The Never-ending Battle Against Borat: Olivier Taillieu

To expose the underlying human character flaws associated with the hodge-podge of ethnicities, beliefs, backgrounds, and religions in the United States is a valid and novel purpose for a film. Unfortunately, the overwhelming outcries of fierce allegations have generated concern that the makers of the film may have let the social experiment derail into a particularly sick version of the popular MTV show Punk'd by supposedly conducting it at the participants' expense and based on their misunderstanding. The creators of the film were aiming to communicate a strong message to a narrow-minded and corrupt cluster of society but may have ended up making the film itself a hypocrisy contributing to the type of behavior that it bashes.

After the hit movie exploded onto the big screen with record-breaking sales grossing $26.4 million in its opening weekend in the United States and Canada (despite the fact that it was released in fewer than 1,000 cinemas), rumors of scandal and lies arose—as well as a few lawsuits.

The surge of Borat lawsuits was triggered by the mother of all such cases. Two (now-former) fraternity brothers from the University of South Carolina, who are featured in the film traveling in an RV and picking up the hitchhiking Borat, claim that they were lied to and coaxed into signing questionable contracts after a member of the film crew took them out for a night of binge drinking.

Olivier Taillieu, a savvy Beverly Hills entertainment lawyer from Zuber & Taillieu, LLP, leads that case, armed with an aggressive work ethic and extensive experience in the arena of films' contractual procedures.

So how did Taillieu, a 16-year-old high school dropout from France, end up one of the most sought-after attorneys in Los Angeles, representing one of the year's most high-profile entertainment lawsuits?

"Perseverance and determination," Taillieu said. "I think it's just part of my mentality. I don't tend to do things half-ass. If I'm going to blow off steam, I do it all the way, but if I'm going to be serious, and I'm going to be driven, then I do that all the way, as well."

Perhaps Taillieu's experiences in his rowdy, rebellious teenage days will give him an advantage and insight into representing the two carousing comrades from South Carolina.

Natives of France, Taillieu and his mother picked up and left home when he was 15 years old to find a better life in Los Angeles. A large portion of Taillieu's life and career success has been derived from the superb example his mother set for him while he was growing up.

"She's demonstrated what one can do when one has no fears, and that's to just believe in yourself and go for what you want, no matter what obstacles are in front of you," he said.

<<After getting caught up in typical teenage punk behavior, Taillieu finally decided to follow "a more intellectual pursuit," as he put it. He finished high school and enrolled at Arizona State University (ASU) at the age of 23. While working toward his Bachelor of Arts in Communications, Taillieu began looking into graduate school programs and considering law because of its wide array of career options.

"I thought that a law degree would give me the most options, whether or not I actually decided to become a lawyer," he said in an interview with Communication Matters, a communications department newsletter published by ASU.

During his last semester at ASU, Taillieu served as a legislative intern on the Arizona State Senate Judiciary Committee, having worked under retired State Senator Patricia Nolan. Writing and presenting analyses of legislation propositions to various committees, drafting legislation alongside state government agencies and committee members, and researching issues related to pending bills gave Taillieu a legal foundation that reinforced his decision to attend law school after completing his undergraduate education.

As an extraordinary student and member of the Golden Key National Honor Society and the Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society, Taillieu graduated summa cum laude from ASU in 1996.

<<Following graduation, Taillieu was accepted into The George Washington University Law School, where he excelled as managing editor for the school's law review as well as a straight-A law student. He graduated summa cum laude and first in his class, later becoming a member of the Order of the Coif, a national honor society for law students who have attended one of the society's affiliated schools.

Taillieu's phenomenal transformation into a true scholar and professional did not stop there. He obtained some of the most competitive clerkships available after college, breaking ground for his legal career as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Lourdes G. Baird of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and then for the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of the most distinguished clerkships in the country.

Following his clerkships, he entered into practice as a litigator in the intellectual property and technology department of the Los Angeles office of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, one of the top law firms in the world. While practicing there, he met Tom Zuber, who frequently joined him for coffee breaks at "ungodly hours" while working on extensive intellectual property litigation cases. Deciding that "there had to be a better way," the two joined Zuber's brother and fellow lawyer, Jeff, and embarked on the task of starting up their own firm.

"The math no longer made sense [at O'Melveny & Myers]. Plus, I saw that I was sacrificing my quality of life for work," he said in an interview with Communication Matters.

Currently leading as a partner at his own firm in Beverly Hills, CA, Zuber & Taillieu, LLP, Taillieu has primarily focused his law career on litigation. His litigation experience includes work on cases in the areas of patents, trademarks, unfair competition, unfair business practices, copyrights, entertainment, breach of contract, antitrust, and torts.

<<Because of Taillieu's extensive litigation skills and experience, high-profile national and international television shows, including Good Morning America, Nightline, NBC Nightly News, The O'Reilly Factor, and many others, frequently contact him and feature him as a guest.

Taillieu has also had the opportunity to meet and collaborate with some of Hollywood's up-and-coming creative talents in film, giving him an edge on this case. As co-producer of the 2005 film Little Athens and producer of the 2004 film Fear Within, Taillieu handled the legal background for the films and their production, including matters pertaining to their legal contracts.

