1 IRELL & MANELLA LLP

Steven A. Marenberg (101033)

2 smarenberg@irell.com
Robert M. Schwartz (117166)
3 rschwartz@irell.com
Ellisen S. Turner (224842) conformed copy
original filed
4 etumer@irell.com Sujj#fiOf Court of California.
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 County ft l.o** A ««,*!. ■
5 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
Telephone: (310)277-1010 JAN'11 2018
6 Facsimile: (310)203-7199
7 Attorneys for Defendant
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

e
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT
12 TERRY CREWS, an individual,

13 Plaintiff, in Case No. BC685710

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR
dl
14 vs. ENTERTAINMENT, LLC TO
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
15 ADAM VENIT. an individual, WILLIAM
MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, Department: 55
ea
16 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Judge: Hon. Malcolm H. Mackey
and DOES 1 thru 25, Complaint Filed: December 4, 2017
17
Defendants.
18
D

19

20

21

22

23
24
25

26
27

28
■LP

Answer Of Defendant William Morris Endeavor

Entertainment. LLC To Unverified Complaint
 1 Defendant William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (“WME”) hereby answers the

2 unverified Complaint of Plaintiff Terry Crews (“Plaintiff’) and, pursuant to California Code of

3 Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), generally denies each and every allegation of the Complaint

4 and any right of Plaintiff to recover damages in any amount, or at all.

5 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS OF

6 “THE NATURE OF THE CASE”

7 (Paragraphs 1-3)

8 1. Mr. Crews’ Complaint begins with a gratuitous “opening statement” that falsely

9 and wrongfully accuses WME of both turning a blind eye to the February 2016 incident at the

10 heart of the case and of somehow ratifying the alleged conduct of Defendant Adam Venit once

e
11 WME learned of it. None of that happened. The facts are these: The day after the alleged

in
12 incident, Mr. Crews mentioned it to no one at WME other than his agent, who nevertheless

13 immediately raised it with Mr. Venit. That same day, Mr. Venit called Mr. Crews and apologized.
dl
14 Mr. Crews accepted the apology and then told the only two WME employees to whom he had

15 spoken about the incident that everything was okay. That was the last mention Mr. Crews made of
ea
16 the incident to anyone at WME for nearly 18 months—during which time he remained a WME
17 client. That is no surprise since, as Mr. Crews admitted in his later Tweets, he had “decided not to

18 take it further” and “let it go.”

D

19 2. Even when Mr. Crews decided to resurrect what he had long ago dismissed as

20 something not sufficiently serious to pursue, he chose not to contact WME’s leadership. Instead,

21 he went public. And he equated himself with the women and men who have been forced,

22 sometimes repeatedly and over an extended period, to submit to sex or endure sexual harassment

23 to keep their jobs or advance their careers, while the perpetrators and others who knew about it
24 looked the other way.

25 3. In contrast, the response of WME’s senior leadership, upon learning that Mr. Crews

26 had not “let it go” and had accused one of its agents of the conduct alleged here, was both swift
27 and serious. They quickly contacted Mr. Crews and expressed their concerns. They asked Mr.

28 Crews to meet with them. He accepted. At those meetings, WME encouraged Mr. Crews to tell
,LP
- 2 -

Answer Of Defendant William Morris Endeavor

Entertainment. LLC To Unverified Complaint
 1 them everything that had happened, to be as open with the public as he wanted, and to propose

2 whatever form of resolution he thought was justified. Shortly thereafter, WME suspended Mr.

3 Venit—without pay—for one month and dramatically demoted him, by stripping him of his title

4 and position as head of the Motion Picture Group. These facts, which are beyond dispute, are the

5 exact opposite of “ratifying” the conduct that Mr. Crews has alleged against Mr. Venit. At the

6 appropriate point, WME will present these and other facts to the Court for resolution because
7 WME’s acts should not and do not create any liability to Mr. Crews. To the contrary, those acts

8 demonstrate that WME decisively addressed and punished the conduct Mr. Crews alleges that

9 Mr. Venit engaged in, bar any assertion that WME “ratified” the conduct, and thereby absolve
10 WME of liability. For these reasons, and until the Court hears all of the evidence, it should not

e
11 accept Mr. Crews’ allegations against WME.

12

13 in AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
WME further pleads the following separate defenses. By pleading them, WME does not
dl
14 agree or concede that it has the burden of proof or persuasion on any of the issues they raise.
15 WME reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as discovery indicates are proper.
ea
16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Laches)

18 The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches to the extent that
D

19 Plaintiff delayed unreasonably in asserting his purported claims.

20 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21 (Estoppel)

22 The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based on principles of estoppel to the extent

23 that WME materially changed its position to its detriment in reliance on Plaintiff s words or
24 actions related to the matters about which he now complains.

25 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26 (Waiver and Release)

27 The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff has waived or

28 released his purported claims.

.LP
-3 -
Answer Of Defendant William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment. LLC To Unverified Complaint
 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 (Absence of Criminal Offense for Gender Violence)

3 The Complaint is barred, under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.4, to the extent that the matters about

4 which Plaintiff now complains do not constitute a criminal offense.

5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6 (Offset)

7 The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based on principles of offset. If Plaintiff

8 suffered any damages as a result of the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint, his recovery

9 from WME, if any, should be offset and reduced to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law.
10 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

e
11 (No Punitive Damages)

12

in
The prayer in the Complaint for an award of punitive damages violates WME’s right to

13 due process under the United States and California Constitutions.

dl
14 WME prays for relief as follows:

15 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;

2. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action and that judgment be entered against
ea
16

17 Plaintiff and in favor of WME;

18 3. That WME be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this
D

19 action; and

20 4. That WME be granted such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21 Dated: January 29, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

22 IRELL & MANELLA LLP

Steven A. Marenberg
23 Robert M. Schwartz
Ellisen-S-NTumer . /—)/
24

25 By :MAAM
26 Robert M. Schwartz
Attorneys for Defendant
27 William Morris Endeavor Entertainment. t t r

28
________ -4- _______ __
Answer Of Defendant William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment. LLC To Unverified Complaint
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
3 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276.
4 On January 29, 2018,1 served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC TO
5 UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on each interested party, as follows:

6 Bryan M. Sullivan, Esq. Shawm Holley, Esq.

Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP Alan Kossoff, Esq.
7 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90048 808 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor
8 Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: bsullivan@earlysullivan.com
9 Email: shoIlev@kwikalaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Terry Crews akossoff@kvvikalaw.com
10
Attorneys for Defendant Adam Venit

e
11

12

13
m
in
(BY MAIL) I placed a true copy of the foregoing document in a sealed envelope
addressed to each interested party, as set forth above. I placed each such envelope,
with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Irell & Manella
dl
14 LLP, Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with Irell & Manella LLP's
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
15 United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be
deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary
course of business.
ea
16

17 Executed on January 29, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.

18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
D

foregoing is true and correct.

19
20
Lorayne K. Wakino (LWakino@irell.com)
21 (Type or print name) (Signature)

22

23
24

25
26
27

28
.LP
iiity
ig

10436527
D
ea
dl
in
e