In the motion for a protective order, Freedman writes that what Gordon & Holmes is seeking is “inadmissible and nondiscoverable character evidence regarding Love” and that Gordon admitted as much during the meet-and-confer process. That has drawn a response from Cobain’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, who ironically is the same lawyer who pursued Love in the first tweet-defamation case. Gordon & Holmes now wants Cobain to submit to a videotaped deposition to be used in the ongoing tweet-defamation case over a “variety of statements reported in the media regarding the defendant.” In April, in response to yet more curious tweets sent out by Love, Cobain released a statement that said in part, “Twitter should ban my mother.” The lawsuits haven’t stopped Love’s social media habits. On the eve of trial, the case settled.īut Love couldn’t stay away from Twitter and is now facing allegations that she defamed her former attorney by tweeting, “I was f-ing devastated (sic) when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off.” The first lawsuit, brought by a fashion designer, promised to explore the boundaries of fact versus opinion in a casual setting like Twitter and what damages would look like when millions of people are exposed to a possibly libelous comment. This actually is the second time she’s been sued over an alleged defamatory tweet.
#Courtney love frances bean trial
Love is on the verge of becoming the first celebrity to stand trial in the U.S.
The case has been provocative from the start. She now is seeking a protective order against the deposition and looking to sanction Gordon & Holmes. Cobain says that in 2010, when Love tweeted about Gordon, she was in the custody of her grandmother and aunt and had no contact with her mother or any knowledge about the tweets in question. Cobain, 19, insists she knows nothing relevant to Holmes’ defamation lawsuit against Love.
0 kommentar(er)
