.

: lU--~6J738

SBERRITA SMi,LLFY, as the natural parent and guardian of C,;;;., a minor.

Plaintiff,

REALITY KINGS, LLC; RK NETMEDIA, INC.; and C2 HOSTING, LLC,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT RK NETMEDIA INC.'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF1S INTERROGATORIES

RK Netmedia, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby responds to Plaintiff Sherrita Smalley's

("Plaintiff') interrogatories as limited by the Court's ruling at the March 16, 2011, hearing on

Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Any limitation the Court placed on the individual

interrogatory is listed within brackets after the interrogatory. Defendant answers as follows:

General Objections

1. Defendant objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or .

any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.

D,;(cnddlll, 'OJ responding to the Interrogatories, does not concede the relevance

of any Interrogatory and expressly reserve the right to object to the introduction in evidence of

any answer on relevance grounds or any other grounds provided for in the Florida Rules.

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 ' Main: 305.403,8788 . Fax: 305.403,8789

to lead to the

f

I.L

specific nor related to the matter in controversy.

1, Defendant objects to PL intiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they

information supporting a legal conclusion, and any answer, reSpODS(~) objection, or production by

Defendant iSl,vithout prejudice to Defendant's continuing objection to such improper

characterization.

5. Defendant reserves the right to: (i) supplement, amend, or correct all or any part

of the answers provided herein; and (ii) object to the admissibility of all or any part of the

answers or any information contained herein.

6. Defendant's general objections are incorporated into each of its answers herein,

Without waiver of these general objections, Defendant responds specifically to each

Interrogatory in the following section,

Answers

1. What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories, and, if applicable, the person's official position or relationship with the party to whom the interrogatories are directed?

ANSWER: Maurico Botero, COO, c/o Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, FL 33131.

4. Provide the basis and/or grounds for any denial asserted in Defendant's Response/Answers to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions dated January 31, 2011.

ANSWER: Without waiving and subject to the general objections listed above, the basis or

_] L' ,- rl . 1 • "i:' 1 • , '"' .' '-, . Id'" -t

BJ011J:l.f18 [l'Il' trl~ ,>,,:r_~2>,::: in v';i';;IlG,lill ;:; ('-,';;:')1-'0ll::;e::; to the Kequest lor Ii 1111331011 are stated as

follows:

Request #4: RK does not produce any content for dissemination via the world wide web.

Request #9: RK does not produce any content.

2

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 3313·1 . Main: 305.403.8788 ' Fax: 305.403.8789

--"est #1;·

/j_~i;T to the rime actors/actresses) . producer, the producer delivered to -RK_ [he age verification compliance information with the subject video. The producer then sent a signed 18 U,S,[' § 2257 compliance statement and .a packet containing the relevant identification-s-including color copie: of scans of the Nevada learner's permit and [he social-secuniy print 011t--tO RK with a copy of the subject video, Rl( reviewed the packet and determined that the federal law had been compliedwith and that the actress in the video was the actress in the compliance packet Then, on September 7, 2011, after RK's customer support provider received an anonymous call alleging the subject actress to be underage, RK's Records Department called the Nevada DMV and confirmed the subject identification was issued by the State of Nevada and that all information on the identification was the same information the Nevada DMV had in its records, Although the Nevada DMV permit constitutes the only identification required by 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (verified above and beyond the requirements of 18 U.S,c' § 2257 by both an LD. scanner and the Nevada DMV itself), RK has a policy that producers must obtain a second form of identification, For this reason, the subject actress provided the third-party producer with the social-security printout, which was previously attached to RK's Motion to Dismiss. Although the anonymous call received by RK's support people and the Complaint raise questions that the subject performer may not have been the nineteen-year-old woman the valid Nevada identification showed her to be (notwithstanding the fact that the Nevada DMV confirmed the validity of the Nevada identification and the photograph on the identification is clearly the subject actress), as of the date hereof, RK has never seen any identification showing the actress to be anyone other than a woman named Tyler Chanel Evans who was nineteen years of age at the time the subject video was produced.

