GirlsDoPorn Attorney: Key Protective Order Involving Model Identities Is Removed

GirlsDoPorn Attorney: Key Protective Order Involving Model Identities Is Removed

SAN DIEGO — An attorney representing said today that a San Diego Superior Court judge has removed a key protective order, paving the way for defense counsel to learn the identities of 14 female models who allege they were exploited after they answered Craigslist ads and shot porn for the online adult site.

GirlsDoPorn lawyer Aaron Sadock told XBIZ that the models’ case was “further chipped away at” with a recent objection that removed a previous order relative to access to the plaintiff’s real names.

In the suit filed last year, the plaintiffs were allowed to sue anonymously as Jane Does.  

“Overall, we see this is a very positive development for the defense of this lawsuit and likely outcome in the trial to come,” said Sadock, noting that the new order, which goes into effect in about 30 days, allows the defense to conduct “exhaustive” investigations on the Does.

“We objected to [the protective order] because it interfered with our ability to investigate the plaintiffs’ claims and because court cases are nearly always transparent,” Sadock said. “In a formal motion, we asked the court to remove the secrecy surrounding plaintiffs’ names and to undo a protective order that prevented us from revealing the plaintiffs’ names to witnesses without first complying with burdensome procedures.”

Sadock said that the 14 models’ actual identities will remain a secret in the court’s records only, but that they should have no expectation of this in trial based on the ruling.

Each of the models claim in a lawsuit filed at San Diego Superior Court that they answered ads posted on in cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Diego and Dallas, as well as in Alberta, Canada, and in populous counties in North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Tennessee.

The women, ranging from age 18-22, mostly flew to San Diego from their hometowns in the U.S. and Canada for assignments that averaged about $2,000 to $5,000 for each shoot, often filmed at local four-star hotels, such as the Hilton, Hard Rock or Marriott.

After the shoot, according to the suit, each of the performers found their videos posted on the six-year-old website despite promises that the DVDs would only be distributed overseas and for private use.

The models said in the suit that their real identities and contact information were leaked on to sites like for families and friends to see.

Four of the performers filed a lawsuit this past June against com and its operators, seeking $500,000 a piece in damages, along with punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. By December, however, an amended complaint was filed and 10 more performers joined the suit also seeking $500,000 each in damages, plus punitives.

A second-amended complaint was filed two weeks ago in the case. That document, however, has been sealed by the court.

The first-amended complaint made accusations against and its operators that include allegations of intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, false promise, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, misappropriation of name and likeness, negligence and breach of contract, among other allegations.

The first-amended complaint, however, pared other serious charges that were listed in the initial complaint, including those of false imprisonment, sexual battery and gender violence.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to XBIZ for comments.

A trial date has not yet been set in the case.