Former Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Sues TMZ For Publishing His Recorded Conversation
from the that's-not-going-to-work dept
Donald Sterling, the disgraced former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, became the former owner last year after a tape of him scolding his girlfriend about appearing in public with "black people" became public. The controversy over his racist statements eventually resulted in him being fined and banned by the NBA, and forced to sell the team (which resulted in another dispute with his wife). Last week, Sterling and his wife finally filed for divorce, but Sterling has also now sued TMZ for originally publishing the audio of his conversation. He has also sued the girlfriend who recorded the tape, V. Stiviano. The lawsuit against Stiviano may actually have some basis in reality, given that California is (quite ridiculously) a "two party consent" state, whereby if you record audio of someone, they need to be aware that you're doing so. This is problematic for all sorts of reasons, and it would be great if that law were struck down or changed, but at the very least it gives some basis for the lawsuit.The lawsuit against TMZ, on the other hand, is completely crazy. Even if the original recording broke the law, that would have no impact whatsoever on TMZ's legal right to then publish the recording -- which was clearly newsworthy. It seems quite likely, in fact, that Sterling is about to learn the power of California's anti-SLAPP law, as this lawsuit is pretty clearly a SLAPP attempt. And since Sterling filed his lawsuit in California, it would be shocking if TMZ doesn't quickly go for the anti-SLAPP, which would get the case thrown out and potentially make Sterling pay the legal fees. There's a decent chance that Stiviano might also be able to make use of the anti-SLAPP claim as well.
Either way, if the lawsuit does actually get anywhere (again, doubtful), it will undoubtedly be entertaining. Sterling has a history of making outlanddish and incredible statements in court, including this rather famous exchange from a 2003 deposition:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, donald sterling, free speech, journalism, reporting, v. stiviano
Companies: tmz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was eating breakfast when i got to the last line, TD i should sue! You almost killed me, I choked on my toast laughing so hard. WTF was he thinking, how does handwriting start a story about a girl blowing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popcorn stocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analysis of this law could use its own post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Person1 is talking to Person2 in private. Person1 records the conversation without telling Person2.
Analysis:
In a two-party consent state, Person2 can sue Person1. This is silly.
Your example:
Person1 is talking to Person2 in private. Police record conversation.
Analysis:
Your example has nothing to do with 2-party consent law.
Clear enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't do this already? ... interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Interception of oral communications"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was this your handwriting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was this your handwriting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was this your handwriting?
I think in this case it's...
If she don't spit, you must acquit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how?
And I'm not going to buy the "he's loaded" argument - women like Stiviano can't be that shallow and desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]