HOT MICS EXCLUSIVE: Jane Doe's Lawyer Lays Out The Case Against Amy Griffin

The judge tossed out Amy Griffin's anti-slap motion against her accuser Jane Doe. Will she settle or appeal or face the woman who says you stole my story of childhood abuse with no further delay? Many questions for Zach Rosenblatt, counselor for Jane Doe. It's a Hot Mikes exclusive. You're doing me, right? Hi, and welcome to Hot Mikes. Please hit the subscribe, like, and notification bell. We'd like to be part of your ops. The legal war over Amy Griffin's best-selling memoir, The Tell, just took its biggest turn yet. For months, this case has centered on one explosive question. Did Amy Griffin, in her celebrated story of recovering memories via MDMA-assisted therapy, her memories of childhood SA, appropriate the trauma of a former classmate, a woman suing anonymously as Jane Doe, and did Amy pass it off as her own? Last Friday, a judge handed down a major win, ruling that four causes of action, invasion of privacy, false light, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, will move forward against Amy Griffin. But the drama didn't stop there. Jane Doe's attorney immediately filed an emergency motion demanding Amy Griffin publicly name the woman she claims is the real Claudia, the very person Griffin insists this story actually belongs to. And in a stunning same-day counter, Amy's team filed their own motion Monday, the day of the hearing, trying to block that demand entirely. So, does Amy Griffin's mystery Claudia actually exist? And what happens if she can't produce a name? Joining me right now is the attorney representing Jane Doe in this fight, Zach Rosenglatt. Welcome, Zach. Really good to see you. You must be feeling pretty good right now, given the fact that, on Friday, the judge shot down Amy's anti-slap, and four causes of action are going forward. This is definitely a significant victory. Before any meaningful discovery, the court determined our case has sufficient merit to move forward. The heart of our case survived, and with that heart of the case surviving, we intend to bring the whole truth to light now. By shooting down the anti-slap, the judge is really saying that he finds that your client, Jane Doe, shows a probability of prevailing on the four merits, invasion of privacy, false light, the intentional and the negligent, infliction of emotional distress. Is there one that's more undeniable than the others of those causes? Well, the court found that we made a prima facie showing, supported by admissible evidence, that the claims have merit and can go forward. Which one kind of outweighs the other is difficult to parse, because they have, we allege that they have overlapping facts. But what we can say is that it arises, our allegations arise from private information of our client being used in a public memoir, and the harm that that caused is both significant to privacy claims and to emotional distress. Our client has suffered significant harm where her inner sphere has been invaded, and she has also undergone, as we allege, significant emotional harm from the publication of these facts. So it's hard to say one or the other, but as discovery moves forward, we will see. But they come from a common nucleus of facts. Before we get to your motion, which you filed in emergency status there on Friday, and we're still sort of waiting on that, how do you expect Amy to respond to this altogether? Do you think she's got three options? Basically, she either settles now that it's going forward and she can't get it thrown out, or she appeals, or she tries it as is and goes to court. Do you have any expectation here? Well, you're correct that those are the three options. Now, I obviously can't speak for Amy, but what I can say is that with this motion decided, the discovery stay lift of the surviving claims has now been lifted. So we'll get the discovery that we've been seeking, including the answer to the question that they have yet to produce that's on the public record, which is who is Claudia. So what we intend to do is bring all the facts to light and take the facts wherever they go. That's what our intention is. Okay, we'll take it as is. End of business. On Friday, you file the emergency ex parte, asking the court to fast track on very short notice a motion to force Amy Griffin to reveal the true identity of the person she refers to as Claudia in her book. You gave him two hours to comply. Why such a hurried action all of a sudden? Well, what I can say about this is in the public record. We asked a simple question in discovery, who is Claudia? And today, the defense has not identified her in their written responses. But didn't they say in discovery that they wanted her to be in? Did they say, look, we'll do it confidentially under under protected status? As of now, the court has not ruled on the motion. And we had a meeting in chambers, and I obviously can't discuss anything that happened in chambers. But that is a central question to our case. It's a central question that involves their central defense. And we intend to get to the bottom of it. Without the real Claudia being if somehow the judge says, no, we shoot down your ex parte, we're going to go forward and the real Claudia will never be known. Doesn't that sort of kill your case in a way? I mean, like you have to have this. Amy has to reveal the new Claudia for there to be a case or else it's just as she said. She said, I believe. And we allege that our client is the basis of Claudia in the written in the written responses. The defense has only answered in the negative. We believe it's only proper that the answer in the affirmative as as well. Meaning you meaning you can't just say, no, it's not. You have to say why the real Claudia is because in the book, there's descriptions. Right. And in the proposal, there's more descriptions. Yeah. I mean, if if you ask me, you know, what is the color red? And I say it's not blue. We it's not yellow. It's not brown. The negative list can go on forever. So we want a straight forward answer. And we believe that we will get. Does this have to happen in a courtroom or can you discuss with me? You know, I think a lot of it's in the book and in the proposal. But in what ways, you know, the that your client Jane Doe is definitely Claudia. And there are declarations. There are testimonies from other people. The boy that took her to the dance, William Brian Jennings, was in the eighth grade with her, took her to the dance. He, you know, testifies that there's no way reading Amy's book that there that this that Claudia could be any one other than your client. What other identifiers are dead ringers? There's there's a white van. There's a children's home. Correct. So in our filings on June 29th and in the book proposal, there's a list of about eight or nine characteristics. There's additional characteristics that are placed within the tell itself. And those characteristics correspond to our client. And that is why we allege that our client is the basis for Claudia. Now, we're going to need to test the assertion of whoever she brings forth that she claims is Claudia. And, you know, let me ask you, Zack, I know who Claudia is. I know the real Claudia. I've been a viewer of mine on hot mics, connected me and said, this is the name, this is the information. And I went and through my sources, I found her. I spoke to her. I connected with her. I have 100 percent certainty that I have contacted the woman that Amy says is the real Claudia. We've gone back and forth. She seems very unwilling to, you know, materially participate. Do you know who she is? And you can't say it here, but do you have information and have you and through your own purposes identified this woman? So you're just waiting for the judge to make it public. I can't speak about anything particular about our case. I can only say what's on the public record. But we will find out who Claudia is. That is our intention. That is what we that was what we originally seek. And we will get to the bottom of of this central question. Do you think that Amy just plucked out a random person from her past and said, hmm, roulette wheel, you'll be Claudia and some, you know, because I know this woman and I know that she was not in Amy's eighth grade class. She may have been in Amy's seventh grade class, but for eighth grade, she went to a different school. That's what I've learned. But do you think that this woman is just randomly selected? The truth is, I don't know. I don't know what Amy is thinking. And the reason that we don't know is because we haven't been provided the information that that we need. I believe this to be a simple, straightforward matter. And in due time, I believe that we will get the answer that that we want. And there will be factual implications. We believe that that will result from it. What's the strategic goal here? Is this about testing whether Amy Griffin can actually produce a real person? I think there is this person. I think this person, the person that I spoke to in contact, I believe in, you know, in Amy's filings, that she and Sam Lansky met with this woman and were gravely disappointed. They sat down. They had coffee in Tennessee. And this woman said, hey, I can't help you. I don't have those memories. Sorry. So functionally, she's useless in a way. She didn't. All Amy's built her up is this central character in her book, this woman with whom she has this eerie, dark, secret connection who may have shared the same traumatic past as her, but it doesn't materialize even in the book. It doesn't. And in early filings, it doesn't. The woman says it isn't me. So what is the what is the grave importance of Claudia? I guess without her, it's it it couldn't be anyone else. Is that is that it? Well, you know, in in our filings so far, we have alleged that our clients, the basis of Claudia, they have alleged the opposite. And we need to test that assertion. And as to what Amy is thinking or why, I don't know. I can't speak for her. And and the truth is, is is I don't