Request #12: The identification provided to the producer by the actress was shown to be valid prior to the time of production (through the third-party producer's use of an I.D. scanner which it uses for all actors/actresses). In accordance with regular age verification procedures between RK and the producer, the producer delivered to RK the age verification compliance information with the subject video. Then, the producer sent a signed 18 U.S.C. § 2257 compliance statement and a packet containing the relevant identification-including color copies of scans of the Nevada learner's permit and the social-security print out-to RK with a copy of the subject video. RK reviewed the information provided and determined that the federal law had been complied with. Then, on September 7,2011, after RK's customer support provider received an anonymous call alleging the subject actress to be underage, an employee iri RK's Records Department called the Nevada DMV and confirmed the subject identification was issued by the State of Nevada and that all information on the identification was the same information the Nevada DMV had in its records. Although the Nevada DMV leamer's permit constitutes the only identification required oy 18 U.S.c. § 22,:)/ (verified above and beyond the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §22S7 by both an LD. scanner and the Nevada DMV itself), RK has a policy that producers must obtain a second form of identification. For this reason, the subject actress provided the producer with the socialsecurity printout, which was previously attached to RK's Motion to Dismiss. Although the anonymous call received by RK's support people and the Complaint raise questions that the subject performer may not have been the nineteen-year-old woman the valid Nevada identification showed her to be (although the Nevada DMV confirmed the validity of the Nevada

3

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403,8788 ' Fax: 305.403.8789

'named Tyler Chanel produced,

ect

I" JII" r- 1 . b' l' . .. ,. 1 'I" 1

,eqnc:;t tT,l':: "Luter maxing a reasonaoic mquiry i.uo Its records, me u.nng ontauung P JOU(

.. -' ..

verification from the Nevada Lcpar.ment of Motor Vehicles of the validity of the identificatior

presented by the actress in question and even though the photograph on the Identification i" clearly the subject actress, in light of the anonymous telephone call received by RK's support team and Plaintiff s Complaint, RK cannot be sure of the true identity of the actress identified in this Request; however, as of the date hereof, the only state or federally issued documentation RK has seen shows the subject actress to have been a woman named Tyler Chanel Evans who was nineteen years of age at the time the subject video was produced.

Request #15: For the reasons stated in its motion to dismiss, including obtaining documentation in full compliance with and in fact exceeding the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, RK has not violated the statute listed in this Request.

6. Is Defendant by and through its employees and/or agents, aware of any statement or remark made by any of its agents or employees or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each person who made the statement or statements, the name and address of each person who heard it, and the date, time, place, and substance of each statement. [The Court has limited this to age verification process only].

ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is protected by the work product doctrine in that it encompasses information created in anticipation of litigation and/or which pertain to the mental impressions and thoughts, legal theories and strategies and/or advice of Defendant's counsel. Moreover, the question as written is ambiguous in several respects including the lack of a definition of the terms "employees" and/or "agents". Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections listed above and without creating an admission that any of the persons listed below are employees or agents of Defendant,

-July 23, 2010, John O'Byrne emailed Ashley Billington advising that Mr. O'Byme's client, "Stage Name: Bieyanka", was available to participate in adult productions as an actress. In his communication, Mr. O'Byrne advised that "Bieyanka's" date of-birth was 11/19/90.

-August 13,2010, the subject actress (alleged to be C.S.) made representations to Joe Gonzalez and Joshua Brown that her date of birth was November 19, 1990, and presented her Nevada DMV identification containing her photograph and purported name and date of birth. Although the validly issued Nevada DMV identification complied in all respects with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the actress and her agent, Mr. O'Byme, were advised of a self-imposed company policy to require a second form of identification. Thereupon, the actress and Mr. O'Byrne left the filming location and returned later the same day with the Social Security Administration printout previously attached to RIC's Motion to Dismiss.

4

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403.8788' Fax: 305.403.8789

Alvarez contacted and spoke Stare:

Vehicles, The 'Nevada DMV confirmed that the identification presented by the actress

actress' photograph was authentic and issued by the State of Nevada and that the appearing on the identification presented by the subject actress was identical to the information in U1C Nevada DM1' s database and had therefore not been altered in any respect.

-Septerubcr 8, 2010, legal counsel for RK contacted the FBI's Miami office to report the anonymous tip received by support staff for RK. Following the conversation, at approximately 9:59 am, legal counsel emailed the FBI a scan of both the Nevada state issued photo identification and the Social Security Administration printout.

7. State the name and address of every person known to Defendant, its agents or attorneys who has knowledge about or possession or custody or control of any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, video tape, or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was taken or prepared. [The Court has limited this to age verification process only].

ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is protected by the work product doctrine in that it encompasses information created in anticipation of litigation and/or which pertain to the mental impressions and thoughts, legal theories and strategies and/or advice of Defendant's counsel. Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections listed above,

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16320 NW 2nd Avenue , North Miami Beach, FL 33169

Jose Tavarez, Records Custodian fulfilling the obligations mandated by 18 U.S.c. § 2257, and Marlene Alvarez, Records Department, both c/o Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, FL 33131.

Upon information and belief, and based upon information provided to RK by the producer, the following people may also have knowledge:

Joshua Brown, 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Compliance 1031 N Miami Beach Blvd

North Miami Beh, FL 33162

Joe Gonzalez, 18 U.S.C. 92257 Compliance 1031 N Miami Beach Blvd

North Miami Bch, FL 33162

John O'Byrne, Agent for actress Address unknown.

5

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

20 I South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403.8788 . Fax: 305.403.8789

The actress identified tr the producer as:

Tyler Chanel Evans

70 1 Aspen Peak Loop, Apartment 231 <I Hendcrson.Nv 89011",]885

Ashley Billington

1031 N Miami Beach Blvd North Miami Bch, FL 33162

8. Provide the name and address of the actor who engaged in sexual activities with the minor plaintiff in explicit video [sic] referenced in the Complaint.

ANSWER: Objection. The information requested is not relevant to the allegations in the complaint. This interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and that is not related to the matter in controversy. The payment to or identity of any male actor is not relevant to the subject matter in the complaint, namely, whether the video was made and disseminated containing C.S. and whether Defendant had knowledge of C.S. 's age when the film was made. Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections listed above,

Upon information and belief, and based upon information provided to RK by the producer, the following people may also have knowledge:

Fernando Marrero 1800 SW 128th Terrace Miramar, FL 33027

9. Provide the names and address of all technical staff (i.e., camera operators, sound engineers, grips, etc) involved in the filming and production of the explicit video referenced in the Complaint.

ANSWER: Objection. The information requested is not relevant to the allegations in the complaint. This interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and that is not related to the matter in controversy. The identity of the technical staff involved in the production of this video is Dot relevant to the subject matter in the complaint, namely, whether the video was made and disseminated containing C.S. and whether Defendant had knowledge of C.S.'s age when the film was made. Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections listed above,

Upon information and belief, and based upon information provided to RK by the producer, the following people may also have knowledge:

6

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

20 I South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403.8788 . Fax: 305.403.8789

:, T' .: ~'

Joe Gonzalez, 18 LT,S,(~, § 225/ Compliance and Production Assistant 1031 1'\1 IvliarniiJeach rn'id

North. Miami Beh, FL 33162

Ashley Billington, Director 1031 N Miami Beach Bl vd North Miami Bch, FL 33162

Cynthia Dalagis, make up and wardrobe (not present during filming) 1031 N Miami Beach Blvd

North Miami Bch, FL :3 3162

Myted Ontivero-Moreno, make up and wardrobe (not present during filming) 1031 N Miami Beach Blvd

North Miami Bch, FL 33162

10. Provide the address and owner's name of the dwelling utilized in the filming of the explicit video referenced in the complaint [The Court has limited this to the first sentence only].

ANSWER: Objection. The information requested is not relevant to the allegations in the complaint. This interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and that is not related to the matter in controversy. The address and owner's name of the dwelling involved in the production of this video is not relevant to the subject matter in the complaint, namely, whether the video was made and disseminated containing C.S. and whether Defendant had knowledge of C.S. 's age when the film was made. Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections above,

Upon information and belief, and based upon information provided to RK by the producer, the owner and location of the property for the filming was:

1500 Plantation, LLC 1500 NW 118th Ave Plantation, FL 33323

11. Provide the name, address and phone number of anyone who represented the minor plaintiff as a talent agent (or other professional capacity) at the time Defendant contracted vV1L1J i.l)\:: lillUl)1 plaintiff to appear in the explicit video referenced in the Complaint. [The Court has limited this for Defendant to answer with the understanding that it is represented at the request of the Plaintiff or at the 'request for anyone else for the Plaintiff].

