Preview
Filing # 134846446 E-Filed 09/17/2021 07:00:29 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
MASHA ‘MALU’ LUND; HILLARY FISHER
VINSON a/k/a HILLARY HEPNER; LUCY
PINDER; IRINA VORONINA; BROOKE MARRIN
a/k/a BROOKE BANX and EMILY SEARS, Case No. 2021CA-000512XXCICI
PLAINTIFFS,
VS.
GULF COAST HOLDINGS, L.L.C. d/b/a
OZ THEE GENTLEMENS CLUB d/b/a
OZ LADIES’ & GENTLEMEN’S NIGHTCLUB,
DEFENDANT.
/
PLAINTIFF EMILY SEARS’ NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S
INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff, EMILY SEARS, by and through the undersigned counsel, files her notice of
serving answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories.
Date: September 17, 2021. Respectfully submitted,
THE CASAS LAW FIRM, P.C
By: /s/ Ludmila Khomiak
Ludmila Khomiak, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 91757
mila@talentrights.law
Brickell Bayview Center
80 S. W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
Electronic Mail on this 17th day of September, 2021 to:
***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 09/17/2021 07:00:29 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
David J. Kurland, Esq.
850 Clearwater-Largo Road South
Largo, Florida 33770-4470
david@davidkurland.com
sheila@davidkurland.com
Attorney for Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1:
What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories and, if applicable,
the person’s official position or relationship with the party to whom the interrogatories are
directed?
Response:
Plaintiff, Emily Sears, 15498 Briarwood Dr., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403.
Interrogatory No. 2:
List all former names and when you were known by those names. State all addresses where you
have lived for the past 10 years, the dates you lived at each address, your Social Security
Number, your date of birth, and, if you are or have ever been married, the name of your spouse
or spouses.
Response:
Name(s): Emily Sears
Addresses:
. 15498 Briarwood Dr., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403;
. 12 Nighingale St Balaclava Vic 3183 Australia;
. 2/36 Waterloo crescent St Kilda Vic 3182 Australia;
25441 Via Acorde Valencia CA 91355;
853 Larrabee St., Apt. 15 West Hollywood CA 90069;
24715 Magic Mountain Pkwy #2124, Valencia, CA 91355;
853 Larrabee St. Apt. 15 West Hollywood, CA 90069
SSN: ***-**-5051
Date of Birth: 11/10/1984
Spouse(s): None.
Interrogatory No. 3:
Have you ever been convicted ofa crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, which under the
law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1
year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state as
to each conviction the specific crime and the date and place of conviction.
Response:
No.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Please state if you have ever been a party, either plaintiff or defendant, in a lawsuit other than the
present matter, and, if so, state the complete style of the case including the court in which it was
filed; the date on which the case was filed; the subject matter of the lawsuit; and the outcome of
each lawsuit.
Response:
Plaintiff states that Plaintiff is/was a plaintiff in each of the following matters concerning the
misappropriation of Plaintiff’s images:
Cheri, et al. v. Rockwell & Assoc., Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York, 3:18-cv-01109, 09/14/2018, settled in confidentiality
Davalos, et al. v. Dearborn Avenue Bistro, et al., United States District Court Eastern
District of Michigan, 2:18-cv-11401, 05/03/2018, settled in confidentiality
Electra, et al. v. Dreamers Cabaret, LLC et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, 5:18-cv-02706, 11/20/2018, litigation pending
First Mercury Insurance v. Triple Location LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division, 1:19-cv-02395, 04/09/2019, litigation pending
Longoria, et al. v. Million Dollar Corporation, United States District Court of Colorado,
1:18-cv-02266, 08/31/2018, litigation pending
Middleton, et al. v. A-H.D Houston, Inc., et al., District of Harris County, Texas, 157th
Judicial District, 2017-71429, 10/23/2017, litigation pending
Pinder, et al v. 1406 Group, L.L.C., Circuit Court of the 6th Judicial District, Pasco County,
2020CA001480CAAXWS, 06/29/2020, litigation pending
Ratchford et al. v. Dalton Corp., U.S. District Court District of Arizona, 2:19-cv-01421,
02/28/2019, consent judgment for plaintiffs
Ratchford et al. v. R.I. Cranston Entertainment Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Rhode Island, 1:19-cv-00496, 09/20/2019, consent judgment for plaintiffs
Ratchford, et al. v. AEG Ventures, LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ilinois,
