously published about plaintiff, Mr. Stern is libel proof.
“Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published, “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement’s truth.” That is a tough one to overcome for a public person such as Howard K. Stern has become since the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
The next issue to address in McNamara outline of defenses is, “Parts of the passages are not defamatory”. “In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. …Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”
Next is Cosby’s claim that parts of her book is covered by a basis in law calling those passages as “constitute protected opinion”. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a statement that is provable true or false, for example, is not an opinion. In the 1990 Supreme Court decision of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, simply put is that, “The Supreme Court said that newspaper columns and other forms of commentary may be libelous if they “imply an assertion of objective fact” that the plaintiff can prove is false.” (I. E. can Stern prove that the allegations of the gay sex tape that made up the part of Cosby’s book that made it a best seller as being “false”.) That is an overly simple example in the above decision. In that decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist gave an example. He said the statement, ”In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar,” would be actionable, while the statement, ”In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin,” would be protected opinion. Simply put if the person suing can prove that the “opinion was stated as fact” and that statement can be proved as false, then there is a serious chance the court will not find that statement as being “constitute protected opinion.” Remember at the beginning of this case, Judge Chin simplified this into “the book speaks for itself, either it is true or it is false”. Add to that Ms. Cosby has openly admitted that she did not interview anyone with a different “opinion” as to where she wanted her book to go because she knew they would try to prevent the book from being published. That in itself should have given a seasoned reporter that knew the basic rules of vetting sources and checking “facts”, some pause of concern. You can also read the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court in relations to this case in our download section.
Then we have the claim that “Mr. Stern is libel proof.” I think that will be a slippery slope for Ms. Cosby and her publisher. On February 12, 2007, we have Star Magazine David Caplan on MSNBC, stating, “Nothing was really known about Howard K. Stern and so after Anna Nicole Smith’s death everyone began to investigate who Howard K. Stern really was”. That statement shows that nothing horrendous was known about Howard K. Stern at the time of Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Then we have the February 14, 2007 interview of Rita Cosby with Virgie Arthur where it was Rita Cosby who was the first one in a husky whisper to say, “Howard K. Stern facilitated a murder or was an accomplish”. It was at this time that Dan Abrams, a lawyer and Cosby’s boss, gave a warning about those type of statements could lead to a libel suit. It was soon after that interview that MSNBC announced Cosby’s contract would not be renewed. We also have Cosby saying she only researched the book from April to June 2007 that could be a problem also for Cosby.
Add to that the pesky rulings in the past of, “However, a court will not dismiss a defamation action merely because the plaintiff already has a bad reputation. Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 1511, 1516 (D.N.J. 1986), rev’d, 847 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (3rd Cir. 1988). Finklea, 742 S.W.2d at 516 (“[E]ven the public outcast’s remaining good reputation is entitled to protection.”) Rather the statement upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.
In extreme cases, a plaintiff’s general reputation may be so bad that a court will hold a plaintiff libel-proof on all matters. For example, Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler could not be damaged by defamatory statements. Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co., 719 S.W.2d 612, 623 (Tex. App. 1986). I don’t think any of us think for a minute that Stern rises to the element of Manson or Hitler.
So perhaps the mantra led by John O’Quinn and company that Howard K. Stern “murdered” two people will get a pass from the court. However, the gay allegation and the “absolute statement that the tape existed with no doubt about that” is what sold Cosby’s book now that is going to be a tough sell to any court in my opinion.
The couple of things Cosby has going for her is that Lin Wood has never taken a defamation case all the way to trial, whereas Cosby’s lawyer Elizabeth McNamara has taken cases all the way to trial and won (I. E. The Da Vinci Code). Wood also admits that the “Actual Malice” is an almost impossible standard to meet. He also stated in that same article though that one day the right case to take to trial will present itself. Hopefully Wood will take this case all the way to trial.
Those things being said, I just don’t think that gay tape and that Howard K. Stern was Larry Birkhead’s gay lover without proof of that is going to pass the smell test of getting this case dismissed on a Motion for Summary Judgment by Cosby and Hachette.
Part 2 of the 3 part series will be a look at what Lin Wood has been able to do for his list of high profile clients and what they ended up with as a result of Wood taking their cases. The final part will be my personal take on why the Florida case settled out of court so quickly once they met with the mediator on October 30, 2008.
Join us tonight in chat to discuss this case and tell us what you think is going to happened with the blond ambitious Cosby. You do have to be a registered member of the chat, but we think you will enjoy both the company and the topics.
Remember that the documents for the cases/trials we cover are in our download section, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
This article will be enlarged tonight with more of my thoughts about these Motions coming up and what we will be allowed to see.
We now have the rules for the Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed by Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and the Reply of Howard K. Stern to those Motions. Wonder if this is why we have those seven pages released from the Florida suit on Don Clark.