ANSWER: Although Defendant did not contract with the actress in the video, upon information and belief, the agent who represented the subject actress was John O'Byrne, address unknown.

7

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403.8788 . Fax: 305.403.8789

i\NS\yTER: (The producer who filmed the content, ID_ full compliance with stnngent requirements of 18 U.S.C § XL/!, physically inspected the.identif.cation produced by the actress in the subject video. /\bove and beyond the specific and stringent requirements of I 6 HiS,C. § 2257 and in compliance with age verification practices established between p'J( and the producer, the producer utilized an identification scanner (similar to ones used by police officers) to confirm that the Nevada State issued identification was in fact issued by the State Nevada and that all information on the data strip on the identification matched the information printed on the front of the identification. Moreover, the producer complied with RK's and the producer's ageverification policy which is more stringent than the federal records keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 by requiring the subject actress to present a second form of identification prior to filming the actress. In response to this requirement the actress and her agent presented a valid Social Security Administration printout confirming her social security number. In accordance with regular age verification procedures between RK and the producer, the producer delivered to RK the age verification compliance information with the subject video. After RK's customer support representative received an "anonymous" call suggesting that the subject actress may be someone other than who the actress presented herself to be, Marlene Alvarez in Defendant's Records Department contacted the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. Thereupon, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed that the subject identification was in fact issued by the Nevada DMV, that the information contained on the identification was the same information in the Nevada DMV's records and that the identification had not been altered.

14. Provide the names and address of anyone who acted on behalf of Defendant in preproduction negotiations with the minor plaintiff, or anyone acting on her behalf. Further provide the names and address of anyone who acted on behalf of the minor plaintiff in pre-production negotiations with the Defendant.

ANSWER: Without waiving and subject to the general objections listed above, although Defendant was not involved in negotiations with' the actress in the subject video, upon information and belief, the producer's representative who was involved in negotiations with the agent for the model was Ashley Billington.

16. Describe the circumstances as to how the Defendant learned the minor plaintiff was not of legal age to appear in a sexually explicit video.

ANSWER: Without waiving and subjectto the gc;;~l';;i'~\l l)-;)jG~tions nsted above, Defendant does nOL know as a matter of certainty that the actress known to Defendant as Tyler Chanel Evans, stage name Bieyanka, was not of legal age to appear in a sexually explicit video because the only identification ever provided to Defendant with respect to the actress bearing her exact likeness is a Nevada DMV issued permit which shows the subject actress to be over the age of 18. On September 7, 2010, a customer service representative for Defendant received an anonymous call stating that the subject actress may not be who she presented herself to be. In an abundance of caution, Defendant immediately had the video disabled. Thereafter a search of the internet

8

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 33131 . Main: 305.403.8788 . Fax.: 305.403.8789

having rr

18 and denying such a1.l·~g;:l.ti(_,c she was under the age of 18 would be proven to be incorrect. Although Defendant's counsel immediately contacted the FBI upon first hearing the allegation that the actress was under the age of 18 and subsequently prov ided the FBI with copies of the Nevada identification and the social security administration printout, Defendant has not been officially advised that th. actress was under the age of 18 at the time of the production, other than the allegations in this lawsuit.

17. Provide a list of all lawsuits filed against Defendant within the last 5 years [The Court has limited this to age issues only].

ANSVlER: Objection. The information requested in this Interrogatory is not relevant to the allegations in the complaint. This interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and that is not related to the matter in controversy. 'Whether Defendant has been sued for similar events in the past is not relevant to the subject matter of the complaint for two reasons. First, Defendant's past actions do nothing to prove the allegations of the complaint. Second, the mere filing of a lawsuit is not proof of any fact or practice. Without waiving and subject to this objection and the general objections listed above, Defendant has not had a lawsuit filed against it in the past five years regarding allegations of an underage actor or actress.

9

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER+ GROSSMAN LLP

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor, Miami Center, Miami, Florida 331~ I . Main: 305.403.8788 . Fax: 305.403.8789

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful