Matt Kalil alluded to Pamela Anderson’s sex tape to highlight the court’s history of protecting intimate private details. He raised the point in an opposition filing after his ex-wife, Haley Baylee, requested that the case be dismissed. Last month, he filed a lawsuit over her invasive comments about his manhood made during Marlon Garcia’s Twitch livestream. He claimed that the remarks made disrupted his efforts to stay out of the spotlight after his NFL career concluded.
Matt Kalil uses Pamela Anderson’s sex tape as example in court case
Kalil submitted a motion opposing Baylee’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. In court papers obtained by Page Six, he highlighted courts’ tendency to keep intimate details out of the public record. He considers it the court’s way to protect individuals’ interests. He explained, “Time and time again, particularly when it comes to such private, intimate details as nudity and sex, courts like the Minnesota Supreme Court in Lake have protected the public revelation of such information.”
To make his point, he referenced how Brett Michaels and Anderson handled their sex tape dispute. He elaborated, “The court noted that ‘[s]exual relations are among the most personal and intimate of acts. While [Anderson] appeared nude in magazines, movies and publicly distributed videotapes, she was a professional actor playing roles involving sex and sexual appeal. ‘The fact that she has performed a role involving sex does not, however, make her real sex life open to the public.”
Here, Kalil was referring to the case involving Pamela Anderson and Bret Michaels, who filed a $90 million lawsuit against Internet Entertainment Group. The lawyers prevented the Anderson-Michaels tape from being widely distributed, unlike the one involving Tommy Lee. This is because their lawyers successfully secured a court order blocking its release. The parties settled the case, with the company agreeing to pay the decided figure and destroy the footage.
Kalil further explained, “Nor did the fact that [Anderson] had appeared in another publicly distributed sex tape with a different rock star sway the court, as it was not prepared to conclude that ‘the public exposure of one sexual encounter forever removes a person’s privacy interest in all subsequent and previous sexual encounters.’” At the time, the court also acknowledged Michaels had a “privacy interest in his own sex life”.
He further contended that courts understand that intimate details serve no legitimate public purpose. This remains true even when public figures, who are entitled to fewer privacy protections, are involved.
