Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp Fires Back at Amber Heard in Court Filing, Heard's Insurance Company Sues Her

Episode Date: July 12, 2022

Amber Heard asks for a new trial in the defamation case against her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, citing an potential issue with “Juror 15.” Did a son show up for jury duty instead of the father? Depp’s team fires back and claims Heard team knew about this before the trial started. Plus, one of Heard’s insurance companies sues her in California, saying they shouldn’t have to pay for half of her legal fees and the judgment against Depp because Heard was found liable with “actual malice.” Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy and plaintiff’s attorney, Katherine Lizardo, break down the latest filings. GUEST: Katherine Lizardo, Personal Injury Trial LawyerLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? Answer, yes. Has Mr. Depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that The statement was made or published by Ms. Hurd. Answer, yes. The statement was about Mr. Depp. Answer, yes.

Question, the statement was false. Answer, yes. Question, the statement has a defamatory implication about Mr. Depp. Answer, yes. Amber Hurd files new documents with the court, alleging juror misconduct in her effort to get a new trial. But Johnny Depp's lawyers say not so fast and claim she's just trying to get out

of paying. This comes as one of her insurance companies sues her, saying they shouldn't have to pay for her its legal fees or the judgment against Johnny Depp. I'm Anjanette Levy and welcome to Law and Crime's Sidebar podcast. Let's start with the issue surrounding juror 15. It's been a big controversy. Herds lawyers have already filed a motion with the court, alleging issues with juror 15 and the fact that he was born in 1970 when the person summoned for court was actually born in 1945. While Hurd's lawyers noted that that wasn't reason for a mistrial, now they're claiming otherwise. Plaintiff's attorney Catherine Lazzardo is here to explain. Catherine, thanks for coming on sidebar again. We appreciate it. Thanks, Anjanet. Oh, it's a pressure. What appears to have happened here, Catherine, is the fact that juror 15, who was born in 1970, has the same name and same address as the person who was actually summoned to court and who was born in 1945. So it appears to possibly be a father's son relationship. So tell us a little bit about what Hurd's attorneys are arguing with this. What her attorney's arguing is that her due process was violated because the wrong juror came and was impassions. But there's a big issue about this, which is that they don't have supporting law to support their argument that her due process was violated.

And also, they cited a statute of Virginia law, which was actually wrong in terms of it's not supporting their argument. They're trying to claim that it's not their responsibility to check the jury and whoever the jurors' identifications are or anything about the jurors. But the thing is, the statute actually says that the parties are responsible for checking that, not the court or the juror, contrary to what Amber Heard's legal team is trying to say. So I think they will lose in that regard. Well, Johnny Depp's team filed a number of responses to all of this on Monday. And let's look at what the team had to say. Ben Shue is the lead attorney. And he calls Hurd's objection to juror 15 untimely. He says Hurd's supplemental memorandum was filed one week after the judge. July first deadline. That was last Friday was July 8th. And he wrote, true to form. Herd did not notify Depp's team of the supplemental memorandum, nor did her team ask the court for leave to file a week late. Chu also wrote that Hurd's team was aware of the age discrepancy with juror 15 because the court supplied both sides with the juror's information before the trial even started. So they would have it for

voir dire. And the juror was vetted by both sides during that process. So Chu is saying this person was perfectly suitable to serve on the jury, even if it was the wrong person who showed up. So Chu goes on to say that Hurd's lawyers chose not to investigate this when they had the information. So they're saying that Hurd's team already knew. So what do you think of Ben Chu's response? Ben Chu's response is spot on. He says that there's no, that it was untimely. Timeliness is always a big deal when you're filing motion because that means that if you, if Amber Heard, well, not if, but Amber Heard filed a late supplemental, that does. and give Ben Chu and Johnny Depp's legal team and have time to file an opposition, but they still

were able to file it on time. Also, he's arguing that the Amber Heard actually waived that argument when she did not race it during the Vodir and during any time at the trial before the verdict. So that's a big issue because she's not claiming any prejudice. Well, she is alleging prejudice, but she's not stating specifically how it prejudiced her. And Ben-Jew-smobile. You mentioned that he stated that everyone, including Amber Hurd's legal team and Johnny Depp's legal team, had those jury information beforehand. And actually, Ben Chu pointed out they had it five days before the jury, the jury voir dire. And the statute only requires that they have it three days before. And so they've had it way longer than they're supposed to, which leads me to the supplemental of Amber Hurd because there was a footnote there that I took great issue on because

it actually attacks Judge Ascarati. That footnote said that it's not Amber Hurd's team's job to look and verify the jury information. Rather, it's the court's job. And what does that mean? The court's job, the statute says that the person who is taking the attendance of the juror are supposed to either take their ID and verify their information or if they cannot provide ID that they have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury. that they are who they are.

So they're claiming that that person made a big mistake. But here's the thing. Who is in charge of the court procedures and making sure everyone is following it appropriately? The chief judge. And who's the chief judge of this court? Judge Ascarati, the judge Ascarati at the trial. So now they're saying Judge Ascarati is not properly administering whatever is supposed to be the rules in her courtroom. So that won't bode well for them.

