Litigation
Aug. 13, 2016
Judge grants concessions to supporters, opponents of Prop. 60
Following a hearing that delved into the many ways adult film stars make money, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley issued tentative rulings that made concessions to both sides over the ballot arguments for an initiative that would require pornographic actors to use condoms in adult movies.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Following a hearing that delved into the many ways adult film stars make money, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley issued tentative rulings that made concessions to both sides over the ballot arguments for an initiative that would require pornographic actors to use condoms in adult movies.
Burts v. Padilla, 80002404 (Sac. Super. Ct. filed July 28, 2016), was brought by Derrick Burts, a Proposition 60 supporter who claims he contracted HIV while performing in an adult film in 2010. He convinced Judge Timothy Frawley to remove several statements from ballot arguments distributed by the California Secretary of State.
These include claims Prop. 60 would "weaken safety standards" and apply retroactively to films shot before the initiative would take effect. Burts was represented by Bradley Hertz , a partner with the Sutton Law Firm in Los Angeles.
The hearing also took on a separate case, Douglas v. Padilla, 80002410 (Sac. Super. Ct. filed Aug. 4, 2016) filed by Californians Against Worker Harassment, an anti-Prop. 60 group backed by the Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group. The group persuaded Frawley to delete the names of two organizations — the International Entertainment Adult Union and the San Francisco Medical Society. They had denied they had endorsed Prop. 60, contrary to claims by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which filed Prop. 60.
The opponents were also able to preserve ballot language arguing that the initiative could enable lawsuits against adult performers. They say whistleblower language in the initiative would allow anyone in the state to bring a civil suit against anyone with a "financial interest" in a production that violated the condom rule.
Stacy Don an independent trademark attorney based in Sacramento, called to the stand adult film star Rachel Taylor, who performs under the name Chanel Preston. Taylor testified that 75 percent of performers now make money from websites, production companies and other means that give them a "financial interest" and could be liable to be sued.
"Performers don't just make money from a flat fee anymore," Taylor said. "They have to create an entire business model."
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
Malcolm Maclachlan
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com