One of the Women Suing Joe Francis May Have Been in Porno

PANAMA CITY — from www.newsherald.com – Joe Francis wants to know more about one of the women suing him and the two “sexually explicit” films in which she allegedly appeared.

Francis, the founder of Girls Gone Wild, and his company Mantra Entertainment Inc., are being sued in federal court by four local women who appeared in various states of undress and engaged in sexual activity in Girls Gone Wild videos when they were under the age of 18. The activity happened during Spring Break 2003. All the plaintiffs now are adults.

However, one of the plaintiffs appeared in two “sexually explicit” films after her appearance in Girls Gone Wild, according to court filings. The plaintiff’s attorney explained the appearances in a written response to Francis’ attorney, Rick Bateman.

Plaintiff B “believes she was videotaped on one or two separate occasions at two separate studios in Los Angeles, California sometime in 2003. She believes this included sexually explicit conduct. She does not know the name or location of the studios or who created the video. She does not have a copy of any such video and does not know who does have a copy.”

In response to this answer Bateman has filed another motion asking U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak to compel Plaintiff B to give a more complete picture of the films. He described the current answer as “incomplete” and “inadequate.”

“For example, why does Plaintiff B say that she believes she was videotaped? She either was or she wasn’t,” Bateman wrote. “How does she define sexually explicit conduct? If she believes they include such conduct, obviously she recalls what that conduct was (yet refuses to describe it).”

He added that Plaintiff B should also know the name and location of the studio where the filming took place.

“Did she get paid for these videos? By whom?” Bateman asked. “Was she paid by check? Who signed the checks? Did she deposit them?”

Bateman added Plaintiff B has attempted to avoid clear answers.

“There can be no good cause for Plaintiff B to first withhold this important information and then many months later seek to avoid answering the question because she allegedly does not have the information called for,” Bateman wrote.

Bateman ended his motion by once again asking the plaintiffs to answer all the questions, produce the “pornographic films” and cover the attorneys’ fees “incurred by the Defendants in seeking this relief.”

The trial is scheduled to for Feb. 22

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply