Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could have an intense fight on their hands, which may not work in their favor, if their recent invasion of the privacy complaint against paparazzi spies ever saw trial.
Last week, in a complaint filed in a Los Angeles court on behalf of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and obtained by Fox News, the famous high-powered lawyer Michael J. Kump stated that the filing stems from alleged “intrusions Serially in the privacy of a 14-month-old boy in his own home, “in addition to” any parent’s desire and responsibility to do whatever it takes to protect their children from this manufactured eating frenzy. “
Markle, 38, and Harry, 35, said the tabloid harassment finally came to a head when they saw that a photograph of their son Archie was being offered to the media that was allegedly taken on a family outing. in Malibu, when it was filmed while he was in his yard, without their knowledge.
MEGHAN MARKLE AND ARCHIE’S SECURITY BEFORE THE ‘MEGXIT’ DECISION, PRINCE HARRY’S PAL CLAIMS
“The law guarantees all California individual and family members the right to privacy in their home. No drone, helicopter, or telephoto lens can take away that right, “Kump told Fox News in a statement Thursday.” The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are filing this lawsuit to protect their young son’s right to privacy in their home without the intrusion of photographers, and to uncover and arrest those seeking to profit from these illegal actions. “
The Sussexes are suing three different John Doe defendants, according to the complaint, in hopes of identifying the culprit photographer and informing potential buyers that such images were illegally taken. They are also ordering Archie’s illegal photos to be released immediately and for further action they are seeking punitive and compensatory damages.
Speaking to Fox News, high-powered litigator Tom Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas in Los Angeles, who is not involved in the case, said: “I do not want the validity of your claims to be lost in the deck and layers with A lot of nuances, but who are they going to win against? It’s like scheduling a heavyweight fight, but not inviting the other boxer to the ring. “
MEGHAN MARKLE AND THE SON OF PRINCE HARRY ARCHIE RETURNS 1, RECEIVES WISHES FROM QUEEN, PRINCE WILLIAM AND KATE
Lallas, acting attorney for the late Marvel icon Stan Lee before his death, described Markle and Harry’s invasion of the privacy lawsuit against three John Doe defendants as “extremely unusual” and “extraordinary” by the method used by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will stifle any distribution of photos of their toddler son, 1-year-old Archie, in his backyard that they claim was taken illegally through long glasses, drones and helicopters.
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and their young son Archie Mountbatten-Windsor meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu and daughter Thandeka Tutu-Gxashe at the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation during their royal tour of South Africa on September 25. 2019 in Cape Town, South Africa.
(Photo by Toby Melville – Pool / Getty Images)
“We studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that, I mean that the complaint doesn’t name any specific defendant, be it an entity or an individual, “Lallas said.” This is the first time I’ve seen this in 45 years of practicing the law. “
Lallas said the privacy filing is “extraordinary” because the legal system in the United States is based on what is called a confrontation system: the concept is that there are at least two parties, consisting of a plaintiff group and a group accused.
PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN MARKLE SUE FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY OVER PHOTOS OF SON ARCHIE
“The purpose of this confrontation system is for the parties to invest in having legitimate legal rights that they will protect and enforce before there is any matter that is processed in a civil action,” Lallas explained. “We don’t have that here. There are the Plaintiffs, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan, but there are no defendants at the table. “
Lallas said: “So what do we have? In my opinion, it is always important to assess what the plaintiffs’ objective in litigation is. The first question is: ‘Do they really hope to get a trial and recover? [photos] of paparazzi? And as a trial lawyer, my answer would be a resounding: ‘No. No way.'”
The lawyer noted that he is a longtime partner of the representative attorneys for Markle and Harry, Dale Kinsella and Michael J. Kump, whom he reveres as “impeccable” and “widely respected.”
Lallas said that he certainly understands the reasons for bringing such a suit to the table and explained that current privacy statutes create a space for such a possibility.
MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY: DRONE REPORTS “MOST PREVALENT” NEAR THE AREA WHERE SUSSEXES LIVE, SOURCE SAYS
“There is a principle in litigation that can name a defendant Doe as a party and that is under Section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” Lallas said. “And the idea is: suppose you get hit by a car and you have a car accident and you have the license plate of the car but you don’t know who the driver was. Well, if you have the license plate, you can identify the registered owner and then sue the registered owner and name the driver as Defendant Doe, where you will get a discovery that will allow you to determine the identity of the accused Doe driver. “
“But at least there you know who one of the parties is and you appropriately name one of the responsible parties,” he continued. “In this case, the plaintiffs would not know the identity of the paparazzi if he walked through the front door with a bouquet of flowers.”
