GIRLS GONE WILD LAWSUIT PORNO SHOCKER…Plaintiff Admits Making Porn Films…HOT VIDEO…

GIRLS GONE WILD LAWSUIT PORNO SHOCKER

National Enquirer

In the lawsuit accusing Girls Gone Wild mogul Joe Francis of sexually exploiting minors, the plaintiff with the most damning evidence now admits she appeared in explicit pornographic films.

The woman, only known as Plaintiff B in the legal docs, appeared in the films after Girls Gone Wild staffers videotaped her and another minor female in 2002 enaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Francis attorney called the new evidence “damaging” in a recent motion and charged “the plaintiff’s failure to disclose it is disturbing pattern among the Plaintiffs and one that this court should not tolerate.”

Plaintiff B, now 25, is one of four minors who sued Francis in March 2008 for sexual abuse and exploitation after performing for the Girls Gone Wild video series in a Panama City, Fla., hotel room during a spring break vacation. Alleging in the complaint that she was coerced into mutual masturbation and sexual contact with a female friend.

While the video footage of the other plaintiffs shows them briefly exposing their breasts, the footage of Plaintiff B is more explicit and, according to the trial judge, “extremely lengthy,” making her claim for damages potentially the most expensive for Francis. He has previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to her case.

Plaintiff B initially said she had only appeared in Starsky and Hutch and Spider-Man 2 as an extra but two days before the close of the discovery process it was learned she had appeared in not one – but two- pornos.

Her lawyers claim the later films are inadmissible as evidence because they were made AFTER the GGW incident.

Plaintiffs’ counsel had just learned that one of the Plaintiffs has appeared in two pornographic films despite having denied this in depositions and responses to interrogatories.

Plaintiff B provided only this written response to the defense’s request for additional information about the films:

PB believes she was videotaped on one or two separate occasions subsequent to the incident alleged by her in the Amended Complaint. She believes this included sexually explicit conduct. She does not know where the taping took place or who created the video. She does not have a copy of any such video and does not know who does have a copy.

In another brief, Francis said that response was insufficient, asking, “Did she get paid for these videos? By whom? Was she paid by check? Who signed the checks? Did she deposit them? Were others filmed with her. There must be something more she can tell us about these videotapes.”