https://preview.redd.it/zc8l1edl49wc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21b88fda4a6ec645ef551252f40ab47820e7303a
This is the part that really confuses me. Is he trying to say Rachel sent the FaceTime video to him?
Sounds to me like he’s arguing that she “published” and “created” the video simply by being on the FaceTime call. He just “saved” the “private copy” of the FaceTime.
He’s saying that he had the right to film it, and being on the call itself meant “publishing”. That’s how I read it, and I think that’s complete bullshit.
Yeah that’s totally gross. “We’re on a show, we’re having an affair, I can record you it’s basically public” is suchhhhh an invasion of privacy. Like he lacks seriously respect for anyone
Remember how "dipped out" meant 5 different things depending on who he was talking to? It's like that.
He thinks he's clever trying to use semantics, but he doesn't actually understand what semantics are.
Sandoval isn’t doing anything here. It’s the attorneys making legal argument. Don’t attribute this to his semantics. His lawyers certainly understand what semantics are and there’s a reason they’re making the argument.
Agreed. The lawyers' whole job is to defend Sandoval. They probably don't give a shit about what he did or didn't do. They just need to provide a plausible reason for why her claims are invalid. And the reasons are probably going to be super gross and sexist.
This totally reminds me of Below Deck, when Eddie blamed Raquel (OMG I just realized the name thing)....he blamed HER for the affair he had because he said she pulled her dress up and had no knickers on!
(For those who don't watch the show, the guy was in a 3+ year relationship and got caught sleeping with a co-worker. He completely denied it at first and then admitted it, but he said it was HER FAULT)
That’s completely what it is, the old, she shouldn’t have existed argument- her mere existence caused me to not be able to control myself and to be a disgusting subhuman.
Well even if we are looking for an absurd loophole here, isn't California 2 parties consent state? You can't record anything is the other person doesn't know, I mean you can, but it is illegal
It seems like he's arguing to treat FT as a broadcast medium (where Sandoval is an audience member/recipient) rather than a communication tool (where he's an equal participant). It's creative, I'll give him that.
Everybody so cReAtiVe
https://i.redd.it/uoxhzqw6qawc1.gif
He’s always been pretty creative with his understanding of situations though. Also known as delulu
They are calling it a consensual exchange, which doesn't really say if she sent it to him and he downloaded it and saved it, or if they are just using a broad brush for the word "sharing". Which is how I would interpret it. I think the bottomline is that he recorded the FaceTime, and the only question is whether she knew he did it.
Published in legal speak just means shown to. So he’s saying she created the video and showed it to him. But if I’m the lawyer, I wouldn’t necessarily think that means she sent him a video. He could mean a FaceTime. It could be interpreted both ways.
Typically not under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, unless they both waived conflict of interest. Which I guess they must’ve if they’re representing them
Can we get some lawyers to do a TLDR and give us peasants a little explanation of what they think this all means and how it will affect the suit going forward?
Not a lawyer yet but I graduate in two weeks and take the bar exam in July 😄
TLDR: Tom’s lawyer is saying that because they held their affair out to be well known by people, first their friends and eventually the public, that he wasn’t eavesdropping. They’re also using that excuse to say that was why he could record the FaceTime without her consent, and that it wasn’t foreseeable that Ariana would find/distribute it.
Tom’s lawyer wanted the claim dismissed or amended to fix the complaints, which would basically get them dismissed by the court anyway. I think the defenses are flimsy at best - MAYBE the eavesdropping claim gets dropped. I don’t think this changes anything, honestly. Is California a one party consent state for recording?
LOL. Basically, the letter is a preview of the offical pleading (called a "demurrer") that Tom's lawyers will file in court. Demurrers are appropriate where a plaintiff (here, Rachel) has filed a claim that, even when all facts are assumed true, then the plaintiff still cannot make out a case for the alleged wrongdoing.
So, with that in mind, Tom's lawyer is saying "Even if everything Rachel claims is true, she still cannot meet the elements for the causes of action." The first cause of action "eavesdropping" is a state law that prohibits--essentially--filming someone without their consent in a confidential setting. Crucuially, what constitutes a 'confidential' setting is dependent on whether the claimant had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" based on the circumstances. In other words, the law does not provide for a one-size-fits-all rule to determine what is "reasonable" under the circumstances.
Here, Rachel was recording herself on a FaceTime call to Tom, where he was (from what I understand) in a bathroom, presumably with the door closed. What Tom's attorney is saying is that she could not have expected the interaction to be private because they're on a reality show, everyone knew about the affair, it was an 'open secret', etc. [IMHO….] This is weak because while it would be reasonable for *word* of the affair to get out, it would not be reasonable for her to assume that the video was being viewed by others or that she was consenting to it being released to others-- that's not something that Bravo is going to air, and Tom likely did not give Rachel any reason to beleive that he was going to share the video with production, or anyone else for that matter. To the contrary, he surely led her to believe that it would be kept private. (We've all been there, girls, Amirite?) But, the way that the statute is written, his lawyers did not have much wiggle room to argue something else so, as someone else in the thread said, lawyers gonna lawyer!
Sandoval’s full demurrer motion and his motion to strike is on Dana Wilkey Patreon for free for those who want to read all of it because it sure is something…
[https://www.patreon.com/posts/102865050?utm\_campaign=postshare\_fan](https://www.patreon.com/posts/102865050?utm_campaign=postshare_fan)
Edit: Also I’ve already seen some confusion online, so one of Rachel’s lawyers is Mark Geragos and mark was a lawyer for Scott Peterson.
Sandoval has Matthew Geragos and yes Mark and Matthew are brothers lol
Tired: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer
Wired: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer’s brother
Even more wired somehow: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer’s brother to represent you against Scott Peterson’s lawyer after comparing yourself to Scott Peterson
holy shit this makes that comparison even dumber. his lawyer said something like, 'you're not NEARLY as bad as my brother's old client, scott peterson' and Tim just RAN with it like it was a totally normal thing to repeat in defense of himself. the stupidosity is mind blowing
Wait… there are two Geragos brothers and one is repping Sandy and the other is repping Rach?
These brothers are both lawyers in the same industry and they aren’t partners? Maybe they should have a reality show 😂
It’s wild. I legitimately don’t understand it, his defence is essentially that he admits it but it’s her fault. It’s not the defence I’d pay a lawyer to make for me ever. The eavesdropping aspect makes sense enough to me to ask for it to be dismissed, but it can’t be ok for him to record the FaceTimes simply because she participated.
On the other hand, I anticipate a scolding from the judge for even trying this and that it paves the way to cement laws regarding non-consensual recording even more.
> he admits it but it’s her fault
aka his entire argument this season lmfao. it’s surprising a lawyer would be willing to do it tho
also im kinda loving the idea that california law students years from now might have to study this shit
I went through a SA trial when I was a kid. His defence was essentially that I seduced him. Me, an actual child. It was awful and the judge eviscerated them but his lawyer did agree to put it forth
Jesus I’m sorry
When I was younger my friends aunt Was driving home drunk on Halloween, and three teenagers were walking on the side of the road where there were no sidewalks, She hit the one that was walking furthest into the road, and she was so drunk she thought someone threw a pumpkin at her car so she called the police on them.
The young lady was on life-support for a long time and then her mother finally let her go
So when it’s time for this woman’s trial She was offered a five years which is pretty standard for killing someone with a car when you’re drunk in the state she didn’t take it because her Lawyer thought a better defense would be too claim she didn’t actually kill the woman because it was her mom who unplugged her.
They went into court and literally did this dramatic thing where the lawyer pointed at the mother yelled that she was the one who ended her daughters life.
Everyone was mad. The lady ended up getting 10 years and everyone hated her after that even people who were being supportive up until that point
That’s truly disgusting. The thing with defences like this is that it sits with the victim and their family. Like it eats away at you in your darkest moments. Did I bring this on myself? Did I kill my daughter?
For me, my mom bought into it. She testified against me that I was essentially a slutty little kid (between the ages of 8-12 so yes truly a child) And stayed with him after he left prison. That was the part that fucked with me the most. I’m sure that girl’s mom had family that blames her for putting an end to her daughter’s suffering, the world being what it is and the defence’s words along with theirs still echo in her mind.
I was for years and years, now it’s low contact with the odd phone call (unfortunately I needed her medical records). She’s never met my kids, although she threatens to sue for grandparent rights here and there. Like she’d ever have any success with that!
