More Than a Dozen Lawyers Now on Board in Waffle House Sex Tape Saga
Eight attorneys representing metro Atlanta lawyers David Cohen, John Butters and client Mye Brindle are facing off against Fulton County's district attorney and two Marietta lawyers representing Waffle House chairman Joe Rogers Jr. in a tangle of criminal and civil litigation centering on a five-year-old covert sex tape.
November 13, 2017 at 01:57 PM
4 minute read
Call it a legal scrum.
Eight attorneys representing two metro Atlanta lawyers and their client in a tangle of litigation stemming from a 5-year-old sex tape of Waffle House's top executive are urging the Supreme Court of Georgia to reconsider two rulings it issued last week.
Four attorneys are defending David Cohen and former Cobb County prosecutor John Butters, both Marietta lawyers, and client Mye Brindle against felony charges stemming from Brindle's 2012 recording of her sexual encounter with Waffle House chairman Joe Rogers Jr. Brindle had been Rogers' housekeeper. On Thursday they asked the high court to revisit its Nov. 2 decision reinstating three felony charges accusing Cohen, Butters, and Brindle of violating the state's eavesdropping law.
Thursday's motion was filed by Atlanta attorney Brian Steel, who is defending Cohen; Bruce Morris of Atlanta's Finestone & Morris and Marietta attorney Jimmy Berry, who are defending Butters; and Marietta lawyer Reid Thompson, who is defending Brindle.
Meanwhile, four more lawyers representing Butters, Cohen and Brindle in a string of civil claims and counterclaims between Brindle and Rogers, have petitioned the high court to reconsider a second decision it released last week over the sex tape. Attorneys John Floyd and Michael Terry of Atlanta's Bondurant Mixson & Elmore are defending Cohen and Butters. Atlanta attorney Darren Summerville and Marietta lawyer Hylton Dupree Jr. are defending Brindle.
The high court on Thursday dismissed an appeal of a state appellate ruling affirming the disqualification of Cohen and Butters as Brindle's counsel in the civil case, calling it “improvidently granted.”
Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard also has promised to weigh in. Last week, a Howard spokeswoman said the DA plans to file his own motion for reconsideration asking the high court to reinstate a felony extortion charge against Cohen and Butters. That charge — stemming from a 2012 demand letter Cohen sent to Rogers accusing him of sexual harassment — and the eavesdropping charges were dismissed by a Fulton County judge. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the extortion count when it reinstated the eavesdropping charges.
Rogers is represented by Marietta attorneys Robert Ingram and Jeffrey Daxe, both of Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, bringing the total number of lawyers in the Waffle House sex tape litigation swamp to at least 13. Said Ingram, who expects to file his own response on Rogers' behalf in the disqualification case: “Butters and Cohen are making good on their threat to impose protracted litigation on my client unless he agreed to their extortionate demands.”
But Steel, who is defending Cohen in the criminal case, said the issues raised in the criminal defense lawyers' motion to reconsider are significant because in its Nov. 2 ruling, the Supreme Court established new case law and reversed four previous cases. “What is unfair and unconscionable is to apply this new law to alleged acts that occurred before this new law took effect,” he said. “This was about alleged conduct that wasn't a crime at the time it supposedly occurred.”
Lawyers battling the disqualification of Butters and Cohen rang similar alarm bells in their motion asking the high court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the disqualification appeal, arguing that allowing the appellate ruling to stand was a “borderline disastrous precedential result.”
“The lower court rulings effectively overrule several decades of precedent on the standard for disqualification,” they argued. “That end result in this high-profile case will enshrine what the Court of Appeals' opinion implicitly incentivizes — using disqualification as a litigation tactic. That improper maneuvering is all the easier to implement and abuse in cases like this, where the powerful and wealthy employ it to attack and silence the powerless and to chill their ability to petition the courts for redress.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllVenezuelan Man Convicted in Laken Riley's Killing Asks for a New Trial
2 minute readGa. High Court Reverses Contempt Ruling Against Rapper Young Thug's Lawyer
3 minute readReality TV Star Julie Chrisley Resentenced to 7 Years in Bank Fraud, Tax-Evasion case
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250