know. But we can't draw any conclusions yet until we have the basic facts. Yeah, your your your lawsuit is narrowly focused to Amy Griffin has appropriated the story of our client Jane Doe. She's taken her childhood trauma and used it for her own, you know, commercial success in her book as her own platform, to which that causes, you know, an intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's an invasion of her privacy. It's upended her life. We get that. But there are so many other questions around this case, like this teacher. The guy has a spotless record as a teacher, and he served over 30 years. He was he went on to take a bigger role at the school. He lives in the same town as Amy's parents. That's the one that you guys that's not really central to your case. But will those questions in the course of your lawsuit, if it goes to if it doesn't settle and it goes to trial, will those questions be answered? Here's my approach. Trial court lawsuits. The purpose is to find out the truth. And the way that I see the world, what I believe is that when you tell the truth, all facts are connected, that when you tell the truth, all the surrounding facts come together. When you don't tell the truth, certain facts don't come together. So will those surrounding questions, are they involved? They're in the book. They are involved. And I believe that all of those questions will and all the facts beneath them will come to life. Good, because I have so many questions that are, you know, tangentially connected here. And I think they're central. Is there a world where you see a subpoena for Amy Griffin's cell phone? Listen, I can't go into any strategy of what's going to happen or what's not going to happen. But we have earned the right to take discovery. And we intend to bring the truth to light. And, you know, nothing is off the table. What is your read on why Amy's resisting naming this person so, so hard? You know, is it truly to protect her identity or do you imagine it's, you know, for another reason? You know, we we've pleaded and we filed that you can't have it both ways. You can't say Claudia is not our client and then not provide the actual answer. We think that's having it both ways and that needs to be sorted out. So this, you know, to me, this all this comes down to a major contention is going to be this alleged coffee meeting between Jane Doe, your client and and Amy. She says your client says they had coffee in 2019. And Amy says, no, we didn't. So there's a very obvious right or wrong. Like two people can't be right here and there's no gray area. It either happened or it didn't. Do you feel confident that you can produce some type of corroboration that this meeting between the two of them happened? I'm confident in my client. My client is credible. And as of now on the filings, we have a few dueling allegations, one being the 2019 meeting and the other being the lending of the dress. So but we are confident in our case and we are confident that the evidence and the facts will establish our case. Didn't she have a different cell phone in 2019? You're going to have to go and track down a different number, I think. Right. I mean, she's. We will you know, we will find what what we need to find in order to establish technology existed, then that should be able to to to under subpoena to be able to to cut it. The other thing is that, you know, your case is Jane Doe versus Amy Griffin, Sam Lansky and Penguin Publishing. The judge let Penguin out of it. First of all, why? Why do they get to step out of this? Why do they have no culpability? These are the people that did James Fry's book A Million Little Pieces. I mean, Penguin likes to shoot for the moon. Why are they out? Yeah. You know, the the the court found in its tentative ruling that it adopted that there was a conflict of laws analysis and they applied New York law. And, you know, we respect the court's decision and we'll take it from there. Are they central to you? Were you crushed to see them exit? The heart of our case survives. The heart of our case is the intrusion, the false light and the emotional distress. The heart of our case is going on. And what happened on Friday, we consider and believe to be a significant victory. Is Sam Lansky, the ghostwriter for Amy, still in the case? I only read that Penguin was dismissed. Is Sam Lansky still involved or is he dismissed as well? There was a filing regarding substitute service and we will see how things unfold. So he's not out of it yet. And I don't know where he is. I mean, people I've looked for him, I think he's like in Europe somewhere. Are you confident that he's that he's still around in America? You know, I don't know exactly his his whereabouts. If we did, things would be a lot easier. Other than the coffee happening in 2019 with your client Jane Doe, of which she says it happened and you will have it on you. The onus will be on you to to corroborate that there is the issue of the teacher. Amy writes about Mr. Mason in the book, who is