"Your typical reality contract is about 50 pages. It covers every angle. It tells the participants everything they're going to be involved in, and it even goes beyond that and creates no expectation whatsoever. They're pretty broad. But that's how you protect yourself. That's how the production company protects itself," he explained.

Speaking of reality TV shows and films, Taillieu was also a member of the cast of the short-lived 2005 reality show The Law Firm. Although NBC pulled the plug on the Apprentice-like legal reality show after two unsuccessful airings, the show's six remaining episodes were handed over to the network's affiliate, Bravo. True to his rebellious nature, Taillieu has been noted as one of the show's more memorable contestants; one reporter from the online magazine TalkLeft said, "The contestants were entirely forgettable, except for Olivier [Taillieu], who cursed the judge when he lost the hearing."

Taillieu's Borat clients, who go by "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2" in the lawsuit that was filed on November 9, 2006, struck gold when they tracked him down to represent them in their case.


 

<<And the Winner Is... With Sacha Baron Cohen's win for "Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture—Comedy or Musical" and a nomination for "Best Motion Picture—Comedy or Musical," Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan proved that it wasn't such an industry pariah on January 15, 2007, at the 64th Annual Golden Globe Awards in Los Angeles. In his acceptance speech, Baron Cohen thanked every American who did not sue him. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association chose Baron Cohen's performance over those of Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Aaron Eckhart in Thank You for Smoking, Chiwetel Ejiofor in Kinky Boots, and Will Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction. Among the film's fellow nominees for "Best Motion Picture" were The Devil Wears Prada, Little Miss Sunshine, Thank You for Smoking, and category winner Dreamgirls.

It all started in late October 2005 when members of the film's production team interviewed brothers from the Chi Psi fraternity at the University of South Carolina. Three of the brothers were chosen to appear in an upcoming "documentary." According to participants, they were told that the film was only going to be distributed in Europe and that their names, the name of their school, and their fraternity affiliations would not be disclosed to the public.

All of the alleged promises were broken. On the day of the shoot, the three frat brothers were taken by a member of the film crew to a local restaurant, The Flying Saucer, to drink and "loosen up" before filming. A few drink rounds later, they were allegedly taken to an RV and presented with "standard consent agreements," which they signed. As the production team prepared to call "action," the fraternity members were all encouraged to act as outrageously as possible and, of course, continue drinking.

"The way you legitimize is by getting your waiver after the fact—you shoot, then sign—because then the person who signs the waiver knows exactly what they're signing; they've seen it, they've just lived it. The question now becomes 'Do I want to publicize this all over the airwaves?' My guys didn't get that opportunity," Taillieu said.

The film's field supervisor, who was with the three frat boys, claims that he had them sign the releases at the restaurant before they drank anything. A field department coordinator for the film supports this allegation in her court declaration, saying that she picked up the contracts when the group was on their second round of drinks. Even if they had given the frat brothers the chance to sign afterwards, it is obvious that they could not have signed coherently directly after the shoot.

One of the three frat boys, David Corcoran, who is not pressing charges, summed up the experience in a phone interview with ABC, saying, "They brought us to a bar, got us wasted, and the rest is history."


 

<<The Village of Glod, Romania With a population of only 1,500 and a name that literally translates to "mud," the Gypsy village of Glod in Moreni Municipality, Dambovita County, Romania, epitomizes poverty. The village's residents live in broken-down huts near the Carpathian Mountains. Many of them depend on the country's meager welfare wages and live most of their lives as impoverished scavengers. Fewer than five villagers have steady jobs in the nearby towns of Pucioasa and Fieni. Since the village has few to no luxuries—not even running water—the villagers' toilets are basically holes in the ground, and horses and donkeys are their only means of travel. According to Daily Mail, not a single villager that it spoke with had ever been able to afford a trip to the nearest cinema, which is 20 miles away—a circumstance that makes the residents of Glod perfect potential targets for exploitation by filmmakers.

Once the contracts were signed and the cameras started rolling, the frat boys, who were all apparently drunk during the filming, improvised the scene in which they pick up and befriend the hitchhiking Borat, played by actor Sacha Baron Cohen, while traveling across the country in an RV. In the film, as they all sit around and drink with Borat, the guys are clearly "loosened up" and begin spouting insulting comments about women and minorities.

The repercussions of the frat brothers' comments stirred turmoil within their work and school lives. The lawsuit outlines the aftermath, saying that the film's release has caused the two plaintiffs "to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community in which [they] live, work, and learn."

Many critics of the lawsuit fail to realize that although the frat brothers' obscene comments were disgraceful and immature, they are not suing for appearing to be a couple of Southern bigots. The real issue lies within the misconceptions made by and the lies allegedly told to participants, as well as the contract's attempt at waiving any possibilities of fraud accusations.

The contract states that the participant agrees not to bring forth any claims against the producer or its affiliates that include various assertions, including "breach of any alleged contract (whether the alleged contract is verbal or in writing)."

