TEEN MOM 2 Briana and Kail lawsuit update: sex history part of depositions
The pettiness continues in the defamation lawsuit filed by Teen Mom 2‘s Kailyn Lowry against her co-star Briana DeJesus.
A new filing this week reveals that Briana and Kail were recently deposed for the case, and both ladies were asked some very personal questions. Kail was deposed on February 17. When she was asked personal questions, her attorney requested that the answers remain confidential. Briana’s attorney did not object.
Briana was deposed on March 7. When Kail’s attorney started asking questions about Briana’s “sexual relationship with a third party,” Briana’s attorney asked for the same confidentiality stipulation. However, Kail’s attorney allegedly “insisted that every salacious detail would be properly a matter of public record.”
This is all according to a Motion For Protective Order filed by Briana’s attorney on March 8. (Full filing included below.) The filing lashes out at Kail’s attorney, claiming “the line of questioning is solely aimed at prying into the salacious details of Ms. [Briana] Soto’s private life for the benefit of embarrassing Ms. Soto.”
More from Briana’s legal team in the filing:
It is quite clear that the intent of this line of questioning was to both try to humiliate Ms. Soto and for Ms. Lowry to use this information for purposes that have nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Although some cases would ordinarily run into issues of confidentiality, this issue is heightened where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are popular reality television stars, followed closely on social media and often reported upon in the press.
The filing is asking the judge to prevent Kail’s counsel from asking Briana questions about her sexual history without a promise that the information would remain confidential. Briana’s attorney also objects to the line of questioning based on relevance.
From the filing:
Ms. Soto objects to answering such questions on the basis of relevance. However, Ms. Soto did not seek a protective order prohibiting such questions – her only request is that the responses not be used as fodder for Ms. Lowry’s continued public relations campaign against Ms. Soto, and her continued campaign to keep herself in the public eye. This is an abuse of the discovery process. The reason for this line of questioning was to use this information for purposes that have nothing to do with the litigation. This is an abuse of process, and it would be proper to file a counterclaim for abuse of process. See Verdon v. Song, 251 So. 3d 256,258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). However, at this point, Ms. Soto is satisfied for the time being if there is a protective order in place that will keep this information confidential. If attorney Haff would like to explain why this information should be placed on a reality TV show by her client, she is invited to make argument to that effect.
We have a full recap and timeline for the most entertaining #TeenMom2 spin-off ever: Kailyn's defamation lawsuit against Briana! Sooooo much drama! #KailVBriana https://t.co/hFuf65HrtC
[NOTE: Not an actual spin-off] pic.twitter.com/mIJK4oWoQP
— Starcasm (@starcasm) December 19, 2021
Briana’s Motion For Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard on March 29. If granted, that will result in the case being tossed. Based on all of the filings and developments, I think it is very likely that the judge will indeed toss the case. Stay tuned!
For those of you who don’t want to miss anything, I’ve included the complete Motion For Protective Order filing below.
NOTE: Filings in this case often get posted instantly by numerous Teen Mom social media pages. I believe The Ashley was the first website to report on it.
#TeenMom2 Briana DeJesus sends Kail Lowry a treadmill. Kail and her attorney ARE NOT HAPPY about it. Legal pettiness ensues. Read the full legal filing with all the details! #KailVBriana #Pettypalooza https://t.co/efHOjEk5KQ pic.twitter.com/l3G87fUe9I
— Starcasm (@starcasm) December 19, 2021
Kail Lowry v. Briana DeJesus (aka Soto)
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant Briana Soto p/k/a Briana De Jesus respectfully moves this Court for a protective order pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c) which prohibits the Plaintiff, Kailyn Lowry, from seeking discovery from Ms. Soto on the subject of her sexual relationship with a third party without any confidentiality protection. The subject of testimony is entirely irrelevant to the facts at issue in this case, and the line of questioning is solely aimed at prying into the salacious details of Ms. Soto’s private life for the benefit of embarrassing Ms. Soto. Plaintiffs line of questioning is an improper use of discovery and should not be countenanced.
1.0 Factual Background
Plaintiff Lowry filed this lawsuit against Ms. Soto alleging that Ms. Soto defamed her by claiming that Ms. Lowry physically attacked Ms. Lowry’s ex-boyfriend, Mr. Christopher Lopez. However, the case isn’t really about defamation. The case is really about the fact that Ms. Lowry is upset that Ms. Soto has had a relationship with her ex. That was apparent from the start, but during Ms. Soto’s deposition on March 7, 2022, it was no longer deniable.
Defendant took the deposition of Ms. Lowry on February 17, 2022, and on March 7, 2022, Ms. Soto took the deposition of the Plaintiff. During Plaintiff’s deposition, Ms. Lowry’s counsel on numerous occasions requested that certain testimony be marked confidential, including one line of questioning that would be marked as “attorneys’ eyes only.” There was never any true justification for most of these requests. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of courtesy, each time Ms. Lowry’s counsel made such a request, Ms. Soto’s counsel stipulated to the protection of the information – even when there was no legal reason to do so.
However, when Lowry’s counsel began prying into matters of Ms. Soto’s sexual history, Lowry’s counsel insisted that every salacious detail would be properly a matter of public record. Why? Nobody admitted that on the record. However, it is quite clear that the intent of this line of questioning was to both try to humiliate Ms. Soto and for Ms. Lowry to use this information for purposes that have nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Although some cases would ordinarily run into issues of confidentiality, this issue is heightened where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are popular reality television stars, followed closely on social media and often reported upon in the press.
2.0 Legal Standard
Florida’s discovery rules “confer broad discretion on the trial court to limit or prohibit discovery in order to ‘protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.'” Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533,535 (Fla. 1987) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)). The Court may enter an order for the purpose of protecting such a party by prohibiting the discovery or sealing a deposition. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)(l), (6). “Under this authority, a court may act to protect the privacy of the affected person.” Rasmussen, 500 So. 2d at 535. In deciding whether to limit discovery, a court must “balance the competing interests that would be served by granting discovery or by denying it.” Id.
#TeenMom2 Chris Lopez says in a new court filing that he was the one who told Briana DeJesus that Kail Lowry broke into his mom's house and hit him. He also says he and Briana spent 3 days together in Miami back in April! Read his full declaration! https://t.co/fBahis6j3i pic.twitter.com/VccmrY2PLN
— Starcasm (@starcasm) December 6, 2021
3.0 Argument
On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff took the deposition of Ms. Soto. Despite Ms. Soto’s willingness to ensure that Ms. Lowry could keep certain testimony confidential and thus away from the prying eyes of the press, Ms. Lowry’s counsel Nicole Haff, in taking Ms. Soto’s deposition, sought sensitive testimony from Ms. Soto relating to her sexual history. There is no reason for such questions. Even so, Ms. Soto was willing to answer them so long as the information was kept confidential. However, counsel for Mr. Soto refused to agree that this line of questioning would be confidential.
Ms. Soto objects to answering such questions on the basis of relevance. However, Ms. Soto did not seek a protective order prohibiting such questions – her only request is that the responses not be used as fodder for Ms. Lowry’s continued public relations campaign against Ms. Soto, and her continued campaign to keep herself in the public eye. This is an abuse of the discovery process. The reason for this line of questioning was to use this information for purposes that have nothing to do with the litigation. This is an abuse of process, and it would be proper to file a counterclaim for abuse of process. See Verdon v. Song, 251 So. 3d 256,258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). However, at this point, Ms. Soto is satisfied for the time being if there is a protective order in place that will keep this information confidential. If attorney Haff would like to explain why this information should be placed on a reality TV show by her client, she is invited to make argument to that effect.
#TeenMom2 Kail Lowry's lawyer just filed a 95-PAGE response in her defamation lawsuit against Briana DeJesus! Get a full recap, including Kail's lengthy affidavit and screen capped text messages with Chris and his mom. #TrialOfTheCentury https://t.co/Kh7fnq3Oqv pic.twitter.com/NAyUVlXn2K
— Starcasm (@starcasm) September 1, 2021
4.0 Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Ms. Soto asks this Court to enter an order prohibiting the requested discovery or sealing the relevant testimony from public disclosure.
Dated: March 8, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marc J. Randazza
…
Trey A. Rothell (pro hac vice pending)
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
…
Attorneys for Defendant
Briana Soto p/k/a Briana De Jesus
Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com
