I finally read the Olbermann filing against his former employer, Current TV, because it's Friday and I needed a laugh. (PDF.) It's pretty dramatic and overly aggrieved and not that damning, but then all he's claiming is that contracts were breached; it's not like anyone punched him. On the plus side, at least Olbermann is represented by real lawyers—Patricia Glaser (who did well for Conan!) and litigator Jill Basinger. Among Olbermann's complaints: Olbermann was treated as if he was hired to be a puppet! Not literally, I guess, or this would be a much better read.
The discrimination case brought against Bloomberg LP, by 80+ lady-with-children-type workers, has been dismissed. (Fun footnote: Bloomberg's manner at his deposition was described as "testy and sarcastic.")
Oh this is great, great great, the story of the lawsuit brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, hosts of the Gay Softball World Series. I don't even want to summarize and spoil anything for you, but the issue at hand is: how many straight people, if any, can play on a gay sports team? (There are of course a number of sub-issues, including "Are White People Racist" and "Do Bisexuals Exist?" Which, oh God, really people?) Anyway, the phrase GAY TRIBUNAL comes into play.
Earlier this week, the American folk singer Jake Holmes sued Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page and the band's associated publishing and record companies over copyright infringement involving the hazy classic-rock staple "Dazed And Confused," which Holmes claims was nicked from him when he opened for Page's pre-Zep band the Yardbirds in 1968. Holmes' take on the song, which appeared on his 1967 debut "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes, is above; you can hear the Led Zeppelin version below if you're far away from a radio station that gets the Led out on a semi-regular basis.
A New York Supreme Court appeals panel has dismissed Dan Rather's $70 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against CBS. The court found his argument that "he could have had more remunerative employment than that which he ultimately obtained at HDNet is unavailing," but, c'mon, the guy works for HDNet. You'd think the facts speak for themselves there.
Why do people take Marty Singer seriously? The cage-rattling, form-letter-rewriting Hollywood lawyer spews lawsuits like anxious starlets spew breakfast. Now, in his latest complaint, against Gawker, the New York Times refers to him as "the legendarily pugnacious Mr. Singer." The suit, according to Gawker (we have not read it, and as near as we can tell it has not been published online), asks for damages of $1 million-I know, seriously, what? A whole million dollars? You mean maybe six weeks of Gawker ad income? What a pitiful request!-for their publication of a video which depicted TV actors hanging out in states of undress. I have read and received [...]