- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
- Share this article on Print
- Share this article on Comment
- Share this article on Whatsapp
- Share this article on Linkedin
- Share this article on Reddit
- Share this article on Pinit
- Share this article on Tumblr
Love is facing the lawsuit because she once tweeted about her ex-lawyer: “I was f—ing devastated (sic) when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off.”
In late May, Holmes and her law partner Frederic Gordon served a subpoena on the daughter of Love and late Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain.
Cobain, 20, reacted by seeking a protective order against such a deposition, arguing that she was cut off from contact with her mother at the time of the tweet, and that what Gordon & Holmes was seeking — including sealed documents in Cobain’s old guardianship proceedings — amounted to “inadmissible and nondiscoverable character evidence.”
Later, Gordon & Holmes clarified what they hoped Cobain could provide in a deposition.
“I am informed and believe that Cobain has been an alleged victim of false statements made by … Love on Twitter, the same social media platform on which Love made the defamatory statements at issue in this case,” Gordon told the judge. “To this end, I am informed and believe that, in April, Love posted allegedly false tweets in which she stated that Dave Grohl … had made sexual advances at Ms. Cobain, which in turn caused Ms. Cobain to issue a public statement in which she strongly denied and denounced Love’s allegations.”
In fact, it’s true that Cobain issued a statement, “Twitter should ban my mother.”
The comment might have been salacious; but the relevance to what Love said about her ex-lawyer was not clear.
On Tuesday, a judge signed off on a protective order because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Cobain had knowledge relevant to the ongoing case. Additionally, a judge nixed the law firm’s attempt to gain guardianship or emancipation records.
The defamation case against Love continues with plenty to fuss over, including the potential damage of a celebrity who allegedly uses social media to disseminate false news of a lawyer’s corruption.
Cobain was represented by Bryan Freedman at Freedman & Taitelman.
“Trying to subpoena our client to be a witness in this case she had no knowledge of or involvement with was preposterous,” says Freedman. “It was pure and simple harassment. We are thrilled the judge agreed with our clients position and went so far as to sanction the law firm for the costs Ms. Cobain incurred based on the disingenuous and improper conduct of the Plaintiff.”
E-mail: email@example.com; Twitter: @eriqgardner
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day