LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION warno-sincen” ‘ATTORNEYS AT LAW DANO B. JONELIS MICHAEL WEINSTEN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2008 eae fae, EVAN N- SPIEGEL TELEPHONE (910) 55650! HENUEY J, HANSEN TOE PAREN cee: FACSIMILE (310) 556-9615 seers ALLISON §: HART WOM LAVELYSINGER.coH SNE ane Mareh 15, 2018 ~ LEGAL DEMAND — 1A EMAIL: % suerodgers@independenttalent.com info@cloudeighifilms.com Mr. Danny Boyle Executive Producer Cloud Eight Films Decibel Films VIA EMAIL: % Nick Grad@jfinetwork.com Mr. Simon Beaufoy Executive Producer % FX Productions VIA EMAIL: Nick.Grad@fenetwork.com Mr. Nick Grad President, Original Programming EX Productions 10201 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90035 Re: Ariadne Getty / FX Pi ions, Cloud Eight Films, Decibel Fi danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy, ef al. - Trust Our File No.: 6349-2 Gentlemen: We are US litigation counsel to Ariadne Getty. It is obvious that if someone wants to watch a defamatory wildly sensationalized false portrayal of the Getty family, Trust fits the bill. Ariadne Getty is the sister of the late J. Paul Getty Ill, who was the victim of a horrific kidnapping in 1973 while a 16-year-old boy, during which he was held captive for months, terrorized, and brutally maimed. The kidnapping resulted in nine arrests and two criminal convictions sending the kidnappers to prison. Despite this, the series Trust outlandishly makes it appear as if members of the Getty family were actually complicit in the kidnapping and that the crime had been faked in an attempt to dupe J. Paul Getty out of millions of dollars for their benefit. This is outrageous. Itis ironic that you have titled your television series Trust. More fitting titles would be Lies or Mistrust, since the defamatory story it tells about the Gettys colluding in the kidnapping is false and misleading, and viewers rightly ought to mistrust it.EX Productions Mr. Danny Boyle Mr. Simon Beaufoy Re: Ariadne Getty / FX Productions, ef al, - Trust March 15, 2018 Page 2 You have falsified the dreadful story of Ariadne’s brother's kidnapping to tum it into a cruel and mean-spirited defamatory depiction of the Getty family, maliciously and recklessly portraying them as greedily cooperating in and/or facilitating a kidnapping that left a family member mutilated. Trust makes it appear as if the Getty family malevolently went along with and/or were part of a kidnapping scheme that resulted in the terrifying ordeal and the disfigurement of my client's teenage brother. As such, Trust defames the Gettys (including our client) and portrays them in an outrageous false light. This is unconscionable. Itis defamatory per se to falsely aecuse someone of a crime.’ Even if Trust does not explicitly state that my client among other Getty family members are complicit in the kidnapping of Ariadne’s brother, legal exposure for defamation nevertheless arises from its defamatory implications.” Trust amounts to deliberate fictionalization masquerading as fact, giving rise to significant liability, You would not be exculpated from liability by contending that Trust is intended to tell only partial or incomplete “facts” about the kidnapping, since the story nevertheless defames my client and portrays her in a false light by omission.‘ Nor could you evade liability by arguing that " See Condit v, Nat'l Enguirer, Inc, 248 F.Supp.2d 943, 965 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (“Statements which falsely ‘impute the commission of a crime are libelous on their face”); Goehring v. Wright, 858 F.Supp. 989, 1004 (N.D. Cal, 1994) (“A false charge of criminality is defamatory per se”: plaintiff may recover presumed damages to eputation without establishing “special” or identifiable damages); Alard v. Church of Sciemology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439 (1976), cert denied, 97 S.Ct. 1101 (unnecessary to prove special damages; general damages presumed as a matter of aw). 2 White». Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d $12, $18 (D.C. Cit. 1990) (“defamation by implication stems ‘not from wht is literally stated, but what i implied” recognizing “possibilty that a defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report”); Kapellas v. Kofman, 1 Cal 3d 20, 33, 81 Cal Rpt. 360 (1969) (libel defendant is accountable and liable “or what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly”); Solano v Playgirl, Ine, 292 F-3d 1078, 1083 (9 Cir. 2002), quoting Selleck v. Globe In, 166 Cal.App.34 1123, 212 Cal Rpt. 838, 843 (1985) (“our inquiry isnot to determine whether the publication may have an innocent meaning but rather to determine if it reasonably conveys a defamatory meaning, In making that determination we look to What is explicitly stated as well as what insinuation and implication can reasonably be draw from the publication”). ? Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.3d 409 (1983) (“lies masquerading as truth” give rise to liability for «defamation and false light invasion of privacy; “in defamation eases, the concern is with defamatory lies ‘masquerading as truth”; “in privacy cases, the concern is with nondefamatory lies masquerading as truth”; “deliberate fictionalization of {plaintiff's} personality constitutes commercial exploitation, and becomes actionable ‘when itis presented to the reader as if true with the requisite scienter”), “ See, Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 80 Cal.App.ath 1165, 1180 (2002); Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706 (1990) (incomplete facts may imply false assertion of fact); Toney v. WCCO Television, Midwest Cable and Satellite, 85 F.3d 383, 392 (8th Cir. 1996) (recognizing causeFX Productions Mr. Danny Boyle Mr. Simon Beaufoy Re: Ariadne Getty / FX Productions, et al. - Trust Mareh 15, 2018 Page 3 she is not an identifiable claimant since she is but one member of the Getty family,’ or on the basis that my client might not have been specifically called out by name in Trust as colluding in the kidnapping.° Ariadne Getty is recognized and known as a prominent philanthropist, and her prominence in the community would be considered by any court in evaluating her defamation claim.” It would be a travesty if my client's philanthropic good works and the Getty name are sullied because of the reckless Trust series. You are using a false version of the Getty family tragedy for entertainment for your own financial gain. That is indeed ironic, since one of the themes of Trust is to portray my client’s family as greed-driven. On the issue of greed, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror. Perhaps it is unsurprising that Zrust amounts to a smear of the Getty name, since nobody bothered to seek my client's consent or input before proceeding to concoct it. We demand that you immediately make available for our review copies of all episodes of Trust. If you fail to do so, we will naturally presume that you are concealing it because there is something to hide. The creation and dissemination of Trust gives rise to significant liability in the United States, as well as in other jurisdictions throughout the world where my client is retaining counsel to protect her rights and pursue her legal remedies. of action for implied defamation where defendant omits important facts): Express Publishing Co. v. Gonzalez, 350 8.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. 1961) (‘tis nota defense to show that a statement contained in a publication, i taken alone, {5 Iiteraly true, when other facts are omitted which plainly refute the false impression ofthe partial statement. A statement isnot true or even substantially rue if, by implication, an entirely untrue impression is made by omission of part ofthe fact.”; Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wash.2d 812, 827 (2005) (defamation claim where “the communication left a false impression that would be contradicted by the inclusion of omitted facts"). 5 Blaty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1044, 1046 (1986), cert. denied 485 U.S. 934, 108 S.Ct 1107 (1988) (liability stil attaches where defamatory material is understood by reasonable implication to be of and concerning plaintiff, even if not identified by name); see also, Brad) v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., 84 A.D.24226, 231, 445 N.Y.S.2d 786, 789 (1981) (an “individual belonging to @ small group may maintain an action for individual injury resulting from a defamatory comment about the group, by showing that he is a member of the group {fn ‘omitied] [citation omitted). Because the group is small and includes few individuals, reference to the individual plaintiff reasonably follows from the statement and the question of reference is left for the jury”). ince we have not yet seen any complete episodes of Trust it is currently unknown the extent to which Ariadne has been made an obviously identifiable target of its defamatory smear. * Brady, supra, 445 N.Y S2d at 794-95 (evaluating a small group defamation claim, court considers group size, whether defamatory statement impugns character of all or some group members, and considers “the prominence ofthe group and its individual members” inthe community).FX Productions Mr. Danny Boyle Mr. Simon Beaufoy Re: Ariadne Getty / FX Productions, ef al, - Trust March 15, 2018 Page 4 This is an extremely serious matter. We caution you in the strongest possible terms to refrain from continuing to defame Ariadne Getty and portraying her in an offensive false light. If you persist in doing so, you proceed at your own peril. MDSiIg cc: Ariadne Getty Lynda B. Goldman, Esq. soo. nups ex on1518