Baby Reindeer's Richard Gadd will testify in court, says lawyer for Fiona Harvey

A US lawyer for the ‘real-life Martha’ Fiona Harvey believes Baby Reindeer writer Richard Gadd will likely be in the witness box during the million-dollar lawsuit. Speaking to Piers Morgan Uncensored, Harvey’s US legal representative Richard Roth says she had a “very, very strong case” and revealed he expects Harvey, Gadd and Netflix executives will testify in court in California.

We previously reported on obtained documents which showed Richard A. Roth and his New York firm Roth Law demanded a jury trial at the the United States District Court Central District Of California to hold the broadcaster to account.They claim Netflix “lied” by claiming Richard Gadd’s seven-part series told the true story of how he was terrorised by a convicted stalker who had been to prison and who had sexually assaulted him and that they did so out of “greed”.

Harvey was the inspiration for a convicted stalker called Martha in the award-winning series. The 58-year-old is demanding £135 million from the streaming giant, claiming the facts used in their highly popular series were not true, despite it being billed as a true story.

In a candid interview with Morgan, Roth suggests the fallout from the Baby Reindeer case “could be a watershed moment for streaming TV”. Asked why he had taken the case, Roth said: “I think there's probably three reasons. Obviously, I'm in the business of making money and I think there's a lot of money to be made here.

"I think the second reason is that it is really just reprehensible when someone says something's ‘a true story’… And if Netflix is going to say this is a true story, then it better well be true. And to do that is irresponsible of them.

"And the third reason is that Fiona Harvey, you've had her on your show, she's been destroyed. She'd been shattered by this. She gets death threats, she doesn't want to leave her apartment.”

On what will end up being the ‘smoking gun’ in their case, he went on: “There's a lot of smoking guns… One of the big smoking guns… is that you don't put ‘this is a true story’ on the front, first frame of a six-part series unless it's gone through the wringer. Who actually said it is a true story? Did legal look at it? It is not a true story. There are clear falsities in it, which are very damning. So I think one thing is going to be what did Netflix do to determine this was a true story when it’s clearly not?”

Baby Reindeer became one of Netflix’s most popular TV series of all time. It portrays an ordeal Gadd faced at the hands of a deranged stalker who has been in prison for a historical crime and is sent to prison for stalking him.

His character Donny Dunn is tormented by the woman called Martha in the series. Internet sleuths easily discovered the character was based on Fiona Harvey.

One Netflix executive told the UK Parliament that Gadd’s stalker had been convicted and the company had done everything they could to protect the real-life identities. However Roth rebutted: “It's so irresponsible for him to testify under oath in front of Parliament saying she was convicted when it's clear she wasn't, that's the first thing.

"The second thing you raise is that, you know, you said the word ‘internet sleuths’. I think that's sort of a loose term. I could get it [Fiona’s identity] on the internet. You don't have to be a sleuth… It was very easy for anyone and everyone.”

Touching on the reports in the press at the weekend saying Gadd, who also plays lead character Donny Dunn in the show, was against calling it a “true story”, he added: “It's actually great news for me. I heard about that story this weekend… It's one thing if Richard Gadd says to them,’It's true, it's true, it’s true’, and they fail to do their due diligence.

"It's even worse if Richard Gadd says, ‘Well, I don't really want this to be a true story’. And Netflix says, ‘No, no, no, no, we want it to be true’... And they say, ‘We don't want to listen to you. We're making it a true story’. I mean, we're going beyond, this is far worse than negligence. This is intentional misconduct, if they actually were told, ‘Don't make it a true story’ and they said it were true.”

He added he believed Gadd has “no credibility” as a witness following some of his own admissions in the show, including drug use and other troubling behaviour. “So the man, the person they most rely on, for the truth of the story has been shattered before I even get to cross-examine him,” Roth explained.

“Netflix has unbelievable culpability for saying at a minimum, that she's a twice-time convicted felon. You saw the scene where she's crying, and she pleads guilty? That's all fabricated.”

Asked by Piers if his client’s past behaviour - and the claims made by Scottish lawyer Laura Wray of stalking - would go against Harvey, he said Wray herself seemed to admit this behaviour had not been deemed ‘criminal’ in the past. He went on: “The fact that… something happened 22 years ago with Laura Wray and Fiona, I don't really care about that.

"But what I care about is that Netflix and Gadd represented that she was a convicted, twice-convicted - once before and once during the show... He says she was a criminal for four and a half years and Laura Wray said none of that is true.”

Netflix previously vowed to “vigorously defend” a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Roth added if the streaming giant has "wronged her, then she is entitled to their profits" but also admitted: "We don't know what that number is..

He said: "Again, this is very early. We just filed the lawsuit. But we know that over 60 million people have viewed it. We know that it either has or is becoming the largest show ever on Netflix and we know that Netflix is making a tremendous amount of money from it.

"In fact, Richard Gadd is on a US tour promoting it. Now Richard Gadd was in New York last week… He was on the Today Show in New York. He was on The Tonight Show. So they are pumping this story and they're making oodles of money from it. So we will see, once we get discovery, what the real profits are.”

He added, in his view, the burden of proof was with Netflix, saying: “This is a woman who was really thrust into the limelight. This is not a situation where you have a public figure, who essentially was defamed. This is a situation where a woman lives her own life, and she all of a sudden, found getting death threats, can't leave her apartment. Really, really just inappropriate.

"Why is Netflix not calling her up and saying, ‘Listen, we're about to do this story, we'd like you to look at it. We'd like to fact-check’. She's not well, she's clammed up in her apartment.

"She doesn't know what to do, doesn't know where to go. She's hurting. I mean, she really has been shattered by this. There’s going to be a big percentage of the populace that don't believe her and thinks she is the Martha who's depicted in that series. And so she's afraid to go out and get groceries. It’s that bad.

“This could be a watershed moment for streaming TV.”

Despite fears over her health, Roth said Harvey will "certainly give evidence". He said: "We'll have Richard Gadd testify, we'll have her testify. We're gonna have a string of people at Netflix testifying as to what they did… why they agreed to the language in the front.

"What they did to check it. I also can't wait to find out how, how [the executive] who testified in front of Parliament. My goodness, I mean, that's not a blunder. That is real, real inappropriate conduct… [and could have] big repercussions from my lawsuit. Honestly, if he goes [back] in front of Parliament and says ‘I lied or I was wrong or I misspoke’. That's very problematic for Netflix.”

Netflix has been contacted for comment by the Record.

Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - Sign up to our daily newsletter here.