8 h, feb 21, 2020 y - Depp v NGN & Wootton Johnny Depp Response to NGN Disclosure Application Jenny Afia #1 WITNESS STATEMENT FILED

Description:

Jenny Afia’a First Witness Statement was filed in response to NGN’s Disclosure Application Notice of 19 February 2020 which had supporting documents accusing Team Depp of being irregular and deficient in their Court ordered disclosure obligations.

To the knowledge of THE JDC Jenny Afia’s First Witness Statement has never been published. However we are able to glean some insight as to it’s content from other court documents which either refer to or quote from it.

Comments fare grouped by topic discussed.

1. DISCLOSURE OF AUDIOS

Team NGN asserted in their Disclosure Application that Team Depp, and in particular Adam Waldman, were in possession of a number of Audio Recordings that were still to be disclosed. They were extremely annoyed that Audios had been released to the public domain via the Daily Mail (and Incredibly Average) prior to being listed in Disclosure and accordingly requested court sanctions.

In her witness statement in response dated 21st February 2020, Ms Afia, of Schillings says,
i)Mr Waldman received two audio recordings on 27th January 2020.
ii) He did not possess them prior to that.
iii) He received only those two recordings, not others.
iv) The first recording, if not both, was made by Ms Heard.
v) The Claimant does not hold and has never held any of these recordings.
vi) The two audio tapes were disclosed to the Defendants on 20* February 2020.
vii) Ms Afia understands that Ms Heard's legal representatives have confirmed that they hold the tapes and, therefore, so far as there are any others they are in the possession or control of Ms Heard who has been providing evidence to the Defendants. There is therefore no purpose in requiring the Claimant to disclose them (even if he had any others).

2. DISCLOSURE OF TEXTS

Having had access to 70,000 Texts released in error, Team NGN were keen to have the ‘incriminating’ texts they had found officially listed in disclosure.

In her witness statement Ms Afia and Mr Sherborne in his skeleton argument, also alleged that the Defendants' disclosure had been deficient. There is, though, no application for specific disclosure made by the Claimant against the Defendants and the merits of the Defendants' application have to be judged on its own terms.

In her witness statement, Ms Afia says that, since the Defendants now have these text messages from Ms Heard, it is neither reasonable nor proportionate to require the Claimant to produce them. It is also safe to assume that, if there are any other relevant documents from the divorce proceedings, Ms Heard will also provide them.

3. DISCLOSURE OF DIVORCE DOCUMENTS

The Defendants also asked for disclosure of the exhibits in the divorce proceedings. Ms Afia said of this,
'I am instructed that the court reporter in the divorce proceedings maintains the record and exhibits in those proceedings. Brown Rudnick made requests from the reporting agency for the records requested by the Defendants. The reporter requested a signed authorisation from the Claimant, which I am instructed he gave.
The reporter refused to provide the records on the basis that it is only the lawyers on record for the divorce proceedings who can obtain them.’

4. DISCLOSURE OF VA DEFAMATION CASE DOCUMENTS

It seems that a 'protective order' has been made in the USA by Chief Judge Bruce White of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County in Virginia. Mr Charalambous exhibits a copy of Judge White's order. The Claimant (Miss Afia) submits that the documents which the Defendants are seeking cannot be produced without infringing this order since they were produced by Ms Heard in the course of the US libel litigation and have been designated by her as confidential.

5. DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL RECORDS

One of the doctors who attended on the Claimant was a Dr Kipper. Mr Charalambous says that it is his understanding that Dr Kipper was solely treating the Claimant for his addiction problems and all of Dr Kipper's records should therefore have been disclosed. In her witness statement in reply, Ms Afia says that this understanding is incorrect: Dr Kipper treated the Claimant for other matters as well.

Ms Afia says in her witness statement that it would not be proportionate to require the Claimant to undertake searches of all of his medical records. She says that Dr Blaustein has not provided his records despite several requests and requiring him to make further effort or requests would not be reasonable or proportionate. There has been no further response from Dr Kulber. She understands that Ms Heard has served a subpoena for those records.

Ms Afia says that none of the other medical professionals who were provided with the necessary authorisation have provided any medical records. She says that Brown Rudnick (US), who are still instructed by the Claimant, are doing what they can to pursue the matter, but it is not reasonable or proportionate for any further disclosure order to be made by this court.


SOURCE:
UK Court Documents:
- Pre Trial Ruling (Judgment) of 6 March 2020
- Jenny Afia Witness Statement #1 [UNPUBLISHED]
- UK Core Trial Bundle Items 35 & 36 Listing Questionnaires (Pre-Trial Checklists)

Added to timeline:

Date:

Images: