When Jane Doe Number 1—who is now a lawyer—agreed in 2015 to make three porn videos for $9,200, she says she was told that the videos would not be posted online or distributed in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. Her DVD would supposedly go to one “private buyer” in Australia.

The filmmakers “assured her there was nothing to worry about, they promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos,” according to a 2016 complaint filed in San Diego Superior Court.

That’s not what happened.

Her video was promptly posted on the defendants’ website, www.girlsdoporn.com and other websites. The X-rated movies “were then discovered by her high school, college, and graduate school friends and acquaintances—as well as her family.” Her identity was leaked. She was harassed via social media, text messages and phone calls, called a whore and a slut. Trolls tagged her boyfriend on social media with her videos.

Her experience wasn’t unique. Twenty-one other women joined in suing the porn makers and an array of associated companies, claiming they too were similarly duped and humiliated. They allege fraud, misappropriation of likenesses, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, breach of contract, unfair/fraudulent business practices and fraudulent transfer.

After what one judge described as “a scorched earth litigation strategy” on both sides, the case is heading to trial on Monday in San Diego Superior Court—a bench trial before Judge Kevin Enright that’s slated to run for six weeks.

Why a bench trial? “Given the salacious nature of the case, I was concerned about how jurors might react,” said plaintiffs’ counsel Ed Chapin, Sanford Heisler Sharp’s California managing partner. The plaintiffs are also represented by Brian M. Holm of the Holm Law Group and Stokes O’Brien partner John O’Brien.

The defendants are represented by Aaron Sadock of Panakos Law; Daniel A. Kaplan of the Law Offices of Daniel A. Kaplan and George Rikos of the Law Office of George Rikos.

Sadock and Kaplan did not responded to requests for comment. Rikos, who represents a peripheral player, Domi Publications, says there is no evidence his client “has had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiffs or has used their images at all.”

In their trial brief, Kaplan and Sadock argue that the women—who were between 18 and 22 years old when they made the videos—signed a single-page, written contract that “repeatedly specified that the videos could be used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose chosen by the producer on behalf of the video’s owner.”

“The evidence will show that the producer, BLL Media Inc., did not agree to limit distribution to a single buyer or DVD release. The women were uniformly paid thousands of dollars for videos that were intended for publication on the internet as permitted under the terms of the Model/Talent Release. Logic dictates plaintiffs had no basis to expect the video would languish in a video store in Australia on an anachronistic DVD format but even so, that is public publication of the video,” wrote Kaplan and Sadock.

The case may hinge on whether the plaintiffs can show the contracts were a product of fraud—specifically, conscious misrepresentation or concealment—and that the women reasonably relied on the false representations when they agreed to make the movies.

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants recruited women via ads for models published in the “gigs” section of Craigslist.com in larger cities and college towns, but mentioned nothing about nudity or pornography.

The defendants had a unique need for fresh faces—their subscription-based website boasts that it features “Real amateur girls having sex on video for the very first time… You will not find these girls on any other website— all girls are 100% exclusive— this is the one and only time they do porn.”

According to the plaintiffs, “These fake Craigslist advertisements and Fake Modeling Websites allow defendants to collect the names, phone numbers, email addresses, and pictures of thousands of women who never would have responded to a truthful advertisement revealing who defendants were or that the job was for internet pornography.”

The defendants avoided leaving much of a paper trail. Once they identified a prospect, they allegedly told the woman via telephone that “they produce adult videos that are distributed on DVD in Australia, New Zealand, or in Europe in small video stores or to private collectors,” and that the woman would remain anonymous after filming.

They also provided references—women who supposedly appeared in their videos and could vouch for how well it went.

“Unbeknownst to the victims, defendants pay the references and coach them on what to say and, more importantly, what not to say,” the plaintiffs allege.

For example, according to the plaintiffs, Jane Doe Number 15 texted one of them, a woman named Kailyn Wright, writing, “’These aren’t distributed in America right?’ Ms. Wright responded, ‘No prob! And no they aren’t!’ Jane Doe No. 15 then asked, ‘Is there any way they can get back to the US? I just have this shaky thing with this guy I like love and I can’t have anyone find out.’ Ms. Wright responded, ‘No no no you’re totally fine! That’s what I was worried about but there is absolutely no way anyone will find out.’”

Wright is scheduled to testify at trial, and the plaintiffs say she’ll admit she knew she was lying.

Another reference, Amberlyn Nored Clark, is also due to take the stand, and to admit that she never even filmed a video for the defendants. In reality, she was a waitress at club frequented by one of the defendants, who allegedly paid her to lie, creating a fake back story about how no one in her small town ever discovered her videos.

Ed Chapin of Sanford Heisler (Photo: Courtesy Photo)

Chapin argues that when the women actually signed the contracts, they were in a difficult situation. Typically, they were flown to San Diego from across the country and found themselves “on the bed, in a hotel, with two strangers. They have no money, and the defendants have their plane ticket home,” he said in an interview.

The men may have given them alcohol or marijuana. Then they “shove a document in their face. They have no chance to read it, and even if they did read it, they probably wouldn’t comprehend it.”

So the women signed.

Still, the defendants have a potent counter-argument. In addition to the written contract, the women also read aloud a videotaped statement that said in part, “After the scene is filmed, I know I have released all rights whatsoever to the footage. Anything contained in the footage may be used however BLL Media chooses. … I am willingly signing to do this scene.”

Nonetheless, the defendants don’t appear to be eager to try the case, which was originally scheduled to be heard in March.

After an adverse ruling, defendant Michael Pratt in January filed for bankruptcy and sought unsuccessfully to remove the entire state court action to federal court.

When he was denied, “Debtor abandoned his bankruptcy case once the case was remanded, indicating that the filing and removal was solely for the purposes of delaying the state court litigation,” wrote Chief Judge Laura Taylor of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of California. The defense shelled out $110,000 in sanctions for the gambit.

In a Feb. 14, 2019 email included in an exhibit, defense counsel Kaplan wrote to Chapin, “It sounds like you are itching to try the case. A judgment will look good framed on your wall (if you win) but meanwhile, the clients will have nothing to show for it. By that I mean you are either trying this case to get a money judgment or not. If you are looking ultimately to recover for the plaintiffs and recover your costs by going to trial, you are wasting your time. We told you repeatedly that Mr. Pratt and the other defendants have no treasure trove of money, and there is no money offshore to be recovered.”

He offered a down payment of $250,000 towards a global settlement. “If you agree to a settlement, my client will continue to operate the company which will provide your clients an opportunity for monetary recovery upfront and over time. We would like to have a conversation with you to confirm that all of the plaintiffs are rejecting our effort to settle the case because their attorneys want a trial victory against a company that’s about to become worthless.”

But Chapin told me that it’s not just about the money. “We want the videos taken down,” he said. “We want their business model not to be viable in the future.”

We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Click here to subscribe.