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been the target of paparazzi.
(Karwai Tang / WireImage via Getty Images)
Based on her personal experience, Lallas believes that the case of Markle and Harry “does not have reasonable expectations.”
“One paparazzi or several paparazzi are just a couple of camera guys and the likelihood that these camera guys have any significant assets that would allow for the recovery of any significant economic damage, whether legal, punitive or otherwise, is dead to the arrival”. he said.
“So how are you going to achieve what you want to achieve?” He reflected, explaining that, generally, the period in which the plaintiff is required to file the complaint is 60 days. However, some “accommodating, accommodating and liberal” judges may impose a period of 90 to 180 days to file a subpoena and complaint.
PRINCE HARRY’S SON ARCHIE’S MEGHAN MARKLE WILL HAVE AN ‘INVALUABLE’ EDUCATION IN LOS ANGELES: REAL EXPERTS
“But here, think about the impracticality of this: there is no one to serve,” Lallas said, calling the complaint a “fishing expedition.”
“Fundamentally, in discovery, which is taking depositions, serving requests for documents, and obtaining production of documents and interrogatives, and there is a principle to discovery, which must be tailored to the specific allegations of the complaint and the issues at hand in litigation and it can’t just be a fishing expedition, “said Lallas.
Added the firm’s partner: “This is the quintessential fishing expedition because if you believe that the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case have filed a civil action without naming a specific defendant to try to make a discovery and how they would do it “
PRINCE HARRY MEGHAN MARKLE REMAINING $ 18 MILLION BEVERLY HILLS MANSION, OWNER OF TYLER PERRY, REPORTS CLAIMS
“They would serve subpoenas and deposit notices and attempt to take statements from third parties to expose the paparazzi or parties responsible for placing the drones in the backyard of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but without having any of the usual protections in a” civil action where there are two parties in a context of confrontation to have legitimate interests and protection rights, “Lallas said.” So I have never seen a more obvious fishing expedition, which stems from the fact that there are no specific defendants who are named in this action. “
Lallas claimed that Harry and Markle are engaging in a “calculated strategy” to supposedly create a “chilling effect” not only for paparazzi seeking to download supposedly illegal images of Archie for great benefit, but also “for tabloids that would discourage them creating probable financial penalties for engaging in this type of conduct. “
Lallas said the case carries some irony in the sense that Harry and Markle, on behalf of their son, “want to avoid unwanted advertising” yet, “on the other hand, the mechanism they have chosen is to create more advertising to try to generate a brand in the public arena that lets paparazzi tabloids know that they are going to assert their legal rights wherever they take them. ”
PRINCE HARRY MEGHAN MARKLE LAUNCHES NEW ARCHIE VIDEO FOR HER FIRST BIRTHDAY
“And I think it is pretty obvious when trying to evaluate the strategy and approach that they are looking for advertising that will have a chilling effect on trying to create their privacy,” he said.
FILE – Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrive at the Endeavor Fund Awards annual awards in London on March 5, 2020. The couple are suing to stop selling a photo of their son Archie who, They say he was shot at his Los Angeles area home in invasion of his privacy.
(AP Photo / Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)
Lallas compared the idea of a media entity obtaining and publishing photos from a source to a way that a journalist would fall on his sword to protect the identity of his own sources.
MEGHAN MARKLE HAS ‘AMERICANIZED’ PRINCE HARRY WITH LOS ANGELES MOVE, SAYS JULIE MONTAGU: ‘I LOVE IT’
He added: “There is a real question about whether this type of litigation could be successful in identifying who the paparazzi were, who took photos. That is an open question. This is a peculiar, unorthodox and unusual situation in which there is probably not a realistic probability of an economic-financial recovery and therefore should be evaluated based on what other objectives lawyers and plaintiffs are trying to achieve. ”
In addition, Lallas said that according to statute 1708.8 ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the civil code that protects privacy rights and is intended to prevent the use of devices to invade areas of reasonable expectations of privacy for people, the substance of Harry and Markle The claims are very clear.
“It’s not just about royalty, it’s me and you in our backyard,” he said. “And as a matter of policy, the state of California has concluded that we must have reasonable expectations of privacy rights that are isolated from invasion and intrusion by third parties who have no legitimate purpose in trying to obtain content or images. and similarities. “
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“So at that point, I think there is no doubt that they have legitimate rights that deserve protection. It’s just that they don’t know: it’s the old story that we don’t know what we don’t know. And they have no idea who is responsible here.
Associated Press contributed to this report.
