Tag Archives: odehvfx

Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Olivia de Havilland Case

Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 6.44.05 PM

I received confirmation this morning from Olivia de Havilland’s counsel, Suzelle Smith, that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of Havilland v FX, Olivia de Havilland’s petition to the court to allow her case against FX to go to trial.

It is a disappointing decision, but de Havilland has fought an enormous battle, persevering until the very last recourse. That type of persistence is a quality that she has always had–and clearly continues to have at the age of 102. May we all learn from her, and may we all be so fortunate as to live to see the day when we can act on her example.

From the email this morning: “One day someone else who is wronged for the sake of Hollywood profits will have the courage to stand on the shoulders of Miss de Havilland and fight for the right to defend a good name and legacy against intentional, unconsented exploitation and falsehoods. Miss de Havilland hopes she will live to see the day when such justice is done.”

I want to thank all of you for following this case, and my coverage of it. It has been a true learning experience to do this kind of work, and to examine meticulously the inner workings of a lawsuit of this caliber has been an enormous privilege. While this outcome isn’t what we had hoped, the response to this case in the record number of letters sent to the courtrooms has proven that Olivia de Havilland continues to be loved and supported by people all over the world.

On behalf of myself, everyone involved in the case, all the newspaper and magazine outlets devotedly following the case since the beginning, Olivia de Havilland’s counsel, and everyone who has rooted for truth in media–thank you.

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 9.13.44 PM

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Take Up Olivia de Havilland Case Today

pubphoto1

Hello readers, just a very quick update for those following the Olivia de Havilland case. Today, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether or not they will take up her petition. If you would like to follow the case on the SCOTUS blog, here is the link to the petition page. I will update as more information becomes available.

For more information on what this petition is about, to fill in those new to the blog, here is a list of my full coverage on the case.

I will be following the page throughout the day to provide updates as they come in.

Thanks for reading, and for following this fascinating piece of legislation.

UPDATE: No order was released today on the Olivia de Havilland case–there will be additional orders released on Monday, January 7 and perhaps some on Tuesday.

Coverage of Olivia de Havilland vs. FX Wins 2018 CMBA Award for Best Classic Movie Series

20180705-nhan-sac-nu-dien-vien-con-song-duy-nhat-cua-phim-cuon-theo-chieu-gio-7

Hello dear readers,

Just a quick note to let you know that Backlots’ coverage of Olivia de Havilland vs. FX won the CMBA Award in the category of Best Classic Movie Series. It has been a marvelous run–and it’s not over yet! Stay tuned for more coverage as we wait to see if the United States Supreme Court will take up the case. If so, I will go to Washington, D.C. to watch the proceedings and report further.

Thank you for your diligent readership and for your support as we watch to see what happens. And thanks to the CMBA and the members of the Classic Movie Blog Association for their acknowledgment of my reporting.

Happy Sunday, happy reading and happy movie watching!

Olivia de Havilland Case Headed to the Supreme Court

Olivia de Havilland

Armed with the rejection of the California Supreme Court in her case against FX, Olivia de Havilland is to file her case with the United States Supreme Court this September.

This is a huge undertaking, and while the SCOTUS only takes a small fraction of the thousands of cases filed with them every year, this one may be of special interest to them–it would be only the second right of publicity case ever filed with the court, and would seek to clarify the case of New York Times v Sullivan. That case established the standard of “actual malice” (publishing of information that is knowingly false or with reckless disregard for truth), and said that newspapers could not be sued for libel unless they had actual malice. Lawyer Suzelle Smith says “The issue for the SCOTUS is whether or not the First Amendment creates an absolute immunity from suit for publishers of docudramas or whether that format like all others is governed by the actual malice of New York Times v Sullivan.”

I have been following de Havilland’s suit closely since the beginning, and was a member of the press at the appellate court hearing in March. If the Supreme Court takes the case, I will go to Washington, D.C. and hear it. Backlots’ readers have been extremely interested in this suit and helped to set a record for the number of amicus letters sent in support of a case at the California Supreme Court (a whopping 90 letters). It has meant so much to me and I know it means a lot to Olivia and her legal team.

While the US Supreme Court does not accept amicus letters, Suzelle Smith tells me that the best thing that Backlots readers can do right now would be to go to the article where the filing was originally reported and leave supportive comments in the comment section. Here is the article, and I will continue to keep you posted as things progress.

On behalf of everyone involved, thank you for all you have done, and continue to do, to preserve integrity in docudramas dealing with living people.

0_vyH5cDFPZ3h2e8KK

Olivia de Havilland Court Update: CA Supreme Court Denies Review

olivia-de-havilland-photo-by-terry-oneilliconic-imagesgetty-images

Dear readers, I’ve been waiting to post about this until I got details from Olivia de Havilland’s lawyer regarding next steps, but a few days ago we got word that the California Supreme Court has declined to review de Havilland’s case against FX.

For those of us who have been advocating for her side, this comes as a blow. We don’t know how close the decision was–there was at least one justice, Justice Mariano Florentino Cuéllar, who voted to allow de Havilland to have her day in court. As judges are not required to publish their votes,  Justice Cuéllar’s is the only vote on record for either side.

We don’t know what, if anything, will happen next. The next step up in the legal system would be the Supreme Court of the United States. De Havilland’s team is weighing its options, but given the enormous pressure of being involved in a US Supreme Court case at the age of 102, this is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Regardless of what happens next, what has transpired in this case has been truly remarkable. When the case first went to the California Supreme Court, I posted an article outlining how to write an amicus curiae letter to the court in favor of de Havilland’s side. Thanks to all of you who sent your letters, 90 amicus curiae briefs were received by the court, a record-breaking number. In her email today addressing the outpouring of support, de Havilland’s lawyer wrote: “The fact that you collectively supported us and advocated for truth and fairness in the law was very important to our side.”

I have said and written from the beginning that no matter the outcome of the case, de Havilland wins. By simply putting pressure on corporate interests, showing them that civilians have the power to take them to task, she speaks truth to power and holds it accountable to the people. Since de Havilland filed her case, Ryan Murphy has shelved a season of American Crime Story about Monica Lewinsky, and the DVD release of Feud has been suspended. By daring to stand up, de Havilland has forced FX to back down and operate with more respect for facts and living people.

I will keep you posted about next steps, but in the meantime, may we all take a lesson from Olivia de Havilland–no matter how great our adversary, we cannot be intimidated by size or power. When we speak up and stand up, look the threat in the eye and assert our own presence, we see that maybe our biggest fears aren’t so big after all.

bac732d4b4256e0342c194818a29748b

Olivia de Havilland Update, Part II–How to Get Involved

GTY-oliva-de-havilland-jpo-170623_4x3_992

Dear readers, over the past months, I have gotten several comments and emails from people asking what they can do to help the Olivia de Havilland case. I just received some correspondence from de Havilland’s legal counsel, outlining exactly how to get involved in the petition to review the appellate court’s decision. I had known this was coming for some time, but wanted to wait to update you until I had all the information. Now I can tell you all the details of exactly what we can do.

We are to write amici curiae letters to the California Supreme Court in support of the petition to review. For those up to the task–doing this correctly requires careful following of several steps, so I’m going to streamline it as much as possible based on what I’ve done, so that this process can take as little of your time as possible.

Here is what your letterhead should look like, and how you should address and start the letter:

Your name

Your address

Your phone number

 

 

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

and the Associate Justices

Supreme Court of California

350 McAllister st.

San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, et al., Court of Appeal Case No. B285629 and California Supreme Court Case No. S248614

Dear Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and the Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court,

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.500(g), I am writing in support of the Petition for Review of Olivia de Havilland, de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, et al., Court of Appeal Case Number B285629 and California Supreme Court Case Number S248614.

Here is what you should put in the letter:

  • Who you are, your profession, your interest in the issues of the case (right to protect name and identity from knowingly false statements, right to a trial by jury, etc)
  • Why these issues are important to be considered by the California Supreme Court
  • Why trial by jury is important for everyone, not just Dame Olivia
  • State that you have no personal financial interest in the case

Speak in your own voice, and explain (for example) why truth in media is important, and that falsehoods have no value. Most of all, make it your own and explain why this is important to you.

THEN:

Fill out the Proof of Service document. It’s pretty self-explanatory. Feel free to just download the photo, print it, and fill it out.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 11.31.08 PM

Now comes the rather daunting part (in case you forgot that this is a legal case).

  • Make TWO copies of the letter and send them to the attorneys on both sides of the case. Their names and addresses are in the Proof of Service document, but to make everything totally accessible, here they are again:

Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.                                             Kelly M. Klaus, Esq.

Howarth & Smith                                                     Munger Tolles & Olson LLP

523 W. 6th Street                                                      350 South Grand Avenue

Suite 728                                                                   50th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90014                                            Los Angeles, CA 90071

  • Then you must make EIGHT copies of the letter you wrote, and mail the copies, along with the original letter you wrote and the Proof of Service to the Clerk of the Court:

Mr. Jorge E. Navarrete

Clerk of the Court

Supreme Court of California

350 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

  • And that’s it!

We are to get our letters mailed by June 1, 2018. Suzelle Smith’s office wants us to know that she’s aware of how much effort this is, but she assures us that it will be well worth it. These letters might make the difference.

Any questions? Comments? Feel free to leave anything in the comments section or email me. Thank you so much for supporting this important cause. Suzelle Smith closed her correspondence with:

“Thank you very much for your interest in Miss de Havilland’s case and your willingness to be a part of the process for justice.  If the California Supreme Court does take the case, we hope you will be at the oral argument.”

Happy letter writing!

deh-stockings

#odehvfx

 

Olivia de Havilland Update

Screen Shot 2018-05-04 at 10.35.47 PM

Dear readers, just as I was preparing to update you on the remaining days of the TCM Classic Film Festival (and my Show People intro), some pressing news found its way into my inbox. I have prided myself on bringing news on the Olivia de Havilland case to Backlots’ readers before the mainstream news outlets get it, but it looks like I’m going to have to up my game–Variety broke this before I did (though I did tweet about it first. I have a vicious competitive streak when I get going!) Regardless, here is the latest news on the Olivia de Havilland case.

This afternoon, Olivia de Havilland’s lawyers filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to review the decision of the appellate court, that upheld the anti-SLAPP motion filed by FX in de Havilland’s case against them. De Havilland’s counsel has noted that there was perhaps conflict of interest with the three judge panel that convened to review the case at the appellate court, and they hope that the California Supreme Court will give de Havilland the jury trial that she desires.

Shortly after the appellate court decision, de Havilland wrote from her home in Paris that “it is important that cases with merit be allowed to proceed to a jury trial. My case is about FX publishing false statements about me and using my name without consent. I, and other individuals in like circumstances, should not be denied our Constitutional right to trial by jury, as the trial judge ruled.”

I will be posting information soon regarding how Backlots readers can get involved, asking the court to accept the petition for review. Please stay tuned, and I’ll continue to bring you all the newest information as I learn it.

pubphoto1

#odehvfx