Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe will be defending himself against a civl lawsuit alleging sexual assault and other claims by, in part, attacking the plaintiff in the court of public opinion.
Attorney Lanny Davis will hold a press conference on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. ET to discuss the case. The notice makes the objective clear — to further paint her as an opportunist who is attempting to extort Sharpe.
The email announcing the press conference says that Davis will “answer questions about blackmail against Shannon Sharpe from Nevada OnlyFans woman.”
The subtitle to the announcement says this: “Davis To Challenge Gabbi Zuniga and Texas Attorney Tony Buzbee To Make Full Tape Available To Determine Whether It Was Edited — ‘What Is She Hiding?’”
This refers to the claim from Davis’s Monday statement that the plaintiff “secretly recorded” the “video of a consensual sexual encounter” with Sharpe in order to “falsely portray a consensual sexual act as non-consensual,” that the video was “heavily edited and taken entirely out of context,” and that the plaintiff has “refused to provide a copy of the full, unedited version” to Sharpe’s lawyers.
Here’s one of the most basic realities of any civil action. Sharpe and his lawyers have a quick and easy device available to secure the unedited video within the confines of the lawsuit. The authority to do so comes from Rule 34 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. She’ll have no choice but to produce it, after Davis requests it. If she flat-out refuses, the case eventually will be dismissed. If she has destroyed it, that would open a separate can of worms under the theory known as spoliation of evidence.
Frankly, Davis seems to be grandstanding. Which is fine. He has the right to do it. To those who understand how the legal system works, it’s obvious that the goal is to cast aspersions against the plaintiff and her lawyer — not for reasons relevant to the merits of her claim but in the eyes of the general public.
Indeed, what’s the goal of dismissing the plaintiff as a “Nevada OnlyFans woman”? Sharpe won’t deny that he knew her, or that he had consensual sexual encounters with her. He’ll be claiming that all encounters were consensual. She has claimed in her complaint that at least one was not.
Which brings us back to the unedited video. The case could very well turn on whether and to what extent the edited version meshes with the unedited version. If it does, that could be bad for Sharpe. If it doesn’t, that would be good for Sharpe.