the eighth grade teacher who, you know, did this to her, assaulted her and and, you know, traumatically graped her, as we will say for Jane Doe says this is my story. But that is not the teacher, the one you named. Her alleged assailant is a different teacher who I believe left the school as most assailants would not hang around forever. He took off. Are you do you know his whereabouts? Can you produce this person if assuming they're still alive? Let me I guess I'm going to reiterate kind of what what I said before, where in our complaint, you're correct that our client alleges that a different teacher essayed her. And part of the reason of going forward and telling the truth is to make sure that the truth comes to light and that all things get sorted out. And where exactly Mr. Mason is, we don't know. And we will see what what happens with that particular gentleman. But you see a world to subpoena him. I mean, this person obviously is going to you know, is going to declare his innocence. I don't understand why he hasn't hasn't filed his own suit even just as a legal question. You're not his lawyer, but you are a lawyer. What would you see hypothetically is the reason that this man would not file his own massive defamation suit just because he hasn't been named, you know, by real name in any of the publishing publications or the lawsuits. He's still very. The evidence is there. People in town know exactly who he is and his life has been upended. Well, let me speak from my client's perspective. Nobody wants to go to court, but something in you compels you to go to court sometimes. And in our client's case, she is a good, credible person that came from a disadvantaged background, overcame many obstacles, and she saw that that there was harm done to her. And she knew by telling the truth that order would be sorted out. I can't speak for anybody else, but that's the motivation of our client. Is it that your client I'm going to guess that your client and you tell me never had an intention to come forward with this in her life? Is it that she dealt with these terrible, you know, childhood traumas in her, you know, dealt with it privately. And this was never going to be a public platform for her until she read the tell until she read specific examples that applied to her. And then it sort of triggered this action. Of course, you know, as we allege, our client never consented to this, never had knowledge of this, never wanted these stories to come out in this way, or to come out at all. And that is her right. And her dignity gets to choose that. And when your most private, intimate details, as we allege, get publicized like that, it's difficult for people to imagine the, the isolation and the mental distress that comes with that. All of us are sitting here going, how would Amy know? How would Amy and your client, you know, from eighth grade on never sat down and talked about their like experiences or so Amy must have picked this up from the hallways and what the kids were in order to land on certain details that are exactly the same. And if I'm not correct, one of them is this teacher threatening, I will rip your teeth out if you tell anyone. I believe the detail about the bandana tied behind, you know, tying the arms up, which is horrible, is also a detail. But there are certain specific details that are the same that must have floated around the hallways. Have you had discussions with your client that sort of give you an inclination of how this terrible story migrated from one person to the other? Well, you know, I obviously can't discuss things that occur with with my client. But, you know, as we alleged in the complaint, they knew each other. Growing up, as we allege, she borrowed a dress from her. As we allege, she returned the dress to her in the same manner as as in the tell. They knew each other growing up. And this is. Yeah. And this is exactly as we allege, they lent the dress, return the dress. They went to the same dance. And this is exactly what trial is for. This is what trial is for is to answer these questions and to get the truth. It's amazing. Yeah, that's that that that right there is pretty solid on its own is that, you know, aim, you know, your client has corroboration that she not only borrowed a dress from Amy, the boy who took her to the dance filed the declaration, but also a woman who lived in that children's home with her at the time, as declared in in testimony on your behalf, that she helped Amy clean mean sorry, help Jane Doe clean the dress before returning it to Amy. She's also on declaration. These people are all prepared to come forward and they'll participate in the trial. Yeah. I mean, in our filing on June 29, our client brought forth a testimonials that corroborated core allegations in in her complaint that she's the basis of Claudia and that central moments in the tell actually occurred to her. She has independent corroborating evidence. And that was enough to pass the test of the anti. Right. Yeah. So four causes go forward. How