By [ad_1]
On Feb. 29, ex-“Vanderpump Rules” star Rachel Leviss filed an explosive lawsuit towards her former castmates Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix for eavesdropping, revenge porn, invasion of privateness and intentional infliction of emotional misery. On the core of Leviss’ lawsuit is Sandoval’s recording of “sexually specific movies of her with out her information or consent, which had been then distributed, disseminated, and mentioned publicly by a scorned ladies looking for vengeance, catalyzing the scandal.”
Although Leviss just isn’t suing Bravo, NBCUniversal or Evolution, the manufacturing firm behind “Vanderpump Guidelines,” the lawsuit, filed by her attorneys Bryan Freedman and Mark Geragos, claims these corporations “sanitized the story to make sure Leviss can be seen because the arch-villain.”
However in contradiction to a part of Leviss’ go well with, Selection has reviewed an electronic mail from her former legal professional dated March 6, 2023. Within the letter, despatched to Evolution’s mum or dad firm, MGM, Leviss’ then-lawyer insisted that the “proper factor” to do is not to air any dialogue of the recording of Leviss.
“Giving life to a recording that was illegally obtained by permitting dialogue of it on-air can be tantamount to rewarding somebody for robbing a financial institution or taking pictures somebody,” wrote Lawrence M Kopeikin, who represented Leviss throughout this era. “We might hope that Evolution and Bravo have ample character and restraint to not air any dialogue of this illegally obtained recording.”
Requested to touch upon this obvious discrepancy, Freedman — Leviss’ present lawyer — wrote: “Clearly, you don’t perceive what this case is about? For those who did perceive the precise authorized declare, you wouldn’t be asking questions on a letter despatched to a manufacturing firm that isn’t even named as a defendant within the criticism. This case is about Revenge Porn arising from illegally recording and disseminating a sexual video with out the information or consent of our consumer. It isn’t solely a civil mistaken however probably a criminal offense. Let me know when you care to ask a query in regards to the case that’s really being litigated.”
When contacted by Selection, Kopeikin confirmed he now not represents Leviss, and spokespeople for NBCUniversal and MGM declined to remark.
The video in query of Leviss and Sandoval was briefly talked about within the finale of Season 10 of “Vanderpump Guidelines,” which was filmed spontaneously after the information of Leviss and Sandoval’s affair broke in early March 2023.
Within the Could 17 episode, with out detailing its contents, Madix describes (utilizing “Raquel,” Leviss’ previously most well-liked first title) how she’d present in Sandoval’s digicam roll “a display screen recording of Raquel and Tom on Facetime.” Her discovery served because the catalyst for the so-called Scandoval, the dishonest scandal that propelled “Vanderpump Guidelines” into the zeitgeist and the rankings stratosphere final yr. The character of the video Madix had discovered wasn’t broadly recognized till March 7, 2023, when a TMZ story with the headline “’VANDERPUMP RULES’ RAQUEL LEVISS INTIMATE FACETIME SESH WITH TOM … She Says Was Recorded With out Permission” went viral, after members of the solid had been despatched letters warning them to not share the video.
In Leviss’ Feb. 29 lawsuit, filed in L.A. County Superior Courtroom, her attorneys declare {that a} key factor of a scene between Leviss and Sandoval was edited out — at Sandoval’s insistence. In keeping with the lawsuit, throughout a scene at Leviss’ condominium on March 4, 2023, “Leviss confronted Sandoval for secretly recording pornographic movies of her and storing them unprotected on his cellphone” on digicam.
“Sandoval had not solely invaded her privateness and breached her belief, however had additionally left her enormously susceptible to a nightmare state of affairs of the movies leaking on the web,” the lawsuit reads. “Sandoval responded to Leviss’ fury with cowardice and lies, claiming falsely that he had obtained her permission to report her. Seeing that Leviss was having none of it, nonetheless, Sandoval in the end provided a reluctant admission and a sheepish apology.”
The lawsuit cites media experiences that Sandoval threatened to cease filming until he was “granted enhancing rights over the scene. Shockingly, Bravo and Evolution obliged his demand. The scene was selectively edited to omit any point out of Sandoval’s illicit recording or Leviss’ lack of consent.”
The lawsuit goes on. “This was a part of a sample and follow of Bravo and Evolution throwing Leviss below the bus in favor of Sandoval,” it states. “Recording somebody engaged in intercourse acts with out their consent is a criminal offense, and Sandoval seems to have admitted it on digicam. Portraying the confrontation because it really occurred as a substitute of defending sleazy Sandoval wouldn’t solely have been truthful, it could have additionally been ‘good tv.’ However Bravo and Evolution apparently determined that Leviss can be their sacrificial lamb.”
Within the scene because it performed out within the Could 17 finale, filmed on March 4, at her condominium, Leviss and Sandoval commiserate about what’s occurred, categorical regrets about how they might have performed issues in a different way and agree to not kiss on digicam. They then profess their love to 1 one other. “I really feel so remoted,” Leviss says as Sandoval embraces her. After the scene ends, a chyron says, “After filming this scene, Raquel turned off her cellphone and was not seen or heard from for weeks.”
The March 6, 2023 letter from Leviss’ then-lawyer begins by acknowledging that the key affair between Leviss and Sandoval can be featured on the present, and can be “the topic of on-camera dialogue among the many solid of ‘Vanderpump Guidelines.’”
Kopeikin then informs the corporate that Sandoval had “illegally recorded an intimate Facetime change,” which is against the law below California legislation. He provides that they suppose “a number of solid members have shared this recording amongst themselves, which is a violation of a number of California statutes, together with with out limitation, California Penal Code Part 647(J)(4) (the so-called ‘revenge porn’ legislation).”
The letter goes on to say that they “know that Bravo wouldn’t air any a part of this recording (whether or not blurred or pixelated or in any other case obscured) since that would topic Evolution/MGM and Bravo to potential civil and felony legal responsibility.” However Kopeikin tells the corporate that it’s “inappropriate for Evolution and Bravo to placed on air any dialogue among the many solid of this illegally obtained recording. Right here we’re drawing a distinction between dialogue of the affair between Raquel and Tom Sandoval, which we perceive shall be mentioned on the present, as differentiated from a dialogue of an illegally obtained recording which we really feel shouldn’t be mentioned on the present.”
Addressing the MGM govt, Kopeikin writes: “We might hope that Evolution and Bravo have ample character and restraint to not air any dialogue of this illegally obtained recording. That is particularly vital given the character of this illegally obtained recording. When you’ve had a possibility to debate this with Evolution and Bravo we might recognize your confirming that dialogue of this illegally obtained recording won’t be aired on the present.”
Kopeikin closes with this.
“Thanks and the individuals at Evolution and Bravo prematurely on your understanding and for doing the precise factor.”