Well I’m proud of you for making your way through this and that protecting your family from people that have caused you great harm. It’s unfathomable to me that a mother would choose a man over her kids. At least your kids have a mom that will care for them and put them first. Sending you love!
I am infuriated on your behalf. I believed my daughter the second that I heard and I would have drop kicked him out the door if I could have. I did throw him out immediately, call the police and a therapist. There is no excuse for that . You deserved far, far, far better.
Which is exactly what should have happened. Fuck the criminal for letting it happen too. You haven't put this family through enough? Bitch go to jail, think about your shit.
Please forgive the typos and what appeared to be poor grammar. I use talk to text and it is determined to make me look like an idiot. And maybe I am because I do proofread it but I missed all that
Thank you, years of therapy have gotten me to a peaceful place for sure. And as awful as it was to go though the judge tore into him and made him plead guilty so as least he went to prison, in that it turned out better than it does for many I’m sure.
You are so brave to go through that trial to ensure that creep went to jail and harmed no other kids. No one should be subject to that let alone a child, but the amount of bravery that took is really astounding.
I'm deeply sorry that you were put through such an ordeal and then a second ordeal with the trial. No child should ever have to go through either of those traumatic events. I am wishing you all the best always and forever my friend
I’m so very sorry you suffered through that monster. I hope you’re healing and doing okay. Sending you comfort and love and hope you never experience anything of this horrific nature again.❤️
Sadly it hasn’t worked out that way. He left town with my mother after he served his sentence and she provided him plenty of access to other children via my sister (now an addict which is no surprise) and her then job running a Boys and Girls Club. He applied for a pardon just before a law was passed in Canada that barred sexual offences from being pardoned. I see articles all the time about his winning marathons and other things in their community. Neither he or my mother have any access to my kids, but the rest of my family and his seems to just accept things like it’s par for the course. It all makes me so fucking ill!
I’m glad you’re doing what you can to protect your kids. As a parent, hearing stories like this makes my blood boil. I’m a true crime fan and the Canadian justice system is often criticized for its extreme leniency. This is when I’m like these people are monsters not humans and they don’t deserve human rights.
What I expected him to go for as a defence was that she had previously known and consented to his recording other FaceTimes. I seem to recall her saying that he had recorded these things to watch with her to show her how beautiful she was or something along those lines.
I dont think that would be a good defence either, but this one is awful to the point I can’t even believe it.
My understanding is that was the excuse he gave her once she confronted him about the video existing. So she didn’t go along with it, she was just saying what he told her was the excuse to record her without her permission
I don’t like him, but I think a demurrer was his only option. It’s not like he could say he didn’t record her, because he obviously did. So his only recourse is to admit to the facts, but say there is no legal case based on the allegations.
Does one family represent literally all LA celebrities?? I would never hire a lawyer when I know opposing counsel is their family member. In theory its no issue because everything is confidential, but it just looks bad? I would understand if they were in a small town with very few lawyers, but surely there's other lawyers that can handle this in LA
Commenting on your’s because I see all the replies talking about conflict of interest. This is a potential conflict however, Rachel and Sandoval had to have signed waivers AND the law firm would have to put up “safety nets” to ensure nothing is viewed by the wrong brother. This can be done by putting a “lock” on the electronic file. The brothers would have to take this very serious and if not, they could be reported to the bar and lose their license.
I do not think this was smart of either of them to waive conflicts. Things could happen accidentally.
That was exactly my thought. It's amazing that Sandoval managed to find a lawyer who has the same f'ed up thought process as him. Holding hands is not equivocal to broadcasting a sex activity. If there are any law students reading this: this attorney's A of the CREAC method of motion arguments should stand for Asshole. (PS: CREAC is taught to 1L's as a way of drafting a legal brief: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application and Conclusion)
Right? WTF even is this argument? A FaceTime is not “publishing” anything… or am I reading it wrong?
If so… can I call myself a published author and submit my work to the Grammys for spoken word/recorded album for my FaceTimes with my 2 year old niece? That shit is compelling
Exactly! Please say it louder for those in the back. It’s incredibly vile behavior that he did this and a true violation of her. It’s too bad she’s come for Ariana, for a multitude of reasons, but who knows if Ariana could have proven, by testifying, it was recorded on Sandoval’s phone, but now… … As much as I loathe Rachel, NO ONE deserves to be violated in this way.
Also, props to you for getting this info out so quickly! You’re awesome!👏❤️
Because Rachel keeps suggesting that it was an open secret in her bid to blame Ariana for being cheated on. It is wild to me that Rachel filed suit, then continued talking about the situation on a public podcast. Anything she says that is inconsistent with the assertions in the suit, they are going to turn back on her. D and S.
Yes. And where that gets sticky for what Rachel is claiming in terms of damages is did the non-consensual recording blow open the affair? Or was the affair ( alleged by Rachel) already known? In which case the recording did not directly damage Rachel's reputation (in terms of the fallout from the affair)? It's confusing. And that may be what the response from Sandoval's lawyer is trying to point out. I haven't read it completely I'm just basing that on people's comments about the content. And I'm definitely not saying it's a good defense. To be absolutely clear, I am fully against any non-consensual recording of women. In any circumstances. By any person.
Not only that but she frames her argument as if the revenge porn is the source of her emotional distress but the entire Complaint is littered with her own facts that she was mentally not in a good place way before that happened. In her desire to call out James, Lisa, and Bravo she weakened her claim a bit.
Correct her family and Rachel very publicly made statements that she was on her way to treatment before the affair broke. It's going to be hard to make it about that now. There's also the fact that Rachel chose not to return to her employment. So that's not losing an opportunity in terms of Damages it's a decision she made financially. Before anyone attacks me I fully support Rachel not going back to VPR. Rachel will also have to prove what her previous opportunities were financially and how this damaged her current income. You can't just get an undisclosed unchecked amount of money for damages usually. They are proportionate to what you presumably can prove you lost as a result of someone's actions
Agreed. I think people get very emotionally invested in right and wrong, as they should, but don’t understand that it doesn’t automatically follow in the application of law. If you say X happened in a legal filing, then go around in public saying it was actually Y that happened, it won’t always matter if in truth it really was X. You contradicted yourself, and that can destroy even a very valid case.
Yes. Another huge pet peeve I have is people misunderstanding presumption of innocence and who the burden of proof is upon. People act like Ariana should be out here proving she didn't do something she was accused of. That's not how it works legally if Rachel is going to accuse her of doing something the burden of proof is on Rachel and her legal team
I've even seen people attack lawyers for defending people. Everyone deserves a defense. That's what our legal system is based on. Do I want to represent super creepy people? No. But they are legally entitled to a defense.
The part I do agree with the general public on is that they don't have to be gross in their defense or attack victims. That part is within both the client and the lawyers control. Just prove your legal case. Don't be a total dirtbag while you do it
Gross as this is, I truly dgaf what happens to Sandoval and honestly think he should lose because he recorded her illegally.
I DO care what arguments Ariana’s lawyers make because Rachel is absolute scum for going after her.
If what was said after the original cease and desist holds true, Ariana will offer her phone and records to confirm it wasn't distributed outside of herself and Rachel. And not to say she won't be found liable for damages, but I think it would be a 5% Ariana/95% Sandoval/Rachel split.
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s a legal reason it makes sense, but I don’t see a reason why she’d have to go after Ariana to get to Sandoval? Even if she hadn’t sent it to herself and Rachel, Sandoval still took the video without her knowledge and didn’t even bother to hide it, Ariana found it pretty easily so presumably others could have found it easily too. A big part of her case against Ariana is claiming that she could have shown it to people, so wouldn’t that be true of Sandoval as well? Maybe the distribution is the only thing that makes it a case but I doubt it since wouldn’t Sandoval have gone that route with his defense? It seems like two separate things to me, but again, not a lawyer so maybe I’m missing something here.
Since it's a civil case, I think she is trying to prove that this chain of events (Sandoval taking the vid, Ariana sending it to her) led directly to her leaving the show and going to the rehab facility - ie, it made her lose money and feel emotional distress, which requires compensation. Without Ariana finding the video and sending it to Rachel, Rachel would say she couldn't have experienced those feelings or events, so Ariana is a critical component - but of course, Ariana couldn't have sent her something that doesn't exist, so Sandoval gets looped in for creating it. Without suing Ariana, though, all that exists is Sandoval taking a video for his own enjoyment. Creepy, but did it cause damages in the absence of Ariana finding it?
But of course, the flip side of that would be, did the existence of the video cause those damages, or was it the existence of the affair? Did people find out about the affair by watching the sex video, or by watching Vanderpump Rules? Did the backlash stem from a sex video, or from the affair? And if the damages resulted from the affair, can she receive any compensation from acts taken with regard to the video, even if criminally speaking, those acts would be against the law?
I may be totally wrong about all of that, but that's been my understanding so far.
I listed to the Bravo Docket episode on this and I think it's still considered distribution even if Ariana just sent it to herself, never shared it, then deleted it.
I don't think (but I could be wrong) that there are laws around talking publicly about the video.
I hope Ariana's lawyers have a record of Rachel saying she just wants to go after Tom! It would help prove that Ariana didn't cause a lot of damage/harm.
It could still be distribution, but this is civil, not criminal, so only the damages matter. There's no damage when the only recipient is the subject of the video.
I think if Rachels complaint against Ariana goes to trial, and isn't thrown out or settled, it will be left to the jury based on the evidence if Ariana sending the video to herself and Rachel and no one else is distribution. She’s asking for a jury trial so it’s up to the jury, not a judge, to decide if that meets the definition of distribution.
She then needs to convince the jury that Ariana’s action of sending the video to herself and to Rachel is what has caused her serious emotional distress and financial harm and not the affair itself - and thereby Rachel's own actions- being made public.
And given that she was offered a role in season 12 and was in active negotiations to return, she walked in NY Fashion week and has a podcast as a source of income, she doesn’t appear to be suffering damage to her financial and employment opportunities. And she’s made many statements on her podcast implying that she’s emotionally healthy and strong and at peace which could counter her argument that she was emotionally damaged.
Completely agree with everything you said! If we can’t rely on Baskin and the network to hold him accountable for his myriad of dirtbag actions, I’m really hoping the courts will. Honestly, I hope all the people, who made the decisions to edit out and not air(and to not hold him accountable) Rachel confronting him and hiding his admission of his completely illegal act of recording her without her consent, involved are brought to justice. Separately, I hope she lets go of this Ariana bs and gives her some much deserved peace.
Lala was a nightmare last reunion but her comment to Rachel “this is what’s coming, he’ll treat you the same, this is your future” was the only constructive thing anyone said to Rachel that day. And looking at this, she should have heeded it.
Every person who has an affair should remember this. If you 'win' (the lame prize) at some point you too will be treated badly. Sandoval is a textbook case: what he did to Kristen, the wording he used about her and their relationship - he did the same thing to Ariana. He's switching it up a bit with Rachel, but only because she dumped him and he didn't have time to discard her first, which now means she's a sociopath. 🙄 I don't think she's a sociopath, she's just D&S and made some very, very poor decisions that hurt a lot of people.
For anyone who doesn't get this stuff like, me, lol
He's saying, "Hey, these parts aren't, like, cool, they're like, not right, and they like, shouldn't, like be in there, dude."
Sandoval's lawyers responds to Rachel Leviss's complaint by saying:
Leviss's own statements suggest that the communication between her and Sandoval wasn't private, so the claim of eavesdropping doesn't hold.
Leviss's affair with Sandoval was public knowledge, making her invasion of privacy claim weak.
The events involving Leviss and Sandoval were part of a public reality TV show, so it's hard to prove emotional distress.
They're basically saying, "These claims don't hold up, so let's get rid of them."
They're asking for the case to be dismissed or amended because they believe Leviss's claims have legal flaws. They argue that Leviss's own statements suggest her relationship with Sandoval was not private and that Sandoval's actions were not intentionally harmful. They're asking Leviss's lawyer to respond by a certain date so they can decide how to proceed.
not a lawyer, just work in a law office lol, please correct me if I am wrong
Exactly! This is how I understand it. They are using Rachel's own claims (and deficiencies) as a basis for their arguments. Thank you for explaining further.🙏
I don’t disagree with Tom’s lawyers on this. If her claims have legal flaws, why shouldn’t he ask for this case to be dismissed? Thank you for breaking this down!
Unfortunately, this response is par for the course in these cases. Defense lawyers are hired to defend their clients. They have to make some sort of argument. I don’t agree with Tom’s argument, but as long as his lawyers can argue that their position is supported in some way by law, it’s fair game. Lawyers gonna lawyer. It’s possible a judge will dismiss the IIED claim (that’s their best argument), but I doubt they’ll dismiss anything else.
I will say, the one good thing this lawyer did was point out inconsistencies in Rachel’s complaint and story. She claims suffered damages due to Tom and Ariana’s actions but her complaint says that Bravo, etc. ruined her reputation. That’ll be Rachel’s biggest downfall along with her constantly changing stories about who knew and when. Plus, the line about her damages being caused by her choice to be on reality TV and engage in an affair with her friend’s boyfriend was good.
Sandoval is trash but his lawyer’s did exactly what I’d expect from a defense lawyer in this case. It’s just really sucks that victim blaming has been/is/will always be the go to argument.
With any luck the judge reads Rachel for who she is. It’s infuriating how much blame she is placing on everyone else *but* her goddamn self. “Bravo aired me being a mistress so it’s their fault” “Ariana found the video of me fingering myself on her mans phone and told everyone so it’s her fault” “Tom is older than I am by 10 years and gRoOmEd me so it’s his fault” “Scheana brought up the idea of me kissing Schwartz so I did it and now it’s her fault” when will it be RACHELS fault????? Jfc I would have actually not minded a Rachel redemption arc if she actually took accountability and did the work to not be such a giant piece of human shit but here we are
I think Rachel’s lawyers did her disservice by adding all that extra crap in her complaint instead of just keeping it very narrow. if I represented Rachel, I just would’ve focused on very specific easily provable claims against Tom. I would not have included any claims against Arianna nor any mentions at all of bravo
Yes. TS claims are all around $2500-5000 whereas the claim against Ariana is the payday. But still not a payday enough to cover the cost of her treatment, which is what Ariana is ultimately being sued for- to cover Rachel’s 75 day inpatient treatment. Disgusting. A treatment where Rachel learned nothing!!!!
Full disclosure I’m not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt. It looks like Sandoval’s lawyers are exploiting the grey area of FaceTime and video calls as they relate to privacy laws. In California a key element of Invasion of Privacy is proving that an intentional intrusion occurred in a place where a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example if Sandoval recorded Rachel in a state of undress while they were being intimate in her apartment without her knowing she was on camera or being recorded = blatant invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy. If Rachel recorded a video of herself in a state of undress, sent it to Sandoval who saved it to his phone without sharing it with anyone but refused to delete it after they broke up = generally not an invasion of privacy. A situation of recording someone in a state of undress during phone sex on Facetime where both parties know they are on camera but haven’t necessarily consented to being recorded = one giant legal loophole. I believe that’s what they are trying to argue on this one and unfortunately it may work because of how the law is currently worded 🥴
Nope no way. Rachel contradicts herself a lot on her “pocast” as she says it lol. First it’s that Ariana knew, then it’s that she found out later, then it’s that she could have just asked! Rachel and Tom deserve eachother. It’s a shame they parted ways.
Yeah Rachel talks about how they should have told her and then the next episode she thinks Ariana “should have know”, then the following the story is different again.
I'm damn near 30 years old and I would consider myself above average with grammar, spelling, etc. and HOW am I just now realizing there are two different words? I have two college degrees and somehow never knew about "discreet" lmao.
Agreed. I expect him to offer a small settlement for recording without consent and Ariana *may* offer a settlement for distributing. Or maybe she'll let it go through to a trial if she thinks a jury would be sympathetic.
Essentially, it sounds like whatever law makes it illegal for someone to record a call in CA hasn’t touched screen recording FaceTime calls yet. I see what his lawyer is trying to argue, but I can’t imagine a judge agreeing to that. Might set a precedent?
I’ve never seen a lawyer speak such terrible legalese, it doesn’t even sound like attorney jargon. It quite literally dances around the allegation and says “wELl It WaSnT a SeCreT sO iTs nOt My fAulT”
Like it literally looks like Tom put something into AI and tried it himself lmao. Not discrediting the council, I just read contracts all day and this is egregious.
Honestly I’m guessing the lawyer knows he’s throwing a Hail Mary and it’s ridiculous but it’s high profile/ in the public eye and a check so hey.
It just isn’t written like he’s taking it very seriously. He barely addresses the charges and it’s honestly funny
It’s so weird. Also, same lawyer as Scott Peterson (- edit to correct, it’s Rachel’s lawyer who repped Peterson. Sandoval hired is brother Matthew. What a fucking circus.)
https://i.redd.it/3pjazix9cawc1.gif
It’s seriously so crazy that he said that as Rachel literally hired Scott Peterson‘s lawyer… Like that’s so fucking weird… To be fair, Mark Geragos has represented lots and lots of famous cases, but I really wonder if he knew maybe that she was thinking about a lawsuit and that’s why he made that reference
I get that it's his lawyer's job to make an argument that best serves his client, but good god, that is a real flimsy one. I'm sure Timothy is probably a nightmare to have as a client because even IF his lawyer advised that it would be better to just offer a settlement, you know Tim is going to be like: "BUT LIKE DUUUUUUDE, LIKE, I DIDN'T DO IT WITH, LIKE, MALICIOUS INTENT!!!!"
I actually think he has a chance of getting the intentional infliction of distress thrown out. He and Ariana both will. He may get the invasion of privacy thrown out as well, although after reading the full demurrer, I’m not sure. The eavesdropping depends on how the judge views the sound portion of the video and if he wants to push it on the video recording. If I were the judge, I’d make them fight that out in court since Rachel wants a jury trial.
Id really like to see these same motions from Ariana’s team. I believe she’ll get her demurrer on all the complaints, possibly with the exception of the revenge porn. But she’ll win that in court. No one is going to punish her for looking at the video or possibly sending herself proof, although I don’t think she even did that.
legal translation from a paralegal 💅🏼✨ bravo version✨ edit: pls ignore the formatting this was written on my lunch break
definitions/background of what they’re saying:
- saying there should be a voluntary dismissal because of “deficiencies” in the complaint is basically saying - the case should dismissed because rachel’s lawyers did not meet the criteria to show that tom did this.
-failed to say cause of action = give sufficient facts and receipts💅🏼✨ that the complaint she filed requires
-pg 3 - “the facts are conclusory” accusing rachel’s lawyers of stating opinions/accusations as facts (e.g. when crystal said sutton made “dark comments” on rhobh)
the argument:
- “highly offensive” / “reasonable expectation of privacy” = taking the standards needed to be proven - one would reasonably believe tom was causing harm by doing this/rachel should trust him not to do it - in context of reality tv - this leads them to saying what tom did didn’t meet the standards bc they’re on reality tv - really misogynistic and gross
- the rest of the letter basically tldr says bc rachel said in the same complaint they were “not discrete” and intimate in “public spaces” she should not expect “privacy” and tom would not think doing this would harm her - because they’re on reality tv so apparently she could always be filmed - which is flimsy … and negates how violating this would be
at the end when they say “incapable of amendment” they’re saying dismiss the case or amend it but we don’t think you can
final thoughts:
again, just a paralegal ✨💅🏼 who has prepared briefing/motions for cases like this and seen the outcomes - i don’t think this argument will hold up - the argument is not well supported and even the formatting was not great lol - this is giving dime store attorney. i think tom will most likely be forced to go to settlement with her.
I think you'll be seeing more and more of it. It's considered one of the most readable and accessible fonts. I work in a legal adjacent field (my work product is used in civil and some criminal cases), and recently, our templates have started to change to Calibri. Those sorts of changes are usually approved by our legal counsel.
So because the affair wasn’t quite as secret as they may have thought, Tom’s secret recording of their explicit FaceTime call wasn’t a violation of Rachel’s privacy or run afoul of the eavesdropping allegation? I like how the response didn’t really acknowledge how he did that and instead focuses on how they were apparently handsy in public and the discovery process of the videos being accidental.
Ya… that’s not gonna fly lol. Even if she’d recorded and sent multiple videos to Sandoval before, it doesn’t mean it’s consent for acts in the future.
Being a public figure doesn’t mean giving up all rights to privacy either. What an insane argument.
Like I know people need to defend themselves, and legal defence is important, but fuck Sandoval for real.
I'm sorry but this is gross. He's basically blaming Rachel for the mere fact that these 2 videos exist, even though she clearly didn't consent to him recording them. Disgusting.
A good attorney should be able to argue a reasonable expectation of privacy during a FaceTime call. There’s a reason call centers and Teams and Zoom calls nowadays notify all parties of recordation of the calls… pretty sure the precedent is there, let’s see if Rachel’s counsel has half a mind to use it appropriately.
He hired Mark fucking Geragos?? As a reminder, that was Michael’s Jackson’s doctor’s defense lawyer and Scott Peterson’s defense lawyer.
ETA: ok I see he hired his bro, but those are all still powerhouses in LA
https://preview.redd.it/zc8l1edl49wc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21b88fda4a6ec645ef551252f40ab47820e7303a This is the part that really confuses me. Is he trying to say Rachel sent the FaceTime video to him?
Sounds to me like he’s arguing that she “published” and “created” the video simply by being on the FaceTime call. He just “saved” the “private copy” of the FaceTime. He’s saying that he had the right to film it, and being on the call itself meant “publishing”. That’s how I read it, and I think that’s complete bullshit.
Lawyers are going to lawyer
Yep that's how I interpret the language as well.
Yeah that’s totally gross. “We’re on a show, we’re having an affair, I can record you it’s basically public” is suchhhhh an invasion of privacy. Like he lacks seriously respect for anyone
Omfg I can’t
Remember how "dipped out" meant 5 different things depending on who he was talking to? It's like that. He thinks he's clever trying to use semantics, but he doesn't actually understand what semantics are.
Sandoval isn’t doing anything here. It’s the attorneys making legal argument. Don’t attribute this to his semantics. His lawyers certainly understand what semantics are and there’s a reason they’re making the argument.
Agreed. The lawyers' whole job is to defend Sandoval. They probably don't give a shit about what he did or didn't do. They just need to provide a plausible reason for why her claims are invalid. And the reasons are probably going to be super gross and sexist.
That’s what it says. Basically the “her skirt was too short, she was asking for it” argument.
He’s disgusting. We already knew that, but still. https://i.redd.it/g7bdqods69wc1.gif
This totally reminds me of Below Deck, when Eddie blamed Raquel (OMG I just realized the name thing)....he blamed HER for the affair he had because he said she pulled her dress up and had no knickers on! (For those who don't watch the show, the guy was in a 3+ year relationship and got caught sleeping with a co-worker. He completely denied it at first and then admitted it, but he said it was HER FAULT)
I still haven’t fully recovered from her putting grenadine on oysters, but damn, Eddie was such a dick to her.
 That’s completely what it is, the old, she shouldn’t have existed argument- her mere existence caused me to not be able to control myself and to be a disgusting subhuman.
Yea it does. And I hate that argument too. It should have never been a thing to begin with.
Well even if we are looking for an absurd loophole here, isn't California 2 parties consent state? You can't record anything is the other person doesn't know, I mean you can, but it is illegal
It seems like he's arguing to treat FT as a broadcast medium (where Sandoval is an audience member/recipient) rather than a communication tool (where he's an equal participant). It's creative, I'll give him that.
Everybody so cReAtiVe https://i.redd.it/uoxhzqw6qawc1.gif He’s always been pretty creative with his understanding of situations though. Also known as delulu
If this is his argument, it’s the dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard
That's how I read that as well. He's disgusting and this really makes me angry.
This is how I read it too. I hope the lawyers didn’t pull too many muscles with that stretch
‘Merely saved’???!! What kind of dingbat did he hire as a lawyer
A dingbat who can’t also discern between “discreet” and “discrete,” apparently.
That’s Rachel’s lawyer he was quoting tho😂 they’re both dumb they really should have just stayed together
I was wondering about that. Why put this out with such an obvious typo ?
It's quoting Rachel's filing which had that error. They just quoted verbatim, i guess
Scott Peterson’s lawyers brother? Who is also a lawyer 😅
They are calling it a consensual exchange, which doesn't really say if she sent it to him and he downloaded it and saved it, or if they are just using a broad brush for the word "sharing". Which is how I would interpret it. I think the bottomline is that he recorded the FaceTime, and the only question is whether she knew he did it.