1:17-cv-07368, 10/12/2017, litigation pending
Sears et al v. Russell Road Food And Beverage, LLC et al, U.S. District Court, District of
Nevada, 2:19-cv-01091, 06/24/2019, litigation pending
Sears et al v. Triple Location, LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ilinois,
Eastern Division, 1:18-cv-04808, 07/13/2018, settled in confidentiality
Souza, et al. v. Brass Saddle, Inc., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania,
2:19-cv-00683, 06/12/2019, litigation pending
The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. A.H.D. Houston, Inc. et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-3680 (S.D. Tex.), U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 4:20-cv-3680,
10/27/2020, litigation pending
The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. R.L. Cranston Entertainment
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1:21-cv-00063, 02/05/2021,
litigation pending
Interrogatory No. 5:
Please identify any and all social media websites which Plaintiff has used and/or maintained an
account in the last five (5) years. “Social media websites” includes but is not limited to
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, LinkedIn, XboxLive, Foursquare, Gowalla, MySpace,
and Windows Live Spaces.
Response:
.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ilikeemilysears/
.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/emilysears/
. Twitter: https://twitter.com/emilysears?lang=en
Interrogatory No. 6:
List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you, your agents, or
your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify
the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.
Response:
None.
Interrogatory No. 7:
List each item of expense or damage that you claim to have incurred as a result of the incident
described in the complaint.
Response:
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of expert testimony
regarding damages, including but not limited to expert opinion testimony regarding the fair
market value of the use of Plaintiff’s image to commercial ventures prior to the date set forth in
the Court’s scheduling order or the applicable rules.
Interrogatory No. 8:
Describe in detail your “reputation,” “brand,” “marketability” and/or “good will” you have built
and each and every step you take to be “vigilant and proactive” in protecting your “reputation,”
“brand,” “marketability” and/or “good will.”
Response:
Plaintiff uses a multi valuation process which may include, but is not limited to, each of the
following to assist in the decision whether or not a potential opportunity will increase Plaintiff’s
demand, desirability, and/or reputation while also establishing or reinforcing Plaintiff’s desired
brand profile:
.
the reputation of the associated brand;
.
whether the associated brand’s industry has had a favorable effect on other models and
celebrities’ careers;
.
the product, service, or customer experience which is to be promoted;
spirit, style, quality, and nature of the advertisement, marketing, or promotional campaign;
intended method(s) of distribution;
length of consented usage;
previous advertisement, marketing, or promotional campaigns conducted by the associated
brand, including the spirit, style, quality, and nature of previous promotional efforts;
personal reservations, objections, or feelings about the opportunity;
existence of additional contractual commitments beyond the photoshoot, such as social
media postings;
travel requirements, personal appearances, or future photography sessions;
exclusivity issues due to current or future conflicts of interest;
whether participating in this opportunity may bar Plaintiff from future opportunities due to
the association;
whether previously associated models experienced a favorable boost in their desirability/
demand following the association;
fees, retainer agreements, payment escalations, and residuals.
Interrogatory No. 9:
List each and every “adult entertainment” and/or “striptease outlets” for which you have
promoted your image and/or likeness as alleged in Paragraph 29 of your Complaint for Damages;
specifically:
a. The name and address of each adult entertainment and/or striptease outlet;
b. The date(s) in which you promoted your image and/or likeness;
c. The name and address of each and every person and/or entity representing your interests: :3
d. Whether a written contract was involved; and
e. Your compensation for said promotion.
Response:
Plaintiff has never engaged in the conduct suggested in this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 10:
List all sources of your income from December 5, 2015, through current.
