New documents – new victims?

In advance of the next hearing in the Wade Robson and James Safechuck Jr case against Michael Jackson’s corporate entities MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures (and of course Doe 1, Jackson himself) on November 6 2014, some interesting documents were released.

The first, from the corporate lawyers, contain the results of the October 1st 2014 hearing. The three decisions made were

  1. Demurrer to second amended complaint from Wade Robson – the judge asked for Wade Robson to file an amended complaint as he felt the existing one didn’t cover the issues thoroughly.
  2. Demurrer and motion to dismiss Doe 1 (Jackson) from complaint – denied by the judge. Why Jackson is included we will explore later. Details of that motion are here
  3. Motion to compel production of documents from the 2005 search of Neverland. The judge approved the motion. This means that evidence collected to support the raid on Neverland will be available for Wade’s case. This would include statements from employees, previous employees, and others; as well as evidence from the 1993 investigation. See the information on that motion here.

Notice of Ruling (pdf document)

The next item is Corporate Defendants Reply Brief In Support of Motion For A Protective Order re Plaintiff’s First Sets Requests For Admission and Form Interrogatories to Defendants and Withdrawal Of Motion As Moot Solely As It Relates To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Special Interrogatories. Yes, it is long winded!

The requests for admission that are referred to are here

In this document the corporate defendants are arguing that Wade Robson has asked for far too many admissions (93 for each party). Requests for admission are usually limited to 35, unless the case is sufficiently complex. The corporate defendants argue that Wade Robson has not adequately explained why the case is complex and they don’t want to answer more than 35 admissions. Obviously this case is complex, so this part of the motion is unlikely to succeed.

The corporate defendants also assert that answering all the admissions would be a waste of time and waste reams of paper, contributing to the  deterioration of the environment as they have already denied any sexual abuse took place. What they fail to mention is that the Executors have already provided answers to all the admissions in the related probate case, so for them it is merely a matter of copying something that has already done.

Check out  Wade Robson September 4th Hearing

In any case, the  corporate defendants could merely answer no to all the admissions and be done. The question is – can they answer no with confidence? There bluster may merely be bravado on their part.

The first sets of interrogatories are here

The corporate defendants and Wade Robson have agreed to reduce the list of special interrogatories. In each of the above documents, Special Interrogatories numbers 36 to 143 will be withdrawn and the following will be put in their place:

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 36

Identify all persons who have asserted claims against Decedent for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 37

Identify all persons who have filed lawsuits against Decedent for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 38

Identify all persons with whom Decedent entered into agreements to settle claims of Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 39

Identify all persons with whom Decedent paid consideration to settle claims for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 40

Identify all persons who have asserted claims against Decedent for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 41

Identify all persons who have filed lawsuits against the Corporation for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 42

Identify all persons with whom Corporation entered into agreements to settle claims of Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Amended Special Interrogatory No. 43

Identify all persons with whom Corporation paid consideration to settle claims for Childhood Sexual Abuse.

The definition for Childhood Sexual Abuse to be used for the above interrogatories is

“The term Childhood Sexual Abuse as used herein shall mean and include causes of action for sexual molestation, sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

That covers quite a lot, and the Estate, in their reply in the related Probate case, included Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo and Jason Francia in their replies.

The last document provided is Plaintiff Wade Robson’s Supplemental Response to Unwithdrawn Portion of Defendants MJJ Productions Inc and MJJ Venture Inc’s Motion for a Protective Order.

Check out  Wade Robson Petition

(The unwithdrawn portion refers to the Requests For Admission that the corporate defendants are fighting)

This document contains Wade Robson’s lawyer’s version of events regarding the meet and confer – overall this has little bearing on the trial. It merely gives more examples of the corporate defendant’s stonewalling – it’s obvious the corporate defendants are trying to block or delay anything they can. Judge Beckloff will decide for himself whether the corporate defendant’s approach is a problem – however he did recently express admiration for the lawyers on both sides of the case.

Interestingly, we discover from this document that the corporate defendants and the Estate of Michael Jackson “miraculously” discovered over 300 boxes of documents only after the court ordered them to produce them. It shows that Wade Robson and his attorneys will need to be on top of things when it comes to discovery. Whether the Estate and the corporate defendants are fighting hard because they have something to hide or whether they are just playing hard ball to prevent any other claimants to come forward remains to be seen.

Personally I lean towards the latter, as Jonathan Steinsapir  (acting for the corporate defendants) says that he will pass on details of the Chandler lawsuit “once the complaint is located and produced from Katten’s files”. (Katten is shorthand for the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman, of which Jackson’s long time lawyer Zia Modabber is a part). Curiously, Steinsapir goes on to write

“If it turns out that others did file lawsuits relating to childhood sexual abuse, we can identify those by Bates number as well as in response to the rog [interrogatory] about lawsuits relating to childhood sexual abuse”

So it seems the corporate defendants do consider it a possibility that Jackson may have had more victims. Naturally Wade’s lawyers have also considered this question, and for that reason they have included Doe 1 (Jackson) in the lawsuit mainly for the purpose of discovering them if there is any record of them.

So fans, no, Wade Robson and James Safechuck are not “suing a dead man” so you can stop saying that now.

Plaintiff Wade Robson’s Supplemental Response to Unwithdrawn Portion of Defendants MJJ Productions Inc and MJJ Venture Inc’s Motion for a Protective Order