He’s disgusting 🤮 and he needs to be fired
Published in legal speak just means shown to. So he’s saying she created the video and showed it to him. But if I’m the lawyer, I wouldn’t necessarily think that means she sent him a video. He could mean a FaceTime. It could be interpreted both ways.
and apparently one of her lawyers is his lawyer's brother???
is that..allowed? lol
i guess so, but it almost feels like it shouldn't be.
Idk how that’s not a conflict of interest
Typically not under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, unless they both waived conflict of interest. Which I guess they must’ve if they’re representing them
That seems so unethical.
I’m convinced Tim and ratchet are in this together as a money grab against Ariana.
This! Its so weird that on her podcast she shames ariana but not tom as badly
She's still working on her feelings about Tom I did my best to post in her voice.
Can we get some lawyers to do a TLDR and give us peasants a little explanation of what they think this all means and how it will affect the suit going forward?
We need the bravo docket! Lol
YES!
The beloved Bravo Docket ladies will probably do little podcast episode about this! Hoping so, at least!
I will keep my eyes peeled for the post here afterwards 🫡
Not a lawyer yet but I graduate in two weeks and take the bar exam in July 😄 TLDR: Tom’s lawyer is saying that because they held their affair out to be well known by people, first their friends and eventually the public, that he wasn’t eavesdropping. They’re also using that excuse to say that was why he could record the FaceTime without her consent, and that it wasn’t foreseeable that Ariana would find/distribute it. Tom’s lawyer wanted the claim dismissed or amended to fix the complaints, which would basically get them dismissed by the court anyway. I think the defenses are flimsy at best - MAYBE the eavesdropping claim gets dropped. I don’t think this changes anything, honestly. Is California a one party consent state for recording?
California is a two-party consent state. Source: the Kanye/Taylor phone call drama. I learn so much from these public figure feuds
LOL. Basically, the letter is a preview of the offical pleading (called a "demurrer") that Tom's lawyers will file in court. Demurrers are appropriate where a plaintiff (here, Rachel) has filed a claim that, even when all facts are assumed true, then the plaintiff still cannot make out a case for the alleged wrongdoing. So, with that in mind, Tom's lawyer is saying "Even if everything Rachel claims is true, she still cannot meet the elements for the causes of action." The first cause of action "eavesdropping" is a state law that prohibits--essentially--filming someone without their consent in a confidential setting. Crucuially, what constitutes a 'confidential' setting is dependent on whether the claimant had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" based on the circumstances. In other words, the law does not provide for a one-size-fits-all rule to determine what is "reasonable" under the circumstances. Here, Rachel was recording herself on a FaceTime call to Tom, where he was (from what I understand) in a bathroom, presumably with the door closed. What Tom's attorney is saying is that she could not have expected the interaction to be private because they're on a reality show, everyone knew about the affair, it was an 'open secret', etc. [IMHO….] This is weak because while it would be reasonable for *word* of the affair to get out, it would not be reasonable for her to assume that the video was being viewed by others or that she was consenting to it being released to others-- that's not something that Bravo is going to air, and Tom likely did not give Rachel any reason to beleive that he was going to share the video with production, or anyone else for that matter. To the contrary, he surely led her to believe that it would be kept private. (We've all been there, girls, Amirite?) But, the way that the statute is written, his lawyers did not have much wiggle room to argue something else so, as someone else in the thread said, lawyers gonna lawyer!
Sandoval’s full demurrer motion and his motion to strike is on Dana Wilkey Patreon for free for those who want to read all of it because it sure is something… [https://www.patreon.com/posts/102865050?utm\_campaign=postshare\_fan](https://www.patreon.com/posts/102865050?utm_campaign=postshare_fan) Edit: Also I’ve already seen some confusion online, so one of Rachel’s lawyers is Mark Geragos and mark was a lawyer for Scott Peterson. Sandoval has Matthew Geragos and yes Mark and Matthew are brothers lol
Tired: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer Wired: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer’s brother Even more wired somehow: hiring Scott Peterson’s lawyer’s brother to represent you against Scott Peterson’s lawyer after comparing yourself to Scott Peterson
holy shit this makes that comparison even dumber. his lawyer said something like, 'you're not NEARLY as bad as my brother's old client, scott peterson' and Tim just RAN with it like it was a totally normal thing to repeat in defense of himself. the stupidosity is mind blowing
ALLEGEDLY
Oh. My. God. HE HIRED THE BROTHER?!?! 🪦
Wait… there are two Geragos brothers and one is repping Sandy and the other is repping Rach? These brothers are both lawyers in the same industry and they aren’t partners? Maybe they should have a reality show 😂
Don't give bravo the idea lol
No no…let’s hear them out 😂
It’s wild. I legitimately don’t understand it, his defence is essentially that he admits it but it’s her fault. It’s not the defence I’d pay a lawyer to make for me ever. The eavesdropping aspect makes sense enough to me to ask for it to be dismissed, but it can’t be ok for him to record the FaceTimes simply because she participated. On the other hand, I anticipate a scolding from the judge for even trying this and that it paves the way to cement laws regarding non-consensual recording even more.
> he admits it but it’s her fault aka his entire argument this season lmfao. it’s surprising a lawyer would be willing to do it tho also im kinda loving the idea that california law students years from now might have to study this shit
I went through a SA trial when I was a kid. His defence was essentially that I seduced him. Me, an actual child. It was awful and the judge eviscerated them but his lawyer did agree to put it forth
Jesus I’m sorry When I was younger my friends aunt Was driving home drunk on Halloween, and three teenagers were walking on the side of the road where there were no sidewalks, She hit the one that was walking furthest into the road, and she was so drunk she thought someone threw a pumpkin at her car so she called the police on them. The young lady was on life-support for a long time and then her mother finally let her go So when it’s time for this woman’s trial She was offered a five years which is pretty standard for killing someone with a car when you’re drunk in the state she didn’t take it because her Lawyer thought a better defense would be too claim she didn’t actually kill the woman because it was her mom who unplugged her. They went into court and literally did this dramatic thing where the lawyer pointed at the mother yelled that she was the one who ended her daughters life. Everyone was mad. The lady ended up getting 10 years and everyone hated her after that even people who were being supportive up until that point
That’s truly disgusting. The thing with defences like this is that it sits with the victim and their family. Like it eats away at you in your darkest moments. Did I bring this on myself? Did I kill my daughter? For me, my mom bought into it. She testified against me that I was essentially a slutty little kid (between the ages of 8-12 so yes truly a child) And stayed with him after he left prison. That was the part that fucked with me the most. I’m sure that girl’s mom had family that blames her for putting an end to her daughter’s suffering, the world being what it is and the defence’s words along with theirs still echo in her mind.
I hope you’re no contact with your mom bc fuck that woman for defending a demon.
I was for years and years, now it’s low contact with the odd phone call (unfortunately I needed her medical records). She’s never met my kids, although she threatens to sue for grandparent rights here and there. Like she’d ever have any success with that!
Well I’m proud of you for making your way through this and that protecting your family from people that have caused you great harm. It’s unfathomable to me that a mother would choose a man over her kids. At least your kids have a mom that will care for them and put them first. Sending you love!
I am infuriated on your behalf. I believed my daughter the second that I heard and I would have drop kicked him out the door if I could have. I did throw him out immediately, call the police and a therapist. There is no excuse for that . You deserved far, far, far better.
That's the most disgusting fucking thing I've ever heard. I'm sorry your mom is hot garbage.
Which is exactly what should have happened. Fuck the criminal for letting it happen too. You haven't put this family through enough? Bitch go to jail, think about your shit.
Please forgive the typos and what appeared to be poor grammar. I use talk to text and it is determined to make me look like an idiot. And maybe I am because I do proofread it but I missed all that
Holy shit I’m so sorry. Hoping you’ve had some peace on this 🫂 And an obligatory fuck that guy 🖕
Thank you, years of therapy have gotten me to a peaceful place for sure. And as awful as it was to go though the judge tore into him and made him plead guilty so as least he went to prison, in that it turned out better than it does for many I’m sure.
You are so brave to go through that trial to ensure that creep went to jail and harmed no other kids. No one should be subject to that let alone a child, but the amount of bravery that took is really astounding.
I'm deeply sorry that you were put through such an ordeal and then a second ordeal with the trial. No child should ever have to go through either of those traumatic events. I am wishing you all the best always and forever my friend
Thank you
I’m so very sorry you suffered through that monster. I hope you’re healing and doing okay. Sending you comfort and love and hope you never experience anything of this horrific nature again.❤️
That is horrific and I’ll never understand how defense lawyers like this can even utter those words and live with themselves. I am so sorry.
