Malec v. MTV Networks Corp et al

Filing 11

MOTION by Plaintiff Carrie Malec for protective order (Horwitz, Blake)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CARRIE MALEC,
Plaintiff,
No: 10-CV-4092
v.
Judge Grady
MTV NETWORKS COMPANY, VIACOM,
INC., NICOLE “SNOOKI” POLIZZI, JENNI
“JWOWW” FARLEY, and OTHER
UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES OF
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS,

Magistrate Nolan

Defendant(s).

MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
NOW COMES the PLAINTIFF, by and through attorney, Blake Horwitz, Esq., of
the Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd., and hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter an
order preserving the evidence set forth in this motion. In support, PLAINTIFF states the
following:
1.

On or about May 6, 2010, the PLAINTIFF was present at a nightclub in

Miami, Florida, where MTV NETWORKS COMPANY and VIACOM, INC. (hereinafter
“CORPORATE DEFENDANTS”), by and through their employees, were taping an
episode of “Jersey Shore.”
2.

“Jersey Shore” is a television show broadcast by MTV NETWORKS

COMPANY that predominantly exhibits sex, drinking and violence. This up and coming,
relatively new program is geared to a young audience and exploits outrageous behavior in
a reality show setting. Many of the episodes are filled with scenes involving innocent

1

civilians that get beaten and battered by cast members, all filmed without intervention by
the television crew, with the intention of generating an outrageous “reality” type setting
of aggression.
3.

PLAINTIFF, who has never seen “Jersey Shore”, willingly participated in

a dance with a cast member, not knowing that she was being set up for a beating by other
cast members of “Jersey Shore” for the purpose of increasing the television show’s
rating.
4.

Subsequent to the time PLAINTIFF was dancing with cast member(s),

DEFENDANTS NICOLE “SNOOKI” POLIZZI and JENNI “JWOWW” FARLEY, who
are “Jersey Shore” cast members, assaulted, battered and physically abused PLAINTIFF,
causing bodily injury and severe emotional distress.
5.

CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, by and through their employees, captured

the entire incident on video in the course of taping the episode of “Jersey Shore”
involving PLAINTIFF.
6.

PLAINTIFF requests a protective order for the following items relative to

this incident:
a. Any video, audio, or other recordings in the possession, custody, or
control of DEFENDANTS related to the allegations in PLAINTIFF’S
complaint, including but not limited to the same that were included in
the broadcast version of the episodes and any “outtakes,” i.e. video,
audio, or other recordings not included in the broadcast version of the
episode;
b. Any video, audio, photographs or other recordings in the possession,
custody, or control of DEFENDANTS related to the production of this
episode, including but not limited to the same that were included in the
broadcast version of the episodes and any “outtakes,” i.e. video, audio,
or other recordings not included in the broadcast version of the
episode;

2

c. Any photographs depicting any individuals or locations involved
related to the production of this episode;
d. Any audio recordings and/or any recorded, written, and/or transcribed
communications including, but not limited to, telephonic
communications and electronic communications related to the
production of this episode;
e. Any physical objects related to the production of this episode;
f. All documents and records relating or referring to production of the
entire episode of “Jersey Shore” concerning Plaintiff, including, but
not limited to, any “script” used for the episode, instructions to cast
members regarding the shooting of the episode, and any instructions to
the technical crew involved in production of the episode;
g. Any cell phone records, including, but not limited to, all text
messages, photos, video and/or audio recordings, and call records
related or referring to the production of this episode; and
h. Any documents related to or referring to this incident, including but
not limited to arrest reports, contact cards, incident reports, and
witness contact information.
7.

PLAINTIFF further seeks an order that prohibits any alteration,

modification and/or change with regard to the aforementioned evidence and any other
evidence related to or referring to this incident.
8.

PLAINTIFF also seeks turnover of a copy of any video or any videos

involving Plaintiff that Defendants possess within 14 days of this order.

Compliance with Local Rule 37.2
9.

On July 31, 2010 at approximately 1:15pm, Plaintiff’s counsel, Blake

Horwitz, spoke with Defense counsel Thomas Koessl of Williams, Montgomery & John,
on the telephone. At that time, Blake Horwitz requested that all evidence Defendant had
in regards to Plaintiff be preserved until the matter is resolved. Plaintiff also requested

3

turnover of a copy of the video to allow Plaintiff to name other Defendants in the
expected trial. However, Defense counsel gave no such assurance that said evidence
would be preserved and additionally did not agree to turnover of video.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, PLAINTIFF respectfully requests that
this Court order CORPORATE DEFENDANTS to preserve the above-referenced
evidence and refrain from altering and/or modifying same.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Blake Horwitz__________
Attorney for Plaintiff

Blake W Horwitz
The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd.
20 S. Clark St., Suite 500
Ph [phone]
Fax [phone]

4