Site Overlay

Phoebe Bridgers’ attorneys criticise deposition ask for

Legal professionals for Phoebe Bridgers have criticised a deposition request from Chris Nelson in an ongoing lawsuit from Bridgers, calling it “nothing more than thinly veiled harassment.”

On Instagram in Oct 2020, Bridgers directed her followers to a thread by her good friend Emily Bannon, which Nelson claimed was defamatory.

Nelson subsequently sued Bridgers for defamation and is seeking $3.8million (£2.8million) in damages. He statements Bridgers “intentionally applied her substantial-profile public platform on Instagram to publish untrue and defamatory statements” about him “in order to demolish his reputation”.

In a sworn declaration submitted on February 14, Bridgers responded, stating: “I imagine that the statements I built in my Instagram tale are correct. My statements were being made based on my private knowledge, together with statements I individually listened to Mr. Nelson make.”

Nelson subsequently demanded the proper to depose Bridgers, expressing it was the only way to prove that the musician defamed him.

Now, Bridgers’ attorneys are saying this request quantities to “harassment”.

Bridgers’ attorney, Alan A. Greenberg, wrote in a courtroom submitting nowadays (March 16): “Mr. Nelson’s amorphous request for discovery primarily based on his attorney’s circular assertion that it is important is very little extra than thinly veiled harassment.”

Phoebe Bridgers performs at Austin Town Limits 2021. Credit history: Erika Goldring/WireImage

Very last thirty day period, Bridgers sought to finish the lawsuit, citing California’s anti-SLAPP law in a new court docket submitting. The motion filed stated that Nelson is more than enough of a general public person that he must verify that Bridgers “acted with real malice”.

“Ms. Bridgers has submitted a declaration affirming her subjective perception in the reality of her statements, so Mr. Nelson can not meet up with his burden. The court for that reason must grant this exclusive movement to strike,” it said.

Bridgers’ attorneys this 7 days also extra that ruling in Nelson’s favour would defeat the objective of the anti-SLAPP regulation.

They said: “If plaintiffs could justify lifting the discovery remain dependent entirely on their lack of obtainable proof to oppose an anti-SLAPP motion, that would permit individuals with the weakest statements to inflict the expense and delay of discovery on the defendants the legislature most supposed to guard by providing a technique for courts to dismiss at an early stage non-meritorious litigation meant to chill the valid exercising of the constitutional legal rights.”

A listening to in the circumstance is thanks to just take position afterwards this month.

Nelson has by now shed a separate defamation case from the musician, actress and director Noël Wells, wherever he alleged that Wells built “false” statements about him in correspondence with the band Big Thief and experienced caused him emotional distress.

Wells allegedly informed an artist manager with whom Nelson had a doing the job relationship that he experienced dedicated “an ‘incredibly predatory shift on [her]’” and exhibited “incredibly predatory behaviour… toward young women which include young woman musicians”.

Los Angeles County Choose Gregory W. Alarcon dismissed Nelson’s situation from Wells at a courtroom listening to in January. He dominated that Wells was safeguarded under totally free speech legal rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *