"Revenge Porn" Litigation - Katie Hill Ordered to Pay Over $100,000

[Luke]

Wow.

Katie Hill case: Judge awards Daily Mail more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees
The Daily Mail's website in October 2019 published nude photos of Hill taken by her former spouse, Kenneth Heslep, according to the former congresswoman's Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, which was filed Dec. 22 and alleges state Civil Code violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
By CITY NEWS SERVICE | news@socalnews.com |
PUBLISHED: June 2, 2021 at 10:55 a.m. | UPDATED: June 2, 2021 at 11:05 a.m.

LOS ANGELES >> A judge who previously cited First Amendment grounds in dismissing the Daily Mail as a defendant in former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn suit on Wednesday, June 2, awarded the publication its entire demand for more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Daily Mail’s website in October 2019 published nude photos of Hill taken by her former spouse, Kenneth Heslep, according to the former congresswoman’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, which was filed Dec. 22 and alleges state Civil Code violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco eliminated the Daily Mail as a defendant on April 7, prompting the publication to file a motion to recover its costs in reaching that result. Finalizing a tentative ruling she issued Tuesday, the judge granted the Daily Mail $103,625 in attorneys’ fees and $1,120 in costs. While judges often award attorneys’ fees amounts in amounts smaller than those requested, Orozco’s ruling gives the Daily Mail the full total sought. “Nothing before the court indicates that such time spent on the motion was unreasonable, duplicative or excessive,” Orozco wrote. Hill’s lawyers argued in their court papers that the Daily Mail lawyers spent an unreasonable amount of time on a “simple” fee motion and that more than one attorney did the same work.

In her April ruling, Orozco said she accepted the Daily Mail’s argument that the publication of the photos was a matter of public concern. “Here, the intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to (Hill’s) character and qualifications for her position…,” Orozco wrote. “Accordingly, the images were a matter of public issue or public interest.” In a Twitter post in response to the April ruling, Hill said she “sued the Daily Mail for their publication of my nonconsensual nude images. … we lost in court because a judge — not a jury — thinks revenge porn is free speech. This fight has massive implications for any woman who ever wants to run for office, so quitting isn’t an option.” Orozco previously granted similar First Amendment-based motions by Salem Media Group, owner of the conservative blog RedState.com, and the blog’s managing editor, Jennifer Van Laar, to be removed as defendants in the lawsuit. Hill voluntarily dropped radio show host Joseph Messina from the case. Orozco earlier awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Messina and Van Laar.

Hill, a Democrat, resigned her seat in 2019 after the nude photos of her were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer. She publicly blamed Heslep then for the release of the photos. Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.” Hill, 33, alleged in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both and their animals. In October 2019, months after Hill had left her relationship with Heslep for good, RedState.com published “the first in a barrage of articles that included pictures and intimate text messages,” according to Hill’s court papers. “Then the sexually graphic photos were released.”

https://www.dailynews.com/2021/06/02/ka ... neys-fees/

[Patagoniagirl]

WTF am I missing here?

[somerset]

I'm wondering the same thing. On the surface this seems outrageous, so there may well be more to the story

[bob]

WTF am I missing here?

In a word: SLAPP.

Hill likely received some bad legal advice.*

I haven't read the complaint or the court's ruling, but it smells like the newspaper filed an anti-SLAPP motion and won. Meaning she's on the hook for the legal fees.

The coverage of the ruling suggests the court ultimately concluded that her status as a public officeholder outweighed her claims to privacy.

And my WAG is she had a stronger case against the ex- that I presume sold the photos to the newspaper. But ex-'s typically don't have deep pockets like newspapers.


* If only our resident SLAPP expert was still around.