On December 2, 2008, New York Southern District Federal Court sets page limits on Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary to 50 from the normal 25 Judgment and then Howard K. Stern’s reply can be 75 pages; Hachette intends to use the 25-page limit per the Civil Rules of Procedures.
So now, our attention shifts in part to the New York as Florida is officially closed even on PACER as of today.
I think now is a time to debunk the rest of chapter 13 of the real blond ambitious, Rita Cosby.
You can find all of the documents in our download section, opened to all not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Howard K. Stern filed the following under Seal on October 27, as requested on October 24, in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn Law Firm. Therefore, what does this tell us and why?
The following were documents filed yesterday as per the Court Order:
1. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Absence of Actual Malice and any attached exhibits or appendices.
2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Facts and any attached exhibits;
3. The confidential deposition transcripts of Rita Cosby, Wilma Vicedomine, and Jack Harding taken in the Stern v. Cosby matter which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;
4. The confidential deposition transcript and VIDEO of Don Clark which was taken in the present matter and in Stern v. Cosby; and,
5. Documents produced pursuant to Confidentiality Orders entered in the present matter and Stern v. Cosby; and
6. Stern’s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and attached exhibits.
We have discussed the depositions and confidential documents of Rita Cosby, the depositions “transcripts”, of Wilma Vicedomine and Jack Harding. However, why was Don Clark’s transcript of his deposition with the VIDEO filed? What is on that video that the Stern legal team wants the Court to look at? Why the VIDEO of Don Clark and not just read the transcript of his deposition?
In O’Quinn’s filing for Summary Judgment we got to see a lot of documents including the Affidavit of Don Clark slamming Howard K. Stern and still doing the “mantra” of Howard killed two people and he still thinks that, as well as he thinks the Will was faxed 4 days before Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Clark’s Affidavit also states that Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern had access to the Will thus knowing what it contained prior to Anna Nicole Smith’s death.
Although to go on as defense by the O’Quinn team is allowed to file things publicly in their filings but Stern had to filed under Seal as agreed. What did Stern say in his filings? We will never know unless both or either the Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and/or the Stern vs. O’Quinn suit goes to jury trial. Do you think either of these suits will go to trial so we have access to these filings under seal?
Do any of you have or can find the “show transcripts” that Clark is referring to in regards to Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern? It appears to me in all of the media transcripts filed it seems those are not filed with the Court.
I will have the debunking of the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s chapter 13 of her book and then I will have some “predictions” of what I think will be happening in both of these cases as they head to trial.
Pick up the papers to these suits that are open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com. There was also a housekeeping Order issued by the Court yesterday in Florida, granting the Pro Hac Vice requests of John Patton and Amy Stewart. It appears that the same team of lawyers is going to be overlapping these two cases, who would have ever thought they might be connected.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
The Southern District Florida Federal Court Issued twoOrders approving both Howard K. Stern’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to have an additional 10 pages in his Memorandum of Law due on October 27, as well as his Opposed Motion for 5 additional pages in his filing of “Material Facts” due also on October 27. In the New York Case we also have the filing of notice of move by Douglas Maynard on behalf of the Akin, Gump, Straus, Hauer and Feld Law Firm.
On October 23, the Florida Court also issued an Order, granting the Request to withdraw as counsel of William V. Custer, Nicole J. Wade, Eric P. Schroeder and Benjamin T. Erwin, from the Florida suit, noting that the plaintiff Stern had no objection. We will never know what these people contributed behind the scenes as preparations for trial as I cannot find any declarations or affidavits filed in this case or any of the other cases pending in multiple jurisdictions filed by any of the lawyers now withdrawing. I did notice that Nicole J. Wade is still listed in New York as well as a new lawyer from Powell Goldstein added to the New York case on behalf of Howard K. Stern. Stern now has the same number of lawyers on his Florida team as does John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm as this Florida Case rounds the final couple of corners and is set for trial on December 29.
In other filings, Stern is asking to file his Response and Memorandum of Law on the Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to prove actual malice under Seal, and his Memorandum of Law on “Material Facts” that he alleges will prove the actual malice under Seal. Stern filed a Memorandum of Law and a Declaration by John Patton in the first Motion, and a Memorandum of Law and a Declaration by Luke Lantta in the second Motion.
In these filings we get a glimpse of an odd combination, in my opinion, looking at the extensive witness list and knowing that in New York there has been a lot of depositions and Subpoenas Duces Tecum, issued and completed. Judge Chin’s ruling on October 20 was a huge win for Howard K. Stern as the ruling allowed the crossover of not only the defendant party, Rita Cosby’s materials but also that of all third party witnesses in the New York case that Stern wanted to use in the Florida case for his Response.