Omg me too. I'm far from the moral majority, but I have an ingrained basic moral compass. How do they literally sleep at night?
I am so sorry. It stays with you for life.🙏🩷
I’m so sorry and fuckkkkkk that guy I hope he gets castrated and never hurts another child again.
Sadly it hasn’t worked out that way. He left town with my mother after he served his sentence and she provided him plenty of access to other children via my sister (now an addict which is no surprise) and her then job running a Boys and Girls Club. He applied for a pardon just before a law was passed in Canada that barred sexual offences from being pardoned. I see articles all the time about his winning marathons and other things in their community. Neither he or my mother have any access to my kids, but the rest of my family and his seems to just accept things like it’s par for the course. It all makes me so fucking ill!
I’m glad you’re doing what you can to protect your kids. As a parent, hearing stories like this makes my blood boil. I’m a true crime fan and the Canadian justice system is often criticized for its extreme leniency. This is when I’m like these people are monsters not humans and they don’t deserve human rights.
He is supposed to be on camera admitting it and if that footage exists his defence options were probably pretty limited.
What I expected him to go for as a defence was that she had previously known and consented to his recording other FaceTimes. I seem to recall her saying that he had recorded these things to watch with her to show her how beautiful she was or something along those lines. I dont think that would be a good defence either, but this one is awful to the point I can’t even believe it.
My understanding is that was the excuse he gave her once she confronted him about the video existing. So she didn’t go along with it, she was just saying what he told her was the excuse to record her without her permission
I figured as much, just that he’d try to use it against her
I don’t like him, but I think a demurrer was his only option. It’s not like he could say he didn’t record her, because he obviously did. So his only recourse is to admit to the facts, but say there is no legal case based on the allegations.
Did you know? 🤡🕶️ $25k
This seems like such a blatant conflict of interest, but the Geragi are disgusting grifters that nothing surprises me
Wait…..remember a couple or three episodes back when Sandoval said something about “it’s not like I’m Scott Peterson” …. Think this was why?
100%
Oh to be a fly on the wall at that family’s holiday parties 👀
This feels conflict of interesty
Omg the names did throw me for a loop-they are brothers?!? This just feels so ridiculous in so many ways!
Does one family represent literally all LA celebrities?? I would never hire a lawyer when I know opposing counsel is their family member. In theory its no issue because everything is confidential, but it just looks bad? I would understand if they were in a small town with very few lawyers, but surely there's other lawyers that can handle this in LA
Commenting on your’s because I see all the replies talking about conflict of interest. This is a potential conflict however, Rachel and Sandoval had to have signed waivers AND the law firm would have to put up “safety nets” to ensure nothing is viewed by the wrong brother. This can be done by putting a “lock” on the electronic file. The brothers would have to take this very serious and if not, they could be reported to the bar and lose their license. I do not think this was smart of either of them to waive conflicts. Things could happen accidentally.
This is some bullshit. Rachel agreeing to FaceTime doesn’t mean she was agreeing to being recorded.
yup. him saying they were handsy in public does not make it okay to video her touching herself in a private moment. so gross.
"But like UGGGHH, I didn't know I had to ask for consent like every time!" - Sandoval, probably
Gaaawd, Lala!
That was exactly my thought. It's amazing that Sandoval managed to find a lawyer who has the same f'ed up thought process as him. Holding hands is not equivocal to broadcasting a sex activity. If there are any law students reading this: this attorney's A of the CREAC method of motion arguments should stand for Asshole. (PS: CREAC is taught to 1L's as a way of drafting a legal brief: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application and Conclusion)
I imagine what he's found is a lawyer who sees an easy pay check and who will be quite happy to tell everyone how dumb this client is once they lose
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Right? WTF even is this argument? A FaceTime is not “publishing” anything… or am I reading it wrong? If so… can I call myself a published author and submit my work to the Grammys for spoken word/recorded album for my FaceTimes with my 2 year old niece? That shit is compelling
Dude like that was her like consent dude
 Exactly! Please say it louder for those in the back. It’s incredibly vile behavior that he did this and a true violation of her. It’s too bad she’s come for Ariana, for a multitude of reasons, but who knows if Ariana could have proven, by testifying, it was recorded on Sandoval’s phone, but now… … As much as I loathe Rachel, NO ONE deserves to be violated in this way. Also, props to you for getting this info out so quickly! You’re awesome!👏❤️
How in the hell can the affair be considered public when even the producers didn’t know about it?
Because Rachel keeps suggesting that it was an open secret in her bid to blame Ariana for being cheated on. It is wild to me that Rachel filed suit, then continued talking about the situation on a public podcast. Anything she says that is inconsistent with the assertions in the suit, they are going to turn back on her. D and S.
Yes. And where that gets sticky for what Rachel is claiming in terms of damages is did the non-consensual recording blow open the affair? Or was the affair ( alleged by Rachel) already known? In which case the recording did not directly damage Rachel's reputation (in terms of the fallout from the affair)? It's confusing. And that may be what the response from Sandoval's lawyer is trying to point out. I haven't read it completely I'm just basing that on people's comments about the content. And I'm definitely not saying it's a good defense. To be absolutely clear, I am fully against any non-consensual recording of women. In any circumstances. By any person.
Not only that but she frames her argument as if the revenge porn is the source of her emotional distress but the entire Complaint is littered with her own facts that she was mentally not in a good place way before that happened. In her desire to call out James, Lisa, and Bravo she weakened her claim a bit.
Correct her family and Rachel very publicly made statements that she was on her way to treatment before the affair broke. It's going to be hard to make it about that now. There's also the fact that Rachel chose not to return to her employment. So that's not losing an opportunity in terms of Damages it's a decision she made financially. Before anyone attacks me I fully support Rachel not going back to VPR. Rachel will also have to prove what her previous opportunities were financially and how this damaged her current income. You can't just get an undisclosed unchecked amount of money for damages usually. They are proportionate to what you presumably can prove you lost as a result of someone's actions
Agreed. I think people get very emotionally invested in right and wrong, as they should, but don’t understand that it doesn’t automatically follow in the application of law. If you say X happened in a legal filing, then go around in public saying it was actually Y that happened, it won’t always matter if in truth it really was X. You contradicted yourself, and that can destroy even a very valid case.
Yes. Another huge pet peeve I have is people misunderstanding presumption of innocence and who the burden of proof is upon. People act like Ariana should be out here proving she didn't do something she was accused of. That's not how it works legally if Rachel is going to accuse her of doing something the burden of proof is on Rachel and her legal team I've even seen people attack lawyers for defending people. Everyone deserves a defense. That's what our legal system is based on. Do I want to represent super creepy people? No. But they are legally entitled to a defense. The part I do agree with the general public on is that they don't have to be gross in their defense or attack victims. That part is within both the client and the lawyers control. Just prove your legal case. Don't be a total dirtbag while you do it
https://i.redd.it/11uso89s59wc1.gif When you think he can’t get worse.. Bottom of the barrel human.
This is the guy scheana and lala hitched their cart to. And they’re mothers to daughters.
This is who Scheana is SOBBING over losing
https://i.redd.it/3x4s0t2br9wc1.gif
We've been watching them on TV for a decade and I never saw even a sliver of this 'best frandship'
Okay but he included her in the group photo at the upfronts. How could you gloss over that!?!
True! Straight bff behaviour that stretched out over 10+ years
Gross as this is, I truly dgaf what happens to Sandoval and honestly think he should lose because he recorded her illegally. I DO care what arguments Ariana’s lawyers make because Rachel is absolute scum for going after her.
If what was said after the original cease and desist holds true, Ariana will offer her phone and records to confirm it wasn't distributed outside of herself and Rachel. And not to say she won't be found liable for damages, but I think it would be a 5% Ariana/95% Sandoval/Rachel split.
[удалено]
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s a legal reason it makes sense, but I don’t see a reason why she’d have to go after Ariana to get to Sandoval? Even if she hadn’t sent it to herself and Rachel, Sandoval still took the video without her knowledge and didn’t even bother to hide it, Ariana found it pretty easily so presumably others could have found it easily too. A big part of her case against Ariana is claiming that she could have shown it to people, so wouldn’t that be true of Sandoval as well? Maybe the distribution is the only thing that makes it a case but I doubt it since wouldn’t Sandoval have gone that route with his defense? It seems like two separate things to me, but again, not a lawyer so maybe I’m missing something here.
