Mel Gibson/Oksana Grigorieva - Breach of Confidentiality

As a legal professional I have had the privilege of working for and with the best of the best. No nepotism; I had to prove myself to earn my spot next to top attorneys, executives, A-list talent and elite athletes. And having worked at the top of my game for many years, I have acquired expert skills when it comes to drafting and negotiating a wide array of complicated contracts; most of which include non-disclosure provisions and all of which include remedies for breach of agreement. When information is intended to be kept confidential, and the disclosure of that information would cause substantial or irreparable harm to a party, that is when the parameters for non-disclosure must be written very carefully into non-disclosure provisions of a contract, settlement agreement or a completely separate Non-Disclosure Agreement. Does any of this legal business sound boring? Well, the story of Mel Gibson and his former lover Oksana is the perfect example of how important the words in a contract are. Celebrities are notorious for being involved in messy situations and scandals. Having worked for numerous big name celebrities, I have had my hands on quite a few unique settlement agreements all of which convey the message ‘I am not admitting to any wrongdoing but take this money, go on about your business and don’t ever talk about this again.’ And you are inevitably barred from ever suing for any issues related to the situation that gave rise to the settlement agreement.

Below is The Hollywood Reporter’s story about Mel Gibson and Oksana posted on hollywoodreporter.com on August 11, 2016 by Eriq Gardner. Apparently Oksana did not understand the advice undoubtedly given to her about staying silent on the matter or she did not take it seriously and her lapse in judgment cost her $500,000. 

In 2011  a similar thing happened to Rachel Uchitel, golf phenom Tiger Woods' former lover, at the height of Tiger Woods' 2010 sex scandal with multiple women. Uchitel had engaged civil rights attorney Gloria Allred to represent her interests with respect to Tiger Woods. Allred is well-known for holding press conferences on TV with her clients who are involved in controversial cases with high profile individuals. And Woods engaged Jay Lavely (the partner of controversial high profile litigator Marty Singer) to represent his interests in the sex scandal. Just before Uchitel was about to go public, Allred cut a deal with Lavely for Uchitel to keep silent on the details of her affair with Woods in exchange for $10 million. After the deal was cut, Jay Lavely claimed that Uchitel breached the terms of the agreement relating to Woods and that the confidentiality provisions in place provided for the return of the settlement money by Uchitel upon such breach. Lavely had claimed that Uchitel breached the agreement by talking to TMZ about the matter and by appearing on the TV show Celebrity Rehab where she was treated for a 'love addiction.' Allred counseled Uchitel that it would be in her best interest to return the money to Woods and Uchitel did. However, Allred cut a deal with Lavely to secure her attorney's fees and Uchitel, recognizing that she had been duped, sued Allred.

MEL GIBSON ESCAPES SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS AFTER EX-GIRLFRIEND'S HOWARD STERN INTERVIEW

Oksana Grigorieva's response to the radio host in 2013 carried domestic violence insinuations about Gibson — and an appeals court says it's enough to deny her $500,000.

A California appeals court has affirmed a judgment that allows Mel Gibson to withhold settlement payments to ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva over a breach of confidentiality.

The case began in 2010 when Gibson looked to establish that he was really the father of the couple's daughter. Grigorieva filed a separate lawsuit alleging that the actor had committed battery and defamation. Two years later, the couple settled with each other. She got $20,000 per month for child support and a home. He got to be declared the father of the girl. Additionally, to resolve the battery and defamation claims, Gibson was obligated to pay Grigorieva $750,000 in three installments.

After Grigorieva got the first $250,000 payment, she went on Howard Stern's show. On May 21, 2013, she thanked the radio host for his support.

"I want to thank you for saying that, because I will support you to the end," Stern responded. "I don't care what the circumstances are. You do not treat a woman that way, especially the mother of your child."

After a further exchange, Grigorieva told Stern, "You know what? You have to embrace your experience and even — it doesn't matter how painful it might be at the time, and that darker experience, learn from it."

Grigorieva also said that she planned to work with a domestic violence charity.

As a result of this interview, Gibson filed a request for an order to discharge his obligations to pay future installments under the parties' settlement agreements. Grigorieva's attorneys argued that statements referred only to "unspecified domestic abuse" and that Gibson couldn't establish a breach based on inference. The California appeals court rejects this.

"While it is true that the confidentiality clause did not require [Grigorieva] to police what other people might say about her past relationship with [Gibson], it expressly restricted her capacity to make statements 'related to' her domestic violence claims against him," states the appellate court's opinion. "Construing the 'related to' language according to its popular meaning and in the context of the larger instrument’s purpose, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the confidentiality clause to encompass not only express statements about [Grigorieva's] domestic violence claims against [Gibson], but also implicit assertions about those claims made through reference to what others might say. Thus, even accepting [Grigorieva's] premise that she was not required to control what others would say, nor prohibited from speaking about domestic violence generally, it still follows from the language of the confidentiality clause that she could not insinuate [Gibson] committed domestic violence on her by piggybacking on Stern's comments about what she had 'been through with [Gibson].'"

The appeals court also rejects Grigorieva's argument that the $750,000 payment was a child support obligation that couldn't be relieved without a finding concerning the daughter's best interest. The appeals court additionally upholds a $13,500 sanctions order against Grigorieva for not cooperating with Gibson's request that she authenticate a transcript of what she said on Stern's show.