I am not surprised by Rita Cosby’s deposition and confidential documents that are to be filed in the Florida Suit as we got a look at that occurring from the letters and Orders that came from the New York Court. I am also not surprise that the Wilma Vicedomine’s deposition and documents including all screen monikers she posted under, all sites she posted on and allegedly is still posting on if the posters on Topix.net are to be believed. Vicedomine was to also turn over any chat channels she might have posted in and specifically any and all requests of fellow posters to blitz TMZ.com with posts and asking that fellow posters launch writing campaigns on behalf of Vicedomine and since she is an agent of the O’Quinn Law Firm, allegedly at the direction of someone in that firm. I remember getting posts sent to me by an “Oh Really” on TMZ.com that seemed to know what was about to happen and be knowledgeable of upcoming events as far back as May 2007. Oh how I would love to know if “Oh Really” was in fact Vicedomine. The reason I would love to know this is the writing campaigns to multiple agencies, from the Bahamas, to Florida officials, to California officials, to FOX network hosts of shows, to advertisers to federal agencies. If Stern can connect those to the O’Quinn Law Firm via Vicedomine’s posting and via forensic computer specialists he might be able to prove that the defamation of him was a very well orchestrated “hate campaign” to have him convicted of horrid crimes to further the agenda of either Cosby or O’Quinn. Wouldn’t it be stunning if Vicedomine were the key that would link California, Florida, and the federal government of the U. S. as well as the Bahamas and show the conspiracy to keep the defamation going via Cosby and online “volunteers”, right back to the lap of O’Quinn so to say? Sadly, I predict that we will never know if that can be proved because of the extensive Protective Orders in place in both suits.
Then we have learned that Vicedomine did not agree to be deposed for the Florida Suit, only the New York case however, Don Clark did agree and was deposed in both cases. However, the big surprise to me was why is the Jack Harding deposition so important? We know his story was ever changing. We even know that Harding changed his story in interviews; we know that because of all of the changes as y’all pulled transcripts and videos showing that in the end he had talked to Jackie Hatten, Don Clark and that allegedly O’Quinn had offered to pay his way to the Bahamas to testify at the Inquest of Daniel Smith. This is if Harding’s ever-changing story is to be believed.
Stay turned folks as we round the bend in both suits and head for trial. I am a tad miffed and disappointed that after months of labeling Stern as a murderer, blackmailer, abduction of a child for ransom, gay with tapes to prove it, a pimp, an illegal drug obtainer, etc. related to Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith and Dannielynn Birkhead. Now we find out that all of the upcoming documents involving the very people that are alleged to have done this with “actual and provable malice”; want to; insisted on and have been granted Protective Orders to prevent both the media and us, the public from knowing the truth until the trials.
Pick up the latest documents in these cases in our Download Section, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com and then come back and share your thoughts and takes on why Jack Harding is so important in the Florida suit as well as in your opinions did Vicedomine come clean so to say during her deposition and production of documents.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
On October 21, 2008, a Court Order from the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that Stern can use Rita Cosby’s deposition and confidential documents because her attorneys and Hachette had not objected at the September 26 hearing. However BECAUSE Rita Cosby and Hachette’s counsel had no objection as long as the discovery materials were filed under seal the Court has found that Stern can also use third party depositions and documents. The Court noted in its Order that because “Defense counsel had not clarified that defendants cannot waive any objections that non-parties who have produced confidential materials may have. Any confidential discovery materials utilized from the present matter as well as any excerpts or paraphrasing of that confidential discovery material, must be filed under seal in the related action to protect the producing non-parties’ interests”.
This means the New York Court has found that there can be a limited crossover of using the non-parties material in the Response to the Summary Judgment in Florida. Examples would be using Larry Birkhead, Pol’ and Patrik, Mark Speer, and say Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine’s depositions and documents supplied during their deposition and discovery for the New York case. Makes me wonder why allegedly Wilma Vicedomine was out blogging about a “chat that occurred in Sun’s chat channel” especially from what has been sent to me she or others allegedly on her behalf stated the date was off by at least a month if not two months.
In other news the Florida Southern District Federal Court Granting the Unopposed Motion for extra pages in Howard K. Stern’s Response giving him 30 total pages, and granting John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm a total of 20 pages in their Reply.
Will Stern’s legal team use the nannies, Mark Speer, Tom Bednarek, and/or Larry Birkhead’s depositions or excerpts of them? What do you think Howard K. Stern will use and from those confidential files? Will he use Wilma Vicedomine and/or Don Clark’s deposition? Did Vicedomine, [Vice], and Clark think they were safe because their depositions were ONLY for the New York case and so “they thought” they would not be used for the Florida Suit. How will this affect the filing coming up by Howard K. Stern due October 27 in Florida?
On October 22, 2008, there is a Court Order from the Southern District Court in Florida, granting Stern’s request for 5 additional pages on Response of Material Facts for a total 15 pages.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
