When Netflix released its shocking exposé documentary series, Jeffery Episten: Filthy Rich last year it let the nefarious financer’s years of sexual provisions towards minors out of the bag and ultimately landed him behind bars. But the film has since brought a long an onslaught of court battles for the network and those who were featured within it.
Back in May, Alan Dershowitz sued the streaming service for defamation, claiming that he received wrongful depiction within the series. Though, things got even hotter when Netflix clapped back at the former lawyer for Trump with a countersuit for harassment.
RELATED: Chris Brown Facing Pricey Lawsuit After His Dog Allegedly Attacks Housekeeper
The attorney took legal action against the streaming service as a result of him feeling mislead by the producers of the documentary series. He believes that he was brought onto the series as a deliberate attempt to defame his character.
He and his legal team have a number of parties that are named as defendants in the lawsuit. These include (along with Netflix as a whole), Filthy Rich‘s production companies RadicalMedia LLC and Leroy & Morton Productions LLC , the showrunner Lisa Bryant, and the producer Joseph Berlinger.
A major factor in the initial lawsuit was centered around alleged sexual misconduct between the lawyer and then-teenager Virgina Giuffre. In the docuseries, Giuffre spoke of the traumatic experiences she suffered during her time with Epstein’s sex trafficking ring where she was forced to offer sexual massages to Epstein and his associates – one of which she alleges was Dershowitz.
The lawsuit against Netflix comes from Dershowitz alleged evidence presented in the production phase of Filthy Rich that were said to exonerate him from these claims, but were allegedly not aired on the show.While Netflix hasn’t disclosed the amount of money they’re looking for in court against the former lawyer, the company is utilizing the anti-SLAPP law to fuel the resent counterclaim.
“Netflix is entitled to compensatory damages and punitive damages because Dershowitz commenced this action for the purpose,” the streaming services said in the counterclaim obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, “(and, indeed, for the sole purpose) of harassing, intimidating, punishing, or otherwise maliciously inhibiting Netflix’s free exercise of speech and petition.”
“Filthy Rich was never intended to, and did not in fact, focus on Dershowitz or provide a platform for a one-sided exoneration of him,” the counter claim continues.
Read Next: Lisa Vanderpump’s Dog Foundation Sued Over Canine Adoption Gone Wrong
Sources: CNBC, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter
Source: Read Full Article