Archive through April 16, 2001
The ClubHouse: Archives: Lawsuite Update:
Archive through April 16, 2001
Grooch | Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:54 pm   Stillman vs. Burnett – Round Two March 14, 2001 By: C. Brian Devinney Call it Survivor 3, but the battle between embittered San Francisco attorney Stacey Stillman and the manipulating executive producer Mark Burnett is heading into the next round. This round – the confidentiality agreements. According to the New York Post, unless the courts waive the signed confidentiality agreements, Stillman will be unable to call her fellow contestants as witnesses in her multi-million dollar lawsuit against Burnett and CBS. The agreements which were used to protect CBS from the identity of the ultimate survivor being revealed to the public prior to the air date of the final episode carry a $5 million penalty should they be violated. The 83-page agreement prevents the cast members of Survivor from talking about their adventure without the approval of CBS or Mark Burnett. Stillman’s new lawyer, Donald Yates, stated that those conditions would prevent any member of the original Survivor cast from speaking at the upcoming trial as they will each have the fear of being sued for breach of their agreement and called the agreement “unconscionable and… fraudulently induced.” Burnett has already filed a suit against Stillman for $5 million plus punitive damages for speaking to Peter Lance, author of “The Stingray,” and to the press about her filed grievance against the show and the network executives. Written By: C. Brian Devinney New York City, New York TheRealityFactor@aol.com |
Digilady | Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 03:57 pm   Wow. I'd be fascinated to know the details behind this lawsuit. Good catch, Gu. |
Grooch | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 08:42 am   Here's another story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/30/MN143459.DTL |
Guruchaz | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 10:58 am   That's not me. That's Grooch. Although, I heard that lawsuites were nice and had all kinds of legal amenities. |
Digilady | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 11:07 am   Sorry, Gu And Groo! Tis the drugs. A root canal is in my not-so-distant future... The lawsuit thing is kinda funny, IMHO. Generates yet more interest in the show, anyway! |
Seamonkey | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 12:43 pm   Youch to a root canal, Digi. TAke all the drugs they offer! The bit about Rudi being popular with older viewers doesn't make sense, since the networks seldom give a rip about older viewers. Methinks Stacey should just get OVER it! Move on. |
Willi | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 12:53 pm   Digi...Me too...Route canal in my future. This ibuprofen isn't "cutting the mustard" either. As for the lawsuit...I'm not sure who I hope will prevail? HHhhhhhmmm... |
Moondance | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 12:56 pm   Yuck root canals! I had 3 during Big Brother... Hang in there! |
Seamonkey | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 01:44 pm   Moon.. THREE??? Belated hugs of comfort. I've had only one in my life and from what I gather I was lucky in not having as many horrible aftereffects as some do, and I didn't have pain ahead of time, but the actual experience -- the nerve just wouldn't give up -- was unforgettable and NOT in a good way!! The most painful dental experience, money wise was when I chomped on a large fresh candycane from Disneyland and snapped off the bridge tooth of a four tooth bridge... two weeks after I lost dental insurance coverage.. no root canal except on my Discover Card. Anyway all of you getting root canals.. be assertive in asking for real drugs and keep breathing!! |
Moondance | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 02:40 pm   Oh Sea! snapped a 4 tooth bridge! urggh I have had bad teeth stuff since the tetracycline I took as a child... I was home quit a bit this summer ... good thing about the root canal among other stuff is I found this site |
Digilady | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 02:49 pm   Thanks Sea, Willi & Moon! Willi, when is yours? Mine is the 10th... I dread it. BUT I found a Dr. who will knock me out. Only way to go! Moon, I've had 3 in the last year too.. sheesh. We're cursed. OTOH, my endodontist is cute. |
Moondance | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 02:53 pm   OMG as long as he is cute! |
Digilady | Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 03:03 pm   ROFL - except I'm asleep most of the time. What good is THAT? |
Grooch | Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 08:01 am   Another article. Mostly the same info, but a few, new interesting facts. http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/tv/survivor2/2001-02-07-survivor-rebuttal.htm |
Rollerboy | Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 10:49 am   I don't know how far along this case is, but it must be early days. Maybe just filed and not served. If it has been served and is in motions/discovery phase, some judge somewhere thinks her case has enough merit to be heard, otherwise it would have been dismissed summarily by the judge or at the request of the defendants. I predict out of court settlement for Stacey. No way this gets to trial in LA in less than 5 yrs anyway, if that's where it's filed. |
Judy | Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 03:00 pm   I agree Rollerboy, I would like to think that Stillman must have some grounds - mainly because I hate lawsuits so much myself - I have a hard time imagining some one bringing that on themselves without good reason(even though I knoow people do all the time! hard to fathom!) And to all my rootcanal cronies in this thread (had one last Oct - 6 visits to get that last fricking root!) I have one word for ya...hydrocodone...ask for it by name |
Karuuna | Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 03:12 pm   It's my experience that "merit" doesn't necessarily mean a "whole lot of merit". I've seen several cases involving a lawyer who's willing to work on percentage (Stillman's her own lawyer), with the suit pressed against a wealthy client. At some point (usually discovery thru depositions) it becomes obvious that the case *probably* can't be won. Case dismissed? Not usually. The usual course at that point is that the wealthy defendant offers a settlement that's less costly than going to court. That's the American way. Until we institute some kind of system where frivolous lawsuits have some kind of punitive element (if you lose you have to pay costs and attorney fees for *both* sides), we'll continue to have that kind of chaotic and grossly unfair system. JMO |
Riviere | Thursday, April 05, 2001 - 06:23 am   The last I heard, Stacey needs the other players' statements to corroberate her charges, and has asked that a judge nullify all their contracts in order to speak about S1. Otherwise they violate their contacts the way she did (countersuit) so it's really a mess. I think she's a sore loser and if I'd played S1 I think I'd resent her for dragging me into her lawsuit. If she succeeds in blowing the disclosure clauses away, what's the point of continuing a Survivor series? Just to let any disgruntled loser invalidate all those signed contracts to maybe or maybe not back up charges with witness testimony! Why bother with contracts at all, and why bother doing another show when MB & CBS apparently have 0 power of ensuring they are enforced if the judge rules against them now. Maybe they'll think twice about letting another lawyer play unless they can engineer that he or she wins after this..? |
Rollerboy | Thursday, April 05, 2001 - 08:20 am   You should sue Stacey for destroying Survivor, if that happens Riviere. I was using "merit" in it's legal sense, Karuuna, as is often the case, the meanings of words in the real world and the legal world are often at odds ("insanity" comes to mind). |
Riviere | Thursday, April 05, 2001 - 11:17 am   Good thinking, Rollerboy! Since my godfather's currently a county D.A. I'll just whisk off a memo to him outlining a class action suit to be filed under Fans vs. Stillman, surely everyone would want a piece of that!!! Seriously, why do they let morons on these shows in the first place? I watched S1 and Stacey wasn't that hot, everyone loved Rudy! Just like S2 players & fans prefer Elisabeth to Jerri, now is Jerri going to sue? Heck, they should just order an advocate to set up a 800 line and have fans decide the merits of Stacey's case, heheh, loser pays the phone bill.. |
Karuuna | Thursday, April 05, 2001 - 11:44 am   Roller -- lol! I was using them both ways - legal merit doesn't necessarily mean merit in a practical way. For a lawsuit to be dismissed, at least in my experience, it has to be really out there -- in other words, if there is even the slightest possibility of legal merit, the case goes on, and usually, on and on and on. I really believe that Stacey's suit is based on money, not merit. She's a lawyer and she knows how easily one can get money, just to make the thing go away, and because settling is often less expensive than winning the case. Studios usually judge things by dollars, not by integrity. |
Rollerboy | Thursday, April 05, 2001 - 01:47 pm   Karuuna, I agree re the criteria for dismissal for frivolousness, especially in California. It takes a strong judge. I also agree that Stacey is looking for money for nothing. My point was basically that CBS/MB wouldn't want to open their books, under the rather liberal discovery law applicable in California, and would avoid that by paying her to go away. I spent the last 26 yrs doing nothing but med/mal and legal malpractice, so this is a little out of my area, but almost nothing surprises me any more. |
Grooch | Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 01:22 pm   From the NY Post EX-'SURVIVOR' TESTIFIES VS. CBS By DON KAPLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 12, 2001 -- BIBLE-toting ex-"Survivor" Dirk Been gave a top-secret, six-hour videotaped deposition yesterday as part of castaway Stacey Stillman's lawsuit against CBS. Stillman contends that "Survivor" producers manipulated the vote in which she was booted off the island. She is suing for $70,000. The contents of Been's deposition are sealed by a confidentiality agreement that "Survivor" contestants were forced to sign in order to appear on the show, Stillman's lawyer, Donald Yates, told The Post yesterday. But a hearing to make the deposition public is tentatively scheduled for early May. "We're very pleased with what Dirk said today," Yates said. It was Been who first told Stillman that "Survivor" honcho Mark Burnett approached him prior to the tribal council in which Stillman was voted out. According to Been, Burnett told him that future immunity challenges would be more physical and specifically said, "Why don't you think of forming an alliance to get rid of Stacey and keep, say, Rudy[Boesch], who would be more helpful in the challenges?" The deposition was taken at the LA office of a court reporting firm with lawyers for Been, CBS, "Survivor" producers and Stillman asking questions. "We would like this deposition to be made public," Yates said. Been could not be reached yesterday and CBS officials declined comment. Yates said he plans to call further "Survivor" contestants to testify. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Stillman filed a legal action against CBS, calling on the courts to dismiss the broadcasters' $5 million lawsuit against her. CBS and Burnett contend that Stillman violated her confidentiality agreement with the show when she filed her lawsuit last February. |
Max | Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 01:34 pm   Well, if that's all Burnett said, I suspect he was just fishing for a juicy confessional moment to film. Big deal. It's perfectly reasonable to ask that kind of question. What's not reasonable would be to say "Vote Stacey out because we (the network) need Rudy to stay around and appeal to the older demographic." That would be a whole different thing. It's sorta like your boss saying, "Why do you wear long skirts all the time? Are you cold?" versus "Why don't you put on a short skirt for a change? I bet you've got a nice pair of gams under there!" One is a question that can be interpreted a variety of ways, including an expression of concern for the individual. The other is harrassment or coercion. Of course, not having seen the actual deposition, I don't know the whole truth. I'm just basing this on the quote in the story above.
 |
Grooch | Monday, April 16, 2001 - 09:59 am   Why it started. http://www.nypost.com/04162001/entertainment/28626.htm |
|