Response:
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that it is unduly broad,
vague, overly burdensome, not properly limited in time and scope, and not reasonably tailored to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding said objection,
Plaintiff has worked as a model for GQ USA, FHM, MAXIM, Kandy Magazine, Ralph, M,
Transworld, Motocross, Esquire, ZOO Weekly, Ciroc, Naven, Strikeforce MMA, Kumo Tires,
Comfort Revolution, Two in the Shirt, Happy Tea, Ist Phorm, Monster Energy, and Maneater
Swimwear. Plaintiff, however, does not recall how much she was compensated for all those jobs.
Notwithstanding, see below:
Company Job Title Compensation Date(s) of Work
72andSunny Partners, LLC Actress $5,000/day 2016
Model/Social Media
Foxy Locks Ltd $2,000/day 2016
Influencer
Model/Social Media
Express Smile Atlanta $2,500/campaign 2016
Influencer
I'm Kind of a Big Deal, Model/Social Media
$1,260/campaign 2016
LLC Influencer
T-Mobile (iHeartRadio
TV Host $8,000/shoot 2018
Music Festival)
Model/Social Media
Fashion Nova $4,000 2018
Influencer
Model/Social Media
Elevator Studio $2,000/day 2018
Influencer
Model/Social Media
Millionaire Media
Influencer
$1,300/day 2018
Interrogatory No. 11:
Regarding the image forming the basis for this lawsuit, please state the name, current and/or last
known address and telephone number of the photographer/photography studio who/which took
the photograph; the date the photograph was taken; the cost of taking the photograph; whether
you entered into a contract regarding the photograph; whether you relinquished any ownership
claims you may have had to the photograph; and the name, address and telephone number of any
and all persons and/or entities who/which may have been acting on your behalf at the time the
photograph was taken and/or contract was executed.
Response:
Photographer: The photographer of the image is believed to be Danny Steezy whose
personal and business contact information was not retained by the Plaintiff;
Date of Shoot: The photoshoot to which the image was derived is believed to have
occurred sometime around 2017;
Compensation: Plaintiff commissioned the photoshoot and did not compensate herself for
her participation;
Contract: Plaintiff does not have any information or belief that would suggest she executed
a contract with the photographer in relation to the photoshoot for the subject image;
Relinquishment of Rights: Plaintiff did not relinquish any ownership rights to her image;
Third Party: No third party or agent was acting on Plaintiff’s behalf at the time the subject
image was taken.
Interrogatory No. 12:
List each and every publication, either printed or internet-based, for which you have posed,
specifying whether you appeared nude, partially nude and/or in a sexually suggestive manner in
each publication; every date the image appeared in the publication, the compensation you
received for each instance; and the agent/representative acting on your behalf for each and every
publication.
Response:
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is over broad, vague, intended to harass,
irrelevant, and immaterial to the subject of this matter and the information sought is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the terms partially
nude and sexually suggestive manner are not defined.
Interrogatory No. 13:
Describe in detail how you “control the use and dissemination of your image” and your “vetting
process” as alleged in Paragraph 35 of your Complaint for Damages.
Response:
See response to Interrogatory No. 8 above.
Interrogatory No. 14:
List the name, address, and telephone number of each and every representative, agent, and/or any
other third-party who/which has/have represented you in the past ten (10) years.
Response:
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that it is unduly broad,
vague, overly burdensome, not properly limited in time and scope, and not reasonably tailored to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding said objection,
Plaintiff has been represented by each of the following:
. Otto Models
2901 W. Coast Hwy #350 , Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-258-4329
Element Talent Agency
120 South Vignes Street, Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90012
310-893-1894
Johnson Sports Entertainment
213-663-6707
Interrogatory No. 15:
Describe in detail how Defendant’s alleged use of your image, likeness, and/or identity
“impugned” your character, “embarrassed” you, and/or suggested, “falsely your support for and
participation in the adult entertainment and striptease lifestyle.”
Response:
Plaintiff states that the use of her image to promote Defendant’s commercial interests was
intended to and likely did give third parties the impression that Plaintiff endorsed, promoted,
and/or performed as a stripper at Defendant’s strip club. Plaintiff’s image was also used to “class
up” the Defendant’s strip club. Further, Plaintiff states that her image did give third parties the
impression that Plaintiff agreed with and/or engaged in the deviant sexual acts and stripper
conduct taking place at Defendant’s strip club and would or may likely be present at the
establishment, which personally embarrassed Plaintiff. Plaintiff states further that, among those
who would have knowledge relative to this Interrogatory would be Defendant. Defendant is
aware of its own motivations for its advertising campaign using Plaintiff’s image. Defendant’s
use ofa beautiful model for its advertisement is no coincidence.
Interrogatory No. 16:
List all information and/or evidence you have that Defendant’s alleged “improper use of your
image, likeness and/or identity described herein permitted, encouraged, or facilitated other
persons, firms, and entities to further utilize and misappropriate Sears’ images, likeness, and
identity in their market activities and business and further damaged you” as alleged in Paragraph
111 of your Complaint for Damages.
Response:
By using Plaintiff’s image without authorization to promote a business that Plaintiff has never
promoted implies to the rest of the world that Plaintiff consents to have her image used to
promote businesses without compensation.
Interrogatory No. 17:
Describe in detail how you discovered that Defendant had allegedly used your image, likeness,
and/or identity, specifying the date you made the discovery; any and all persons and/or entities
involved in the discovery; any and all actions taken by you or on your behalf upon learning of
the discovery; and any and all actions taken by you or on your behalf to mitigate your alleged
damages.
Response:
Plaintiff is involved in several matters regarding the misappropriation of her image and cannot
recall with specificity whether it was another model, friend, social media follower, or legal
counsel who first informed her of the use at issue in the instant matter.
Interrogatory No. 18:
What information and/or evidence do you have that Defendant was well aware of the standard
negotiation process over terms of use, conditions of release, licensing issues, and other
contractual incidences” as alleged in Paragraph 13 of your Complaint for Damages.
Response:
The requested information is in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Defendant refused to
produce the same.
Interrogatory No. 19:
What information and/or evidence do you have that Defendant’s business involved “nude”
dancing as alleged in Paragraph 24 of your Complaint for Damages.
Response:
Yelp.com lists Defendant as a Full Nude Strip Club.
Interrogatory No. 20:
Do you intend to call any expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please identify each
witness; describe his qualifications as an expert; state the subject matter upon which he is
expected to testify; state the substance of the facts and opinion to which he is expected to testify,
and give a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
Response:
Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is premature, the discovery process is
ongoing and Plaintiffs have not yet determined or identified any expert witnesses. Plaintiff will
disclose any expert witness responsive to this Interrogatory at the appropriate time and pursuant
to the Court’s scheduling and/or pretrial conference order(s).
I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing responses to Interrogatories are
true and correct.
Executed this day of September, 2021. a—
EMILY SEARS
Preview
Filing # 134846446 E-Filed 09/17/2021 07:00:29 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA MASHA ‘MALU’ LUND; HILLARY FISHER VINSON a/k/a HILLARY HEPNER; LUCY PINDER; IRINA VORONINA; BROOKE MARRIN a/k/a BROOKE BANX and EMILY SEARS, Case No. 2021CA-000512XXCICI PLAINTIFFS, VS. GULF COAST HOLDINGS, L.L.C. d/b/a OZ THEE GENTLEMENS CLUB d/b/a OZ LADIES’ & GENTLEMEN’S NIGHTCLUB, DEFENDANT. / PLAINTIFF EMILY SEARS’ NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, EMILY SEARS, by and through the undersigned counsel, files her notice of serving answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories. Date: September 17, 2021. Respectfully submitted, THE CASAS LAW FIRM, P.C By: /s/ Ludmila Khomiak Ludmila Khomiak, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 91757 mila@talentrights.law Brickell Bayview Center 80 S. W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail on this 17th day of September, 2021 to: ***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 09/17/2021 07:00:29 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY*** David J. Kurland, Esq. 850 Clearwater-Largo Road South Largo, Florida 33770-4470 david@davidkurland.com sheila@davidkurland.com Attorney for Defendant PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1: What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories and, if applicable, the person’s official position or relationship with the party to whom the interrogatories are directed? Response: Plaintiff, Emily Sears, 15498 Briarwood Dr., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Interrogatory No. 2: List all former names and when you were known by those names. State all addresses where you have lived for the past 10 years, the dates you lived at each address, your Social Security Number, your date of birth, and, if you are or have ever been married, the name of your spouse or spouses. Response: Name(s): Emily Sears Addresses: . 15498 Briarwood Dr., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403; . 12 Nighingale St Balaclava Vic 3183 Australia; . 2/36 Waterloo crescent St Kilda Vic 3182 Australia; 25441 Via Acorde Valencia CA 91355; 853 Larrabee St., Apt. 15 West Hollywood CA 90069; 24715 Magic Mountain Pkwy #2124, Valencia, CA 91355; 853 Larrabee St. Apt. 15 West Hollywood, CA 90069 SSN: ***-**-5051 Date of Birth: 11/10/1984 Spouse(s): None. Interrogatory No. 3: Have you ever been convicted ofa crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, which under the law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state as to each conviction the specific crime and the date and place of conviction. Response: No. Interrogatory No. 4: Please state if you have ever been a party, either plaintiff or defendant, in a lawsuit other than the present matter, and, if so, state the complete style of the case including the court in which it was filed; the date on which the case was filed; the subject matter of the lawsuit; and the outcome of each lawsuit. Response: Plaintiff states that Plaintiff is/was a plaintiff in each of the following matters concerning the misappropriation of Plaintiff’s images: Cheri, et al. v. Rockwell & Assoc., Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, 3:18-cv-01109, 09/14/2018, settled in confidentiality Davalos, et al. v. Dearborn Avenue Bistro, et al., United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan, 2:18-cv-11401, 05/03/2018, settled in confidentiality Electra, et al. v. Dreamers Cabaret, LLC et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, 5:18-cv-02706, 11/20/2018, litigation pending First Mercury Insurance v. Triple Location LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, 1:19-cv-02395, 04/09/2019, litigation pending Longoria, et al. v. Million Dollar Corporation, United States District Court of Colorado, 1:18-cv-02266, 08/31/2018, litigation pending Middleton, et al. v. A-H.D Houston, Inc., et al., District of Harris County, Texas, 157th Judicial District, 2017-71429, 10/23/2017, litigation pending Pinder, et al v. 1406 Group, L.L.C., Circuit Court of the 6th Judicial District, Pasco County, 2020CA001480CAAXWS, 06/29/2020, litigation pending Ratchford et al. v. Dalton Corp., U.S. District Court District of Arizona, 2:19-cv-01421, 02/28/2019, consent judgment for plaintiffs Ratchford et al. v. R.I. Cranston Entertainment Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1:19-cv-00496, 09/20/2019, consent judgment for plaintiffs Ratchford, et al. v. AEG Ventures, LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ilinois, 1:17-cv-07368, 10/12/2017, litigation pending Sears et al v. Russell Road Food And Beverage, LLC et al, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, 2:19-cv-01091, 06/24/2019, litigation pending Sears et al v. Triple Location, LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ilinois, Eastern Division, 1:18-cv-04808, 07/13/2018, settled in confidentiality Souza, et al. v. Brass Saddle, Inc., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2:19-cv-00683, 06/12/2019, litigation pending The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. A.H.D. Houston, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-3680 (S.D. Tex.), U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 4:20-cv-3680, 10/27/2020, litigation pending The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. R.L. Cranston Entertainment Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1:21-cv-00063, 02/05/2021, litigation pending Interrogatory No. 5: Please identify any and all social media websites which Plaintiff has used and/or maintained an account in the last five (5) years. “Social media websites” includes but is not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, LinkedIn, XboxLive, Foursquare, Gowalla, MySpace, and Windows Live Spaces. Response: . Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ilikeemilysears/ . Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/emilysears/ . Twitter: https://twitter.com/emilysears?lang=en Interrogatory No. 6: List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge. Response: None. Interrogatory No. 7: List each item of expense or damage that you claim to have incurred as a result of the incident described in the complaint. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of expert testimony regarding damages, including but not limited to expert opinion testimony regarding the fair market value of the use of Plaintiff’s image to commercial ventures prior to the date set forth in the Court’s scheduling order or the applicable rules. Interrogatory No. 8: Describe in detail your “reputation,” “brand,” “marketability” and/or “good will” you have built and each and every step you take to be “vigilant and proactive” in protecting your “reputation,” “brand,” “marketability” and/or “good will.” Response: Plaintiff uses a multi valuation process which may include, but is not limited to, each of the following to assist in the decision whether or not a potential opportunity will increase Plaintiff’s demand, desirability, and/or reputation while also establishing or reinforcing Plaintiff’s desired brand profile: . the reputation of the associated brand; . whether the associated brand’s industry has had a favorable effect on other models and celebrities’ careers; . the product, service, or customer experience which is to be promoted; spirit, style, quality, and nature of the advertisement, marketing, or promotional campaign; intended method(s) of distribution; length of consented usage; previous advertisement, marketing, or promotional campaigns conducted by the associated brand, including the spirit, style, quality, and nature of previous promotional efforts; personal reservations, objections, or feelings about the opportunity; existence of additional contractual commitments beyond the photoshoot, such as social media postings; travel requirements, personal appearances, or future photography sessions; exclusivity issues due to current or future conflicts of interest; whether participating in this opportunity may bar Plaintiff from future opportunities due to the association; whether previously associated models experienced a favorable boost in their desirability/ demand following the association; fees, retainer agreements, payment escalations, and residuals. Interrogatory No. 9: List each and every “adult entertainment” and/or “striptease outlets” for which you have promoted your image and/or likeness as alleged in Paragraph 29 of your Complaint for Damages; specifically: a. The name and address of each adult entertainment and/or striptease outlet; b. The date(s) in which you promoted your image and/or likeness; c. The name and address of each and every person and/or entity representing your interests: :3 d. Whether a written contract was involved; and e. Your compensation for said promotion. Response: Plaintiff has never engaged in the conduct suggested in this interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 10: List all sources of your income from December 5, 2015, through current. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that it is unduly broad, vague, overly burdensome, not properly limited in time and scope, and not reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding said objection, Plaintiff has worked as a model for GQ USA, FHM, MAXIM, Kandy Magazine, Ralph, M, Transworld, Motocross, Esquire, ZOO Weekly, Ciroc, Naven, Strikeforce MMA, Kumo Tires, Comfort Revolution, Two in the Shirt, Happy Tea, Ist Phorm, Monster Energy, and Maneater Swimwear. Plaintiff, however, does not recall how much she was compensated for all those jobs. Notwithstanding, see below: Company Job Title Compensation Date(s) of Work 72andSunny Partners, LLC Actress $5,000/day 2016 Model/Social Media Foxy Locks Ltd $2,000/day 2016 Influencer Model/Social Media Express Smile Atlanta $2,500/campaign 2016 Influencer I'm Kind of a Big Deal, Model/Social Media $1,260/campaign 2016 LLC Influencer T-Mobile (iHeartRadio TV Host $8,000/shoot 2018 Music Festival) Model/Social Media Fashion Nova $4,000 2018 Influencer Model/Social Media Elevator Studio $2,000/day 2018 Influencer Model/Social Media Millionaire Media Influencer $1,300/day 2018 Interrogatory No. 11: Regarding the image forming the basis for this lawsuit, please state the name, current and/or last known address and telephone number of the photographer/photography studio who/which took the photograph; the date the photograph was taken; the cost of taking the photograph; whether you entered into a contract regarding the photograph; whether you relinquished any ownership claims you may have had to the photograph; and the name, address and telephone number of any and all persons and/or entities who/which may have been acting on your behalf at the time the photograph was taken and/or contract was executed. Response: Photographer: The photographer of the image is believed to be Danny Steezy whose personal and business contact information was not retained by the Plaintiff; Date of Shoot: The photoshoot to which the image was derived is believed to have occurred sometime around 2017; Compensation: Plaintiff commissioned the photoshoot and did not compensate herself for her participation; Contract: Plaintiff does not have any information or belief that would suggest she executed a contract with the photographer in relation to the photoshoot for the subject image; Relinquishment of Rights: Plaintiff did not relinquish any ownership rights to her image; Third Party: No third party or agent was acting on Plaintiff’s behalf at the time the subject image was taken. Interrogatory No. 12: List each and every publication, either printed or internet-based, for which you have posed, specifying whether you appeared nude, partially nude and/or in a sexually suggestive manner in each publication; every date the image appeared in the publication, the compensation you received for each instance; and the agent/representative acting on your behalf for each and every publication. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is over broad, vague, intended to harass, irrelevant, and immaterial to the subject of this matter and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the terms partially nude and sexually suggestive manner are not defined. Interrogatory No. 13: Describe in detail how you “control the use and dissemination of your image” and your “vetting process” as alleged in Paragraph 35 of your Complaint for Damages. Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. Interrogatory No. 14: List the name, address, and telephone number of each and every representative, agent, and/or any other third-party who/which has/have represented you in the past ten (10) years. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that it is unduly broad, vague, overly burdensome, not properly limited in time and scope, and not reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding said objection, Plaintiff has been represented by each of the following: . Otto Models 2901 W. Coast Hwy #350 , Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-258-4329 Element Talent Agency 120 South Vignes Street, Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90012 310-893-1894 Johnson Sports Entertainment 213-663-6707 Interrogatory No. 15: Describe in detail how Defendant’s alleged use of your image, likeness, and/or identity “impugned” your character, “embarrassed” you, and/or suggested, “falsely your support for and participation in the adult entertainment and striptease lifestyle.” Response: Plaintiff states that the use of her image to promote Defendant’s commercial interests was intended to and likely did give third parties the impression that Plaintiff endorsed, promoted, and/or performed as a stripper at Defendant’s strip club. Plaintiff’s image was also used to “class up” the Defendant’s strip club. Further, Plaintiff states that her image did give third parties the impression that Plaintiff agreed with and/or engaged in the deviant sexual acts and stripper conduct taking place at Defendant’s strip club and would or may likely be present at the establishment, which personally embarrassed Plaintiff. Plaintiff states further that, among those who would have knowledge relative to this Interrogatory would be Defendant. Defendant is aware of its own motivations for its advertising campaign using Plaintiff’s image. Defendant’s use ofa beautiful model for its advertisement is no coincidence. Interrogatory No. 16: List all information and/or evidence you have that Defendant’s alleged “improper use of your image, likeness and/or identity described herein permitted, encouraged, or facilitated other persons, firms, and entities to further utilize and misappropriate Sears’ images, likeness, and identity in their market activities and business and further damaged you” as alleged in Paragraph 111 of your Complaint for Damages. Response: By using Plaintiff’s image without authorization to promote a business that Plaintiff has never promoted implies to the rest of the world that Plaintiff consents to have her image used to promote businesses without compensation. Interrogatory No. 17: Describe in detail how you discovered that Defendant had allegedly used your image, likeness, and/or identity, specifying the date you made the discovery; any and all persons and/or entities involved in the discovery; any and all actions taken by you or on your behalf upon learning of the discovery; and any and all actions taken by you or on your behalf to mitigate your alleged damages. Response: Plaintiff is involved in several matters regarding the misappropriation of her image and cannot recall with specificity whether it was another model, friend, social media follower, or legal counsel who first informed her of the use at issue in the instant matter. Interrogatory No. 18: What information and/or evidence do you have that Defendant was well aware of the standard negotiation process over terms of use, conditions of release, licensing issues, and other contractual incidences” as alleged in Paragraph 13 of your Complaint for Damages. Response: The requested information is in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Defendant refused to produce the same. Interrogatory No. 19: What information and/or evidence do you have that Defendant’s business involved “nude” dancing as alleged in Paragraph 24 of your Complaint for Damages. Response: Yelp.com lists Defendant as a Full Nude Strip Club. Interrogatory No. 20: Do you intend to call any expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please identify each witness; describe his qualifications as an expert; state the subject matter upon which he is expected to testify; state the substance of the facts and opinion to which he is expected to testify, and give a summary of the grounds for each opinion. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is premature, the discovery process is ongoing and Plaintiffs have not yet determined or identified any expert witnesses. Plaintiff will disclose any expert witness responsive to this Interrogatory at the appropriate time and pursuant to the Court’s scheduling and/or pretrial conference order(s). I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing responses to Interrogatories are true and correct. Executed this day of September, 2021. a— EMILY SEARS