many declarations or testimonies does Amy have? If Jane Doe has eight, how many does Amy have on her part? I mean, I believe in her filing. I believe she had her own Sam Lansky filed a declaration and Dominic Price, the mysterious Dominic Price. This is one that we were all scratching our heads on that this guy and he has been contacted. He's talked to Katie and Casey, who is a you know, who's a creator. And he's he's texted. He seems to be a guy who lived in Worcester, Massachusetts. He's he was on the show Temptation Island and somehow served as a as Jane Doe would say, because your client says she wrote down his name on a notepad somewhere that this guy called and wanted to talk to her about her life story. What more do we know about this guy? He seems sort of sort of central, sort of sort of important. And also, he's sort of quiet in the last couple of weeks here. In our filing on June 29, we brought forth testimonial evidence, documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence regarding that matter. And now we intend to get to the bottom of it. It's possible, I mean, my opinion that Amy probably didn't hire him directly, but somebody did, because, you know, he's filed in his declaration for her. I don't know this woman. I've never met this woman. I don't know anything about it. But maybe, you know, an investigator of some kind and whether it was Kroll and Associates was one of the one of the really top security and investigative corporate firms in the world. They do work in South America and all this stuff that they would use. Somebody like him seems a little odd. I don't know if you can answer this, but like how in the world does someone who used to be on, you know, Temptation Island end up calling Jane Doe and trying to glean details of her life story? All I can say is we're going to find out, you know, we have discovery and we will get to we will get to the bottom of it. I spoke to a woman over the weekend who was also a classmate of Amy's back in the day. She also was in my comment section. It's amazing that this has all reached Amarillo. And for the last 10 years has had a pretty connected relationship with the woman in the book who is Coach Bess Taylor, Amy's volleyball coach. This woman told me that and that's not her name. That's a pseudonym. But the volleyball coach who loved Amy, Amy was the star player, but the volleyball coach was also friends with the teacher that Amy alleges S.A.I.D. and raped her so many times, so violently. This person told me she had a conversation with the coach and the coach had signed an NDA because Amy had asked her to do that. Do you know, do you suspect that, assuming that's true, other NDAs have been passed out by Amy Griffin and her lawyers? I do not know. I do not know. And but the whole reason that we have discovery is to answer these questions, to get to the bottom of it. And and that's what we intend to do. The trolls and the haters out there are going to say, here's a woman of not the same type of means as Amy Griffin. But they're going to say your client's a gold digger. She saw this opportunity. She realized, oh, my God, the girl in my school who's a billionaire wrote these allegations and you know that that she's going for the pocketbook. How thoroughly did you flesh out your client's story before you went forward? Let me say this. Our client is a good, honest person. She came from a disadvantaged background. She overcame real obstacles and never let her past define her. She spent her life helping people and being of service to others that came from a similar position. Take umbrage, of course, with that assertion. But she's here to tell the truth. And she has the truth on her side. And that's that's what this is about. You know, so of course, people can say whatever that they're going to say. But our client is a good person who intends to bring the facts to light. What was your first conversation like with her? And how did she find you? You know, I can't go into any kind of confidential communication with with with my client. But she was referred by a trusted friend. And she's a very credible, good, honest person. What can you what can you tell us, you know, about her? People are wondering. Look, everyone knows her name. Amy has used her name in the and I've gone back and forth because it's in People magazine, and it's in the Nevada case. We all know her name. But you know, and I, you know, so is her life still relatively private? She filed as a Jane Doe for a reason. And I'm going to protect that. I won't be discussing her identity or her personal details. And many people still respect that there is there is a dignity here that is worth respecting, regardless of her name has already been quote unquote outed. What more can you tell us about her? Many people are interested. I mean, the most powerful thing I think is that she, you know, having this experience in her life that she had processed it by, like, working with children who are victims of adult S.A. at a place called Father's Ranch. And she worked in one of the one of the people who filled out a declaration for you guys a testimony is is this woman, LaRonda, who worked with her and says, you know, this entire story, so many of the details that are in the pages of the tell that Jane Doe told her about this 10, 12 years ago when they were working with children together. So she was a woman who was living a life of healing herself and paying it forward, which is she's powerful testimony in itself. What more can you tell us about Jane Doe? What kind of person she is? Jane Doe is a good person. And when you come like a from a background as she as she's described to me, you have two choices, basically. And she chose the path of transforming her trauma and her experience into a means to helping others. And through helping others, she heals herself and heals other people. And that's the path that she took. And that's a path that she lived by. And that's no small feat. And that's where I believe true character really comes from. Well, we look forward to talking when it's all over. I hope she'll she might remain, you know, maybe she'll maybe she'll want to talk, maybe not. But, you know, here we are. Right now, you're awaiting the judge to decide whether or not to grant the ex parte motion to reveal the identity of the woman that Amy says is the real Claudia in the book. Do you have any expectations of how that will go? Have you been given any inclination? Yeah, I can't discuss what was happened in chambers. But I'm confident that the truth will come out. And I'm confident that Have you faced this judge before, Richard Fruin? He's 87 years old. So as I like to say, he's a bit like farmers insurance. He knows a thing or two because he's seen a thing or two. What do you feel good in front of him? Because I would imagine a man of that one word that's been used by a different lawyer not associated with this case to me was irascible. I, I respect and like Judge Fruin. I respect his decision making. And he's known to be a great judge. So what else is, are you curious about? And I'm, you know, in the neighborhoods of Amarillo, Texas in the hallways of that school in the friends that, you know, all the people that interviewed Amy Griffin, when the book came out, I mean, I think about Oprah, you know, who I like very much and spend time with Oprah. But she herself, very famously, very well known, a victim of SA and childhood abuse in her own life, and was sitting in front of Amy. And I, I don't know if it was, you know, respect for a fellow survivor or but there was no curiosity on her part to question, especially having been through the James Fry thing, because every reader I talked to every woman who's read the book would say to me, you know, when I was reading it, something didn't add up. It seemed it didn't sit well with me and Oprah, an extremely intelligent person with these experiences in her own past. No curiosity, no questions. You know, there's lots of people that are in business with, with Amy, who are well known, there's a big, she's got a big circle. What do you imagine is going on? Because I'll tell you something else that's connected to all that. I don't see the New York Post, normally, the New York Post, when there's something like this about a socialite, you know, who's got a serious credibility issue. The New York Post is all over this. The Daily Mail is all over this. And they're kind of quiet. What do you think's going on here? Is this the power of influence? I mean, money to that, I'll say this, all all we can do is focus on what's in our control, what's in our sphere of control. All that other stuff is speculation and a potential distraction for us. We want the truth to go forward. We want to bring evidence. And we have enough on our plate. You sure do. So when do you expect this ruling? When when is the net? Is this any minute now? Is this is this tomorrow? Is this today? Doesn't seem like there's a lot to decide here. You know, as as of now, I can't speak more about it, but I'm sure that you will be one of the first to know. OK, so I'm just looking you, I'm looking you in the eye here and I'm saying you don't know the ruling yet as to whether the ex parte is going to be granted. You you don't know as of this moment or you do. And it hasn't been announced. No, the court has not ruled on on the motion yet. And and we will see what happens. A question you can't answer. Is there any chance, any chance that this teacher was paid off by Amy Griffin and will, you know, has an NDA or something? I can't answer that. I can't answer that. I I can't claim or disclaim and anything when it comes to that. It's possible. I'll answer it. Zach, you can't answer this, but I'll. Yeah, it's possible. And maybe that teacher's like they didn't actually say my name. I'm out of here for 50 million dollars. Zach Rosenblatt, attorney for Jane Doe. Thank you very much for chatting with us right now. Good luck going forward and and we'll be in touch. We appreciate it. Billy, thanks for your time and all your work.