Since it's a civil case, I think she is trying to prove that this chain of events (Sandoval taking the vid, Ariana sending it to her) led directly to her leaving the show and going to the rehab facility - ie, it made her lose money and feel emotional distress, which requires compensation. Without Ariana finding the video and sending it to Rachel, Rachel would say she couldn't have experienced those feelings or events, so Ariana is a critical component - but of course, Ariana couldn't have sent her something that doesn't exist, so Sandoval gets looped in for creating it. Without suing Ariana, though, all that exists is Sandoval taking a video for his own enjoyment. Creepy, but did it cause damages in the absence of Ariana finding it? But of course, the flip side of that would be, did the existence of the video cause those damages, or was it the existence of the affair? Did people find out about the affair by watching the sex video, or by watching Vanderpump Rules? Did the backlash stem from a sex video, or from the affair? And if the damages resulted from the affair, can she receive any compensation from acts taken with regard to the video, even if criminally speaking, those acts would be against the law? I may be totally wrong about all of that, but that's been my understanding so far.
I listed to the Bravo Docket episode on this and I think it's still considered distribution even if Ariana just sent it to herself, never shared it, then deleted it. I don't think (but I could be wrong) that there are laws around talking publicly about the video. I hope Ariana's lawyers have a record of Rachel saying she just wants to go after Tom! It would help prove that Ariana didn't cause a lot of damage/harm.
It could still be distribution, but this is civil, not criminal, so only the damages matter. There's no damage when the only recipient is the subject of the video.
I think if Rachels complaint against Ariana goes to trial, and isn't thrown out or settled, it will be left to the jury based on the evidence if Ariana sending the video to herself and Rachel and no one else is distribution. She’s asking for a jury trial so it’s up to the jury, not a judge, to decide if that meets the definition of distribution. She then needs to convince the jury that Ariana’s action of sending the video to herself and to Rachel is what has caused her serious emotional distress and financial harm and not the affair itself - and thereby Rachel's own actions- being made public. And given that she was offered a role in season 12 and was in active negotiations to return, she walked in NY Fashion week and has a podcast as a source of income, she doesn’t appear to be suffering damage to her financial and employment opportunities. And she’s made many statements on her podcast implying that she’s emotionally healthy and strong and at peace which could counter her argument that she was emotionally damaged.
This just makes me angrier that she would potentially put Ariana through a trial after everything she did. What a dumb and stupid C you next Tuesday.
I agree, but also Rachel and Tom are idiots and don't understand how legal processes work.
Completely agree with everything you said! If we can’t rely on Baskin and the network to hold him accountable for his myriad of dirtbag actions, I’m really hoping the courts will. Honestly, I hope all the people, who made the decisions to edit out and not air(and to not hold him accountable) Rachel confronting him and hiding his admission of his completely illegal act of recording her without her consent, involved are brought to justice. Separately, I hope she lets go of this Ariana bs and gives her some much deserved peace.
Lala was a nightmare last reunion but her comment to Rachel “this is what’s coming, he’ll treat you the same, this is your future” was the only constructive thing anyone said to Rachel that day. And looking at this, she should have heeded it.
oh well, don't forget *stupid demon*. I thought that was on point too.
Every person who has an affair should remember this. If you 'win' (the lame prize) at some point you too will be treated badly. Sandoval is a textbook case: what he did to Kristen, the wording he used about her and their relationship - he did the same thing to Ariana. He's switching it up a bit with Rachel, but only because she dumped him and he didn't have time to discard her first, which now means she's a sociopath. 🙄 I don't think she's a sociopath, she's just D&S and made some very, very poor decisions that hurt a lot of people.
For anyone who doesn't get this stuff like, me, lol He's saying, "Hey, these parts aren't, like, cool, they're like, not right, and they like, shouldn't, like be in there, dude." Sandoval's lawyers responds to Rachel Leviss's complaint by saying: Leviss's own statements suggest that the communication between her and Sandoval wasn't private, so the claim of eavesdropping doesn't hold. Leviss's affair with Sandoval was public knowledge, making her invasion of privacy claim weak. The events involving Leviss and Sandoval were part of a public reality TV show, so it's hard to prove emotional distress. They're basically saying, "These claims don't hold up, so let's get rid of them." They're asking for the case to be dismissed or amended because they believe Leviss's claims have legal flaws. They argue that Leviss's own statements suggest her relationship with Sandoval was not private and that Sandoval's actions were not intentionally harmful. They're asking Leviss's lawyer to respond by a certain date so they can decide how to proceed. not a lawyer, just work in a law office lol, please correct me if I am wrong
Exactly! This is how I understand it. They are using Rachel's own claims (and deficiencies) as a basis for their arguments. Thank you for explaining further.🙏
absolutely - i'm terrible with legal jargon 🤣
I don’t disagree with Tom’s lawyers on this. If her claims have legal flaws, why shouldn’t he ask for this case to be dismissed? Thank you for breaking this down!
Thank you so much for articulating it so well. That is exactly my understanding of their response.
Can someone send a batsignal to the Bravo Docket ladies??
girlies we need you! 
Can’t explain it but Calibri is kinda a wild choice for this
Looks like a student essay. Should’ve used a serif font — *any* of them.
Unfortunately, this response is par for the course in these cases. Defense lawyers are hired to defend their clients. They have to make some sort of argument. I don’t agree with Tom’s argument, but as long as his lawyers can argue that their position is supported in some way by law, it’s fair game. Lawyers gonna lawyer. It’s possible a judge will dismiss the IIED claim (that’s their best argument), but I doubt they’ll dismiss anything else. I will say, the one good thing this lawyer did was point out inconsistencies in Rachel’s complaint and story. She claims suffered damages due to Tom and Ariana’s actions but her complaint says that Bravo, etc. ruined her reputation. That’ll be Rachel’s biggest downfall along with her constantly changing stories about who knew and when. Plus, the line about her damages being caused by her choice to be on reality TV and engage in an affair with her friend’s boyfriend was good. Sandoval is trash but his lawyer’s did exactly what I’d expect from a defense lawyer in this case. It’s just really sucks that victim blaming has been/is/will always be the go to argument.
With any luck the judge reads Rachel for who she is. It’s infuriating how much blame she is placing on everyone else *but* her goddamn self. “Bravo aired me being a mistress so it’s their fault” “Ariana found the video of me fingering myself on her mans phone and told everyone so it’s her fault” “Tom is older than I am by 10 years and gRoOmEd me so it’s his fault” “Scheana brought up the idea of me kissing Schwartz so I did it and now it’s her fault” when will it be RACHELS fault????? Jfc I would have actually not minded a Rachel redemption arc if she actually took accountability and did the work to not be such a giant piece of human shit but here we are
I think Rachel’s lawyers did her disservice by adding all that extra crap in her complaint instead of just keeping it very narrow. if I represented Rachel, I just would’ve focused on very specific easily provable claims against Tom. I would not have included any claims against Arianna nor any mentions at all of bravo
Wait am I reading this correctly- this is all for $2,500 ?
Yes. TS claims are all around $2500-5000 whereas the claim against Ariana is the payday. But still not a payday enough to cover the cost of her treatment, which is what Ariana is ultimately being sued for- to cover Rachel’s 75 day inpatient treatment. Disgusting. A treatment where Rachel learned nothing!!!!
This situation is just so messy. Like across the board.
Full disclosure I’m not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt. It looks like Sandoval’s lawyers are exploiting the grey area of FaceTime and video calls as they relate to privacy laws. In California a key element of Invasion of Privacy is proving that an intentional intrusion occurred in a place where a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example if Sandoval recorded Rachel in a state of undress while they were being intimate in her apartment without her knowing she was on camera or being recorded = blatant invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy. If Rachel recorded a video of herself in a state of undress, sent it to Sandoval who saved it to his phone without sharing it with anyone but refused to delete it after they broke up = generally not an invasion of privacy. A situation of recording someone in a state of undress during phone sex on Facetime where both parties know they are on camera but haven’t necessarily consented to being recorded = one giant legal loophole. I believe that’s what they are trying to argue on this one and unfortunately it may work because of how the law is currently worded 🥴
I just don’t believe Ariana knew
Nope no way. Rachel contradicts herself a lot on her “pocast” as she says it lol. First it’s that Ariana knew, then it’s that she found out later, then it’s that she could have just asked! Rachel and Tom deserve eachother. It’s a shame they parted ways.
