Lawyers representing Baby Reindeer’s ‘real-life Martha’ Fiona Harvey have claimed the show’s creator Richard Gadd will be asked to testify in the witness box during the £135million lawsuit against Netflix.
Speaking to Piers Morgan Uncensored, Ms Harvey’s US legal representative Richard Roth said she has a ‘very, very strong case’ and he expects Ms Harvey, Gadd and Netflix executives to testify in court in California.
Ms Harvey, 49, is demanding £135million from the streaming giant, claiming they spread ‘brutal lies’ because ‘it was a better story than the truth’.
The show, which is said to be based on the real-life experiences of comedian and writer Gadd, sees character Martha Scott – played by Jessica Gunning – stalk him after he offers her a free cup of tea in a pub where he works.
In a candid interview with Morgan, Mr Roth said the fallout from the Baby Reindeer case ‘could be a watershed moment for streaming TV’.
The show sees character Martha Scott – played by Jessica Gunning (pictured) – stalk him after he offers her a free cup of tea in a pub where he works
Fiona Harvey, 49, (pictured) is demanding £135million from streaming giant Netflix
Speaking about why he had taken the case, Roth said: ‘[It] is really just reprehensible when someone says something’s ”a true story” […]. And if Netflix is going to say this is a true story, then it better well be true. And to do that is irresponsible of them.’
He added: ‘Fiona Harvey, you’ve had her on your show, she’s been destroyed. She’d been shattered by this. She gets death threats, she doesn’t want to leave her apartment.’
On what will be the ‘smoking gun’ in the case, Mr Roth said: ‘One of the big smoking guns […] is that you don’t put ”this is a true story” on the front, first frame of a six part series, unless it’s gone through the wringer.
‘Who actually said it is a true story? Did legal look at it? It is not a true story. There’s clear falsities in it, which are very damning. So I think one thing is going to be what did Netflix do to determine this was a true story, when it’s clearly not?’
In the show, Martha is convicted of stalking Donny following months of harassing him – during which time she sexually assaults him, waits at the bus stop outside his house and attacks his girlfriend.
Following the release of Baby Reindeer, Ms Harvey was found by viewers of the show who traced her identity online.
Mr Roth said: ‘It’s so irresponsible for him to testify under oath in front of Parliament saying she was convicted when it’s clear she wasn’t, that’s the first thing.
‘The second thing you raise is that, you know, you said the word ”internet sleuths”. I think that’s sort of a loose term. I could get it [Fiona’s identity] on the internet. You don’t have to be a sleuth… It was very easy for anyone and everyone.’
On reports in the press saying Gadd, who plays the protagonist Donny Dunn in the show, was against calling it a ‘true story’, he added: ‘It’s actually great news for me. I heard about that story this weekend… It’s one thing if Richard Gadd says to them, ”It’s true, it’s true, it’s true”, and they fail to do their due diligence.
Ms Harvey is demanding £135million from the streaming giant, claiming they spread ‘brutal lies’ because ‘it was a better story than the truth’
‘It’s even worse if Richard Gadd says, ”Well, I don’t really want this to be a true story”. And Netflix says, ”No, no, no, no, we want it to be true”… And they say, ”We don’t want to listen to you. We’re making it a true story”.
‘I mean, we’re going beyond, this is far worse than negligence. This is intentional misconduct, if they actually were told, ”Don’t make it a true story” and they said it were true.’
Mr Roth said he believed Gadd has ‘no credibility’ as a witness due to drug use and troubling behaviour revealed in the show.
‘So the man, the person they most most rely on, for the truth of the story has been shattered before I even get to cross examine him,’ Mr Roth explained.
‘Netflix has unbelievable culpability for saying at a minimum, that she’s a twice-time convicted felon. You saw the scene where she’s crying, and she pleads guilty? That’s all fabricated.’
Asked by Piers if his client’s past behaviour, and the claims made by Scottish lawyer Laura Wray of stalking, would go against Harvey, he said Wray herself seemed to admit this behaviour had not been deemed ‘criminal’ in the past.
‘The fact that… something happened 22 years ago with Laura Wray and Fiona, I don’t really care about that. But what I care about is that Netflix and Gadd represented that she was a convicted, twice-convicted – once before and once during the show… He says she was a criminal for four and a half years and Laura Wray said none of that is true,’ said Mr Roth.
Mr Roth explained he would look at how many emails and messages were produced during discovery by Netflix, adding: ‘We’ve seen nothing near 41,000 emails… We don’t have it yet. Nor do we believe it exists.’
The miniseries starring Richard Gadd (pictured) is billed by Netflix as a ‘true story’
Speaking of Ms Harvey, Mr Roth said: ‘This is a woman who was really thrust into the limelight. This is not a situation where you have a public figure, who essentially was defamed.
‘This is a situation where a woman lives her own life, and she all of a sudden, found getting death threats, can’t leave her apartment.
‘Really, really just inappropriate. Why is Netflix not calling her up and say, ”Listen, we’re about to do this story, we’d like you to look at it. We’d like to fact check”’.
The lawyer added: ‘Honestly, she’s not well, she’s clammed up in her apartment. She doesn’t know what to do, doesn’t know where to go. She’s hurting. I mean, she really has been shattered by this.
‘There’s going to be a big percentage of the populace that don’t believe her and think she is the Martha who’s depicted in that series. And so she’s afraid to go out and get groceries. It’s that bad.’
He concluded: ‘This could be a watershed moment for streaming TV.’
On whether he expected Fiona Harvey to give evidence in court, he replied: ‘Oh, she’ll certainly give evidence.
‘We’ll have Richard Gadd testify, we’ll have her testify. We’re gonna have a string of people at Netflix testifying as to what they did… why they agreed to the language in the front. What they did to check it. I also can’t wait to find out how, how [the executive] who testified in front of Parliament.
‘My goodness, I mean, that’s not a blunder. That is real, real inappropriate conduct… [and could have] big repercussions from my lawsuit. Honestly, if he goes [back] in front of Parliament and says ‘I lied or I was wrong or I misspoke’. That’s very problematic for Netflix.’
It comes as the lawyers representing Ms Harvey have demanded the release of thousands of texts and emails in the lawsuit against Netflix.
The Sun revealed on Sunday that Ms Harvey’s lawyers are now demanding the release of thousands of texts and emails as they wage the £135m lawsuit which was launched earlier this month.
Ms Harvey has accused the streaming platform of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and violations of her right of publicity in the lawsuit filed in a US court.
Netflix has said that it intends to ‘defend this matter vigorously’ and stand by Gadd’s ‘right to tell his story’.