"One of the interesting elements of the contracts is that they attempt to waive fraudulent representations, which is interesting because we're claiming that fraudulent representations were made, and I think that the contracts themselves support that. Otherwise, why would you waive it?" commented Taillieu. "Even though it tries to waive fraud, you just can't do that. It's against the law."

Oh, yeah, and one of the frat boys was only 19 years old when the movie was filmed. According to 20th Century Fox, the underage frat boy used fake identification when he was carded by the restaurant and by production.

Encompassed with fraudulent representation, the fact that the producers got participants, including a minor, drunk before signing contracts, if proven, can diminish any validity that the contracts may hold, no matter what they say. These two pieces of evidence could work together in the execution of the case, further supporting the claims regarding the film crew's negligence and duplicity.

"They go hand in hand—we're telling a story. From a purely legal standpoint, if I had to choose, the misrepresentation is far more powerful; it has far-reaching consequences from a legal standpoint, and I do think that we have a fairly good case," said Taillieu. "The fact that they were drunk provides context to the underlying cause of action, which is the fraudulent inducement cause of action. I think when you put those two in combination and you look at the conduct of the producers, it is not only that they lied, but then they got my guys drunk to get them to sign a contract. In the totality, we find that that's pretty egregious," he said.

The two students from the University of South Carolina are the only ones who are spreading bad press about the movie's supposed deceptions. Throughout the film, Borat encounters a variety of colorful characters, including a group of feminists, a Jewish couple who run a bed-and-breakfast, gay pride parade participants, politicians, and many others. While conducting his investigation, Taillieu has come into contact with many people who appeared in the film.

"Since I've filed the lawsuit, I've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of participants in the film who've chosen to remain anonymous at this point. It is a consistent message that I get, which is: 'I was lied to, and had I known the truth, I wouldn't have done what they asked me to do.' One of the predominant lies that they have used throughout is the fact that this would not be shown in the United States, period," he said.

Although 20th Century Fox may have broken verbal contracts with numerous people, the written contract uniquely states that the producer has the right to use "the film and any recorded material that includes the Participant without restriction in any media throughout the universe." Would it not have sufficed to say "internationally"? Even though only a few participants have filed lawsuits, many claim they did not clearly understand the parameters and were upset by the film's outcome.

Which will hold up in court? The slew of verbal agreements or the possibly corrupt written contract?

Two villagers of Glod, Romania, where the opening scenes of the movie were filmed, also attempted to sue for misrepresentations of their community—for a whopping $30 million. In the opening scenes of the film, Borat tours the city, pointing out the town rapist and abortionist, among others, targeting individual villagers. Members of the village claim that they were originally told that the film's purpose was to depict their country's "extreme poverty" in a factual documentary about their conditions, heritage, and beliefs; they were allegedly only compensated the equivalent of $6 each per day.

20th Century Fox claims that the production team and star Sacha Baron Cohen each donated $5,000 to the town, paid a location fee, and bought computers as well as school and office supplies for the residents. It also claims that all participants were fully aware that they were extras in a satirical movie set in Kazakhstan, having signed consent forms and been compensated fairly.

Glod's villagers disagree and are angry that their footage was manipulated in ways that made them appear ignorant and sick. Two residents of Glod, Nicolae Todorache and Spiridon Ciorbea, hired Edward Fagan, a reparations attorney from Texas, to sue the producers of the film. The lawsuit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in early December 2006 because the claims were too vague to stand up in court. Fagan plans to continue pursuing the case.

Just when the public started to forget about the Borat-lawsuit frenzy, more than six months after the film's release, yet another party is suing its makers. In the scenes where Borat is walking the streets of New York City, many people were filmed giving him strange looks, insulting him, and even running from him. Jeffrey Lemerond, a New York businessman, was filmed screaming and running away from Borat—and he's out to sue.

In his suit, Lemerond states that he was depicted as "fleeing in apparent terror" when he was actually screaming at Borat to go away. The plaintiff also claims he has suffered "public ridicule, degradation, and humiliation." The suit, which was filed on June 1, 2007, does not specify any monetary damages, although it points out the enormous amount of money the film has made.

The frat brothers' case is exactly the type of challenge that Taillieu likes to have on his plate. He has a strong interest in fighting for the rights of individuals against large affiliations, like 20th Century Fox, who tend to bully low-profile opposition.

"I'm a litigator, so I tend to be driven by what moves me," Taillieu said. "I like to represent individual rights just as a general rule. To some extent, I like to be the guy with the white hat. I like to be the guy who has the 'moral right.'"

Taillieu is a sensible guy. His matter-of-fact attitude spills over from his younger years onto his current professional life. As one can see from his turn toward law as a young man, when he wants something, he goes after it. This drive has solidified his mission in the frat brothers' case.

"I do feel that there's something bigger at stake here," he explained, "and that is that you can't go around and take advantage of people and then make millions on their backs. That's just not fair."

Based on the defense evidence, Gregg Brilliant, a spokesman for 20th Century Fox, has called the lawsuit's claims "ridiculous on so many levels."