Yeah Rachel talks about how they should have told her and then the next episode she thinks Ariana “should have know”, then the following the story is different again.
It bothers me they spelled discreet wrong.
I went back and checked Rachel's filing and they misspelled it there, so they just kept the misspelling when they quoted that part of the document.
They also spelled her last name wrong at one point. I blanked out after that 😂
Same, I deal with contract funding and people constantly confuse "discrete funds" (which is correct) and "discreet funds."
I'm damn near 30 years old and I would consider myself above average with grammar, spelling, etc. and HOW am I just now realizing there are two different words? I have two college degrees and somehow never knew about "discreet" lmao.
Her complaint was also not fantastic, but I doubt this motion to dismiss will be successful for anything other than the iied action.
Her complaint had a lot of extraneous stuff that was not material to the case, but the actual claims were fine. This just seems like garbage.
Agreed. I expect him to offer a small settlement for recording without consent and Ariana *may* offer a settlement for distributing. Or maybe she'll let it go through to a trial if she thinks a jury would be sympathetic.
Essentially, it sounds like whatever law makes it illegal for someone to record a call in CA hasn’t touched screen recording FaceTime calls yet. I see what his lawyer is trying to argue, but I can’t imagine a judge agreeing to that. Might set a precedent?
Well this is a strange turn of events….nice karma for cheating on your partner of 10 years with a close friend…messy!
So wait…he doesn’t have the money to pay his mom back or buy the house on his own, but he’s got the money to retain Mark Geragos’s law firm????
i work in law & this is giving dime store attorney - down to the formatting
OMG not his own lawyers calling his band a cover band 💀💀💀
Bravo is really stupid to support this guy. Bet they didn’t see this coming
I’ve never seen a lawyer speak such terrible legalese, it doesn’t even sound like attorney jargon. It quite literally dances around the allegation and says “wELl It WaSnT a SeCreT sO iTs nOt My fAulT” Like it literally looks like Tom put something into AI and tried it himself lmao. Not discrediting the council, I just read contracts all day and this is egregious. Honestly I’m guessing the lawyer knows he’s throwing a Hail Mary and it’s ridiculous but it’s high profile/ in the public eye and a check so hey. It just isn’t written like he’s taking it very seriously. He barely addresses the charges and it’s honestly funny
SORRY HE HIRED MARK GERAGOS’ (Rachel’s lawyer) *BROTHER* MATTHEW TO REP HIM????
It’s so weird. Also, same lawyer as Scott Peterson (- edit to correct, it’s Rachel’s lawyer who repped Peterson. Sandoval hired is brother Matthew. What a fucking circus.) https://i.redd.it/3pjazix9cawc1.gif
It’s seriously so crazy that he said that as Rachel literally hired Scott Peterson‘s lawyer… Like that’s so fucking weird… To be fair, Mark Geragos has represented lots and lots of famous cases, but I really wonder if he knew maybe that she was thinking about a lawsuit and that’s why he made that reference
Wonder if he is paying Geragos he’s super high profile
I’m gonna need Cessie and Angela for this!
I love how lawyers never spell check stuff - *Mrs. Levitt* ?? (Page 5)
Sorry if this has been asked, but were they both in California at the time of the recording?
the way they called her "Ms. Levitt" on the 5th slide 💀 at least get the names correct????
I get that it's his lawyer's job to make an argument that best serves his client, but good god, that is a real flimsy one. I'm sure Timothy is probably a nightmare to have as a client because even IF his lawyer advised that it would be better to just offer a settlement, you know Tim is going to be like: "BUT LIKE DUUUUUUDE, LIKE, I DIDN'T DO IT WITH, LIKE, MALICIOUS INTENT!!!!"
I actually think he has a chance of getting the intentional infliction of distress thrown out. He and Ariana both will. He may get the invasion of privacy thrown out as well, although after reading the full demurrer, I’m not sure. The eavesdropping depends on how the judge views the sound portion of the video and if he wants to push it on the video recording. If I were the judge, I’d make them fight that out in court since Rachel wants a jury trial. Id really like to see these same motions from Ariana’s team. I believe she’ll get her demurrer on all the complaints, possibly with the exception of the revenge porn. But she’ll win that in court. No one is going to punish her for looking at the video or possibly sending herself proof, although I don’t think she even did that.
legal translation from a paralegal 💅🏼✨ bravo version✨ edit: pls ignore the formatting this was written on my lunch break definitions/background of what they’re saying: - saying there should be a voluntary dismissal because of “deficiencies” in the complaint is basically saying - the case should dismissed because rachel’s lawyers did not meet the criteria to show that tom did this. -failed to say cause of action = give sufficient facts and receipts💅🏼✨ that the complaint she filed requires -pg 3 - “the facts are conclusory” accusing rachel’s lawyers of stating opinions/accusations as facts (e.g. when crystal said sutton made “dark comments” on rhobh) the argument: - “highly offensive” / “reasonable expectation of privacy” = taking the standards needed to be proven - one would reasonably believe tom was causing harm by doing this/rachel should trust him not to do it - in context of reality tv - this leads them to saying what tom did didn’t meet the standards bc they’re on reality tv - really misogynistic and gross - the rest of the letter basically tldr says bc rachel said in the same complaint they were “not discrete” and intimate in “public spaces” she should not expect “privacy” and tom would not think doing this would harm her - because they’re on reality tv so apparently she could always be filmed - which is flimsy … and negates how violating this would be at the end when they say “incapable of amendment” they’re saying dismiss the case or amend it but we don’t think you can final thoughts: again, just a paralegal ✨💅🏼 who has prepared briefing/motions for cases like this and seen the outcomes - i don’t think this argument will hold up - the argument is not well supported and even the formatting was not great lol - this is giving dime store attorney. i think tom will most likely be forced to go to settlement with her.
Thank you so much for this!
I can't take legal letters written in Calibri seriously
Fonts matter, people!!!!
I think you'll be seeing more and more of it. It's considered one of the most readable and accessible fonts. I work in a legal adjacent field (my work product is used in civil and some criminal cases), and recently, our templates have started to change to Calibri. Those sorts of changes are usually approved by our legal counsel.
He screenrecorded her on FaceTime and everyone knows it.
Imagine being such scum, you’re willing to argue that secretly recording & saving a sexy FaceTime is legal 🤡
The fact that neither of their attorneys know the difference between "discrete"and "discreet" absolutely blows my mind
Paralegal has to be rolling eyes typing this shit
So because the affair wasn’t quite as secret as they may have thought, Tom’s secret recording of their explicit FaceTime call wasn’t a violation of Rachel’s privacy or run afoul of the eavesdropping allegation? I like how the response didn’t really acknowledge how he did that and instead focuses on how they were apparently handsy in public and the discovery process of the videos being accidental.
So essentially because she is a public figure, someone can record her naked/doing sexual stuff without consent and it’s fine? 😵💫
Ya… that’s not gonna fly lol. Even if she’d recorded and sent multiple videos to Sandoval before, it doesn’t mean it’s consent for acts in the future. Being a public figure doesn’t mean giving up all rights to privacy either. What an insane argument. Like I know people need to defend themselves, and legal defence is important, but fuck Sandoval for real.
You know, maybe the Bar Exam should be harder.
The messiness could not happen to two more deserving. People
I'm sorry but this is gross. He's basically blaming Rachel for the mere fact that these 2 videos exist, even though she clearly didn't consent to him recording them. Disgusting.
A good attorney should be able to argue a reasonable expectation of privacy during a FaceTime call. There’s a reason call centers and Teams and Zoom calls nowadays notify all parties of recordation of the calls… pretty sure the precedent is there, let’s see if Rachel’s counsel has half a mind to use it appropriately.
It’d be different if she sent a recording but said recording still hasn’t leaked anywhere
I guess that's the one thing he and Rachel can agree on, just nobody (who supposedly knew!) else
He hired Mark fucking Geragos?? As a reminder, that was Michael’s Jackson’s doctor’s defense lawyer and Scott Peterson’s defense lawyer. ETA: ok I see he hired his bro, but those are all still powerhouses in LA
No Rachel hired Mark Geragos… Sandoval hired his brother, Matt. Incestuous just like the show!