And I will tell you at that June 24th hearing where Judge Ascarati, it was a formality, this hearing, she was signing the judgment. It was going to be final. She was having none of what Elaine Bretahoft was arguing. I mean, Elaine Bretahoff kept bringing things up and Judge Ascarati cut her off almost at the end of each sentence and said, we're not doing this. I'm not having a hearing. I don't need a hearing when Elaine Bretahoff asked for one. So she's done. She is done with this. And she's kind of like, you want to appeal? Go appeal. Catherine, Amber heard in that post-trial motion that she actually filed on July 1st, also asked Judge Ascarati to set aside the verdict saying it didn't comport with the law and the evidence. And it just wasn't supported by either one. The jury awarded debt, as you'll recall, $15 million in damages. But the 5 million impunitive damages was actually capped at $350,000 because of the state statute in Virginia. So the actual judgment and the amount awarded to debt totals $10.35 million. Ben Chu writes in response to this request from Amber Hurd, while Ms. Hurd slings an exceptional amount of mud at the wall in the hope that something might stick. The jury's verdict on damages was perfectly reasonable and supported by the evidence and testimony in the case. Chu then goes on to cite a lot of the testimony from Depp's witnesses, some from Jack Wiggum, who is his agent. It was Johnny Depp's agent who testified that Depp didn't appear in any studio films after the Washington Post op-ed in 2018. And Mike Spindler had said that Deb had lost about $40 million in earnings. So your response to

what Ben Shue had to say on that. I agree with Ben Choo. We were talking early on as to what are these arguments that Amber Heard's legal team are putting out there. And I mentioned that it seems they're just throwing everything on the wall and see which one stick. And Ben Choo said it more eloquently that they're trying to put there on the wall the murkiest mud that they could do and see which one actually sticks because this one won't stick. I mean, we all saw the trial. We heard the expert testimonies of several people stating what the damages and how to calculate the damages for Johnny Depp. I was actually surprised that they only awarded $10 million for him. I thought that's very low. Similarly, I was surprised that they awarded Amber Heard $2 million for

her compensatory damages because I didn't hear any supporting evidence for that $2 million. So if there's someone who has a question as to the appropriateness of the damages award, I think it would be Johnny Debb saying that there's not enough evidence for the two million awarded to Amber Heard, but we see that they're not even raising that here. As of today, you have not paid $3.5 million of your own money to the ACLU. Yes or no? I have not yet. And as of today, you have not paid $3.5 million of your own money to the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. Correct? I have not yet. Johnny sued me. She's made a million dollars in payments to them, but then she got sued here and hasn't been able to

because she spent $6 million in attorney's fees. That is unrefuted. She still intends to pay those pledges, honor those pledges, and she said that throughout. Let's switch gears now. Over the weekend as well, Amber Heard's insurance company, her former insurance company, New York Marine, filed a lawsuit saying, that they shouldn't have to cover under their insurance policy that she had during the time in which she wrote the op-ed. And it's also in the same time period they covered her in which Johnny Depp filed the defamation lawsuit against her. This insurance company is suing her and saying, look, you were found liable with actual malice. So we shouldn't have to cover your legal fees. And according to another

insurance company, travelers that also represented her at the same time, they say as far as the spring of 22 goes. At that time period, they had paid $5 million of her legal fees. She said at trial, it was $6 million that she had spent. But it sounds like insurance is really covering all of this. So New York Marine says, we shouldn't have to pay. What are your thoughts on that, Catherine? What's going to happen with this lawsuit? Looking at their complaint, I think they have a very good basis for that. And when the jury verdict actually came out and the information that travelers, her homeowner insurance, was the one covering the defense. fees and costs, attorneys fees and costs, I thought they're not, they're going to want their money back and they won't be paying for judgment as well. So it won't, I anticipate it won't

just be the New York Marine insurance who will ask for their money, travelers will ask for their money back of all the attorney's fees they paid because most insurance policies have that exclusion that if you committed something intentional or willful, that's not going to be covered by insurance policy because that's against public policy to support someone who does something intentionally wrong. And here, defamation case, because actual malice was found against Amber Hurd, that is considered intentional willful act. And so most insurance companies, when they issue a policy and when they actually provide you with defense, meaning the pay your attorney's fees and costs, they issue a reservation of rights. And that's what New York Marine indicated,

in their complaint, they agreed to pay for her attorney's fees, but with a reservation of right that if you are found willful, we will rescind the benefits we offer you. And that's what happened to her. And it's a little confusing, but we need to be clear that travelers actually sued New York Marine as well last year saying New York Marine didn't pay its share or its half of the legal fees. Travelers had paid the whole bill. And that action, that whole case was stayed pending the outcome of the verdict in the defamation case and we know what happened there Amber Hurd lost and was found liable in $10.35 million judgment. She's appealing. So are you saying to me, you anticipate that travelers will now go back and sue Amber Hurd and say we want our money

back? I think so. I anticipate that's going to happen because if travelers suing New York Marine is asking for a reimbursement, their fees and costs, they are basically saying, hey, it's supposed to be 50-50. But at the same time, if they can get that from New York Marine, then their alternative legal action would be to file a lawsuit against Amber Heard or to basically just say, hey, you know what, you have to reimburse us because we're not going to pay your attorney's fees and costs because that's an exclusion to our insurance policy. You brought up a good point, though, which is that New York Marine, they initially said in their complaint that they agreed to pay the attorney's fees and costs for Amber Heard. But then they ended up not doing it because interestingly,

the complaint said that Amber Heard and her agent might have told her other defense firms not to cooperate with the law firm that New York Marine actually selected for her. Right. They're saying that, look, we approved of this council and then they withdrew because you guys didn't want them. So that's another reason we shouldn't have to pay. So it's interesting and we will be keeping an eye on it. Exactly. I used to do insurance defense, and this is usually boring, but now it's becoming very interesting because everyone's learning about insurance law now. Yeah, definitely. And the fact that sometimes homeowners policies can cover defamation, not all the time, but sometimes they can. Catherine Lozardo, thanks so much for coming on to talk with us about this, as always.

My pleasure. Thank you for having me. And that's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar Podcast. Thanks so much for joining us. You can find us on Apple, Google, Spotify, and YouTube, and wherever else you get your podcasts. We will see you next time.