E-Trade Uses Internet Comments Against Lindsay

The Lindsay Lohan/E-Trade war wages on. The lawyers for the company—which she is suing for using her first name in a commercial she claims parodies her partying ways—has turned to internet commenters to help them.

According to the NY Post, lawyers for the company have filed hundreds of pages detailing Lohan's drinking and drugging... pages that include comments from websites. They claim this is not to prove she already defamed herself, but simply to prove she lives in Hollywood and not with her mother on Long Island, where the lawsuit was filed (the company is aiming to get the court battle moved to Manhattan). However, mom Dina says, "This is the whole reason we are suing them—for demeaning Lindsay. They are just proving how they operate—they play dirty."

One of the comments used states that Lohan is "a pot-stirring, lazy, irresponsible, disrespectful little drama queen," while another calls her a "train wreck," and another wonders how she pays for her cocaine. Not that we're siding with the train wreck, but, if there's a lawyer in the house, please explain how this is merely to prove she lives in California...

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in News on May 10, 2010 11:33 AM

Comments [rss]

ed_Extinct

What's next? The beer lawsuit? Budweiser made me fugly—WAH! WAH! http://tinyurl.com/34uqvv3

ed_Extinct

Boo hoo!!

Cry me a fucking river, but the world certainly doesn't revolve around Lindsay Lohan. In fact, I'm pretty sure nothing revolves around her except for a couple of felonies and a coke mirror.

And another thing, she's not the only Lindsay. If E-Trade used the name Oprah, Madonna, Seal, Tyra, or Hitler, then ok, there'd be grounds for a lawsuit—

In other news— the Dow rallied today up 400 points!

moral_kiosk

Not a lawyer, but a third-year law student. This post isn't entirely accurate when it says "...simply to prove she lives in Hollywood and not with her mother on Long Island."

E-Trade's lawyers are not trying to prove that Lindsay resides in California. They don't care whether she does or not. For purposes of getting the lawsuit transferred, it doesn't matter where Lindsay's actual legal residence is. Rather, their only goal is to persuade the judge in New York County that Lindsay doesn't reside in Nassau County (and therefore the case doesn't belong there).

To that end, I believe E-Trade's lawyers are throwing everything they can at the judge to convince him or her that Lindsay resides anywhere but Nassau County, including the pages with website comments. The pages have been filed in hard-copy with the New York County court, so they aren't publicly available on the internet. But I would guess the website comments make negative statements about Linday in her connection with exploits at places like the the Chateau Marmont. So E-Trade's lawyers are basically telling the judge "look, here are all these stories about Lindsay doing stuff in California and this is further support that she never spends any time in Nassau County."

Is it underhanded that these website comments also disparage Lindsay? Maybe. But if they also help establish that she doesn't enough time in Nassau County, then they are most likely relevant and admissible. Moreover, at this point in the case, the judge is not deciding the merits of the defamation claims and thus E-Trade's lawyers are not "sneaking evidence in through the backdoor" or anything like that.

But at another point further in this case, I'm pretty sure the website comments could be introduced to show that Lindsay already defamed herself prior to the commercials in question. To prove defamation, you have to establish that your reputation has been harmed in the eyes of the public, or that third persons are now deterred from associating with you. These website comments could go to show how Lindsay's reputation is already so badly damaged that E-Trade could do no further damage and, therefore, is not liable for defamation.

farleft

Ok, you've had your fun. Now go chase an ambulance.

Spirit of 76

LiLo's doing wonders to her own career anyway. Anybody holding their breath for her upcoming role in an NC-17 biopic of Linda Lovelace?

Guest

and she's LiLo too. how odd. and starring in that film is, well, a lil' low.

Bubba

How can they defame an unemployable coke head????

Guest

dear fatima, please steer away from her. that is all.

r1b2

FTW

LaliP

yeah, couldn't they use her income tax or something to determine her state of residence?

i agree with jen. e*trade is mean. plus they switched my saving account to discover bank without so much of a notice to me. just one day i had no account there. jerks.

jaycjay

"couldn't they use her income tax or something to determine her state of residenc"

Because, as a private citizen her income tax records aren't public information.

This move may not be "merely to prove she lives in California," but it doesn't have to be. It's not at all uncommon to use early filings in a lawsuit to send a message or "a shot across the bow;" essentially a "are you sure you know what you're getting into?" advisory to the other side.

Mean? No one cares. She's the one who filed a $100 million lawsuit. With that money on the line, any defendant is going to use anything possible.

LaliP

yeah i wasn't sure about the income tax thing.. but how come politicians have to make their's public? the president, etc.

jaycjay

Public officials are often required under federal, state, or local laws to file personal financial disclosures (or "statements of economic interest"). Usually it's not the actual tax return that is disclosed, but much of the same information that is on it might be required. It depends on the specific jurisdiction and office.

longacre

When some delusional cokewhore sues you for $100 million for no rational reason, I think some meanness is warranted.

Politicians have to put out their tax returns to expose any potential conflicts of interest.