Another Gawker Lawsuit, This time from a gawker source - Polidicks

The lawsuit papers: [url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/296075078/Terrill-v-Gawker-Complaint[/url] Breitbart is the only source because they are the one that broke the story and were the ones that posted the scribd legal doc above [url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/20/gawker-sued-time-breaking-word-source/[/url] [QUOTE]Terrill has filed a lawsuit against Gawker Media and a selection of its employees, including Senior Writer Sam Biddle and Executive Editor John Cook. While conducting research for two stories about Tinder’s co-founders, Terrill interviewed Tinder CEO Sean Rad and VP of Marketing Whitney Wolfe. Wolfe resigned from Tinder in April 2014 and filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination by Rad and Justin Mateen, the Chief Marketing Officer of Tinder. After being informed of the lawsuit by Wolfe’s attorney, Terrill noticed inconsistencies in Wolfe’s account in the lawsuit and prior statements that Wolfe had made to Terrill. When Terrill tried to follow up on these issues, she was quietly warned away from pursuing the story. Having been directed toward Gawker by a friend, Terrill confided her mounting concerns to the Gawker editorial staff about the validity of Wolfe’s claims. Gawker failed to mention to Terrill that they had already allied themselves with Wolfe. In a twist that should surprise absolutely no one, Gawker then took the confidential information provided by Terrill and used it to slander her publicly.[/QUOTE] the article in question: [url]https://archive.is/ag0O3[/url] from the lawsuit papers: [QUOTE]25. The motivation for Biddle’s betrayal, in addition to economic gain, appeared to be Biddle’s ongoing personal relationship with Wolfe and Gulczynski, which he actively concealed from Terrill. In fact, on information and belief, Biddle was regularly communicating with Wolfe and Gulczynski throughout the time that Terrill was confiding in Biddle. Biddle concealed his relationship with Wolfe and Gulczynski from Terrill because Biddle knew that he could not successfully induce Terrill to disclose her confidential research if she knew about the relationship with Wolfe and Gulczynski.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]45. Defendants have no interest in reporting the truth to the public, or investigating the facts underlying a story, or for that matter even telling the truth to its readers. Rather, Defendants make up lies about the subjects of their stories — Terrill being one — without any regard to the substantial consequences that their false statements will have on the subjects of their stories: destroying their personal and professional reputations.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Terrill further is informed and believes that Defendants interfered with other opportunities of hers, including with New York Magazine and Buzzfeed.[/QUOTE]

The death of Gawker couldn't come any sooner.

wait is'nt hulk hogans case next in march so 2 cases against them would fuck them over

[quote]Terrill noticed inconsistencies in Wolfe’s account in the lawsuit and prior statements that Wolfe had made to Terrill. When Terrill tried to follow up on these issues, she was quietly warned away from pursuing the story.[/quote] Not shady at all, nope.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49573235]wait is'nt hulk hogans case next in march so 2 cases against them would fuck them over[/QUOTE] yup tag team edit: there's actually 3 lawsuits right now if you count gawker vs their own lawyers.

And yet Biddle will still be paid 6 figures to be a demagogue somewhere else. Journalism+™.

[QUOTE=27X;49573387]And yet Biddle will still be paid 6 figures to be a demagogue somewhere else. Journalism+™.[/QUOTE] I don't know about that 2 cases on him would hurt his career

[QUOTE=Wii60;49573248]yup tag team edit: there's actually 3 lawsuits right now if you count gawker vs their own lawyers.[/QUOTE] wait what, how do you sue your lawyers, and still have other cases going on.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49573575]I don't know about that 2 cases on him would hurt his career[/QUOTE] Not in politics, and journalism went 100% political several years ago.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49573582]wait what, how do you sue your lawyers, and still have other cases going on.[/QUOTE] Another set of lawyers, I guess.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49573582]wait what, how do you sue your lawyers, and still have other cases going on.[/QUOTE] Wasn't it Gawker's (ex) legal insurance that's suing them? Something about them acquiring it when they already knew the Hogan thing would explode badwards.

Can Jalopnik spin off and survive?

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/gawker-media-sells-minority-stake-to-investment-company.html?_r=1[/url] they plan to sell their minority stake. I have no idea what this means.

Don't they still have that ongoing legal case from the interns suing them for a host issues?

[QUOTE=Wii60;49573248]yup tag team edit: there's actually 3 lawsuits right now if you count gawker vs their own lawyers.[/QUOTE] Isn't it Gawker vs their interns and not their own lawyers?

[QUOTE=Ridge;49574923]Can Jalopnik spin off and survive?[/QUOTE] I hope so!

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;49576906]Isn't it Gawker vs their interns and not their own lawyers?[/QUOTE] No, that [I]also[/I] happened. It's Gawker's legal insurance and not their lawyers though.