[EDITOR'S NOTE: After topless photos of her appeared in The Globe in 1991, Joan Collins sued the tabloid newspaper for damages, claiming that she suffered such aggravation that she was unable to continue writing. Random House is trying to use this claim against her, maintaining that it is proof that she did not submit a complete manuscript for "A Ruling Passion." In this Jan. 3, 1996 affirmation Joan Collins says, "I now realize that I was mistaken when I made those statements." ]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
RANDOM HOUSE UK LIMITED and RANDOM HOUSE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
GEMINI STAR PRODUCTIONS LIMITED, JOAN
COLLINS and MARTIN D. SINGER, as Trustee of the Irving P. and Mary Lazar Trust, Defendants.
AFFIRMATION
Hon. Ira Gammerman
Index No. l14874-/9A
Cal. No. 9-DLO6796
JOAN COLLINS affirms the following facts under penalties of perjury: (1)
1. I am a defendant in the above captioned matter, President of my co-defendant, Gemini Star Productions, Limited ("Gemini") and am submitting this affirmation in further support of my and Gemini's motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs, opposition to that motion.
2. In their opposition to my motion, plaintiffs rely extensively on my testimony in an action entitled Joan Collins v. Globe International, Inc. et al. , (Superior Court, Los Angeles County), primarily in an attempt to prove (1) that I never delivered a "complete manuscript" and (2) that I never submitted any material for Work #2 under the Contract. Both of these claims are false, and in this affirmation I address each in turn.
A. I DELIVERED COMPLETE MANUSCRIPTS
3. Plaintiffs offer the deposition of Lisa Drew for the definition of a "complete manuscript" -- a phrase they claim is a widely used and understood term in the publishing industry. I am told that there is no such accepted meaning and that in any case, the meaning of "complete manuscript" in the context of my contract with plaintiffs is clear from the Contract itself.
4. The reference to a "complete manuscript" does not appear in paragraph 2, the delivery clause of the Contract. Paragraph 2 requires not a "complete" manuscript but "complete copies of the manuscript . . . satisfactory the Publisher." It is not until paragraphs 28 (a) and (c), which address what would happen if I had not delivered "one-half of the manuscript" at subparagraphs (I) and (ii), does the Contract provide for the eventuality that I would not deliver a "complete" manuscript in subparagraph (iii).
5. Thus "complete manuscript" in the context of the Contract means a manuscript that is not the "one-half manuscript" referred to at subparagraphs (I) and (ii), and "complete" is a description of quantity, not quality.
6. Plaintiffs' quote from, statements that Alan Nevins and I made about the effect that being Photographed had had on my ability to continue writing during the summer of 1991, in an attempt to show that the pressure and aggravation of having learned about this gross invasion of privacy prevented me from writing.
7. However, I now realize that, I was mistaken when I made those statements. As I testified in the Globe deposition, I did not learn about the publication of the Globe Photographs until late August of 1991. By that time, I had been working on Work #1 for about five months. Clearly, since I delivered that manuscript in September, I had, at that point, substantially finished my work on the manuscript. Thus, it was inaccurate of me to say that the Globe incident prevented me from writing. Although this incident certainly made my life more difficult in the months following my learning about the publication, I had substantially completed my work on the manuscript before I learned of the Globe's invasion or my privacy, and thus I was able to deliver a complete manuscript for Work #1 in September of 1991 -- a fact that absolutely refutes plaintiffs' claim that I delivered nothing! In light of the fact that plaintiffs' employees acknowledged receipt of my first manuscript, it is absolutely shocking that plaintiffs now claim that I never submitted a complete manuscript.
8 Defendants' claim that I did not deliver a complete manuscript is especially shocking in view of the testimony of Rosemary Cheetham, who was the publishing director of defendant Random House UK and my editor until shortly after I delivered the manuscript of Work #1 At her deposition, taken in this case in London on October 13, Ms. Cheetham was shown what is submitted herewith as MS-1, and the following colloquy took place:
Q: When you received Exhibit 16, did you consider that Joan Collins fulfilled her obligation to deliver a manuscript?
A: Sorry, "Exhibit 16" being?
Q: Being (indicating).
A: Yes, I did.
MR. CALLAGY: Object to the form of the question.
Q: Under the agreement previously marked between Random House UK and Joan Collins, at that point was Joan Collins entitled to receive any money, if you remember?
A: I believe she was entitled to receive her delivery advance.
(Page 105, line 24; page 106, line 15, annexed hereto as Exhibit A.)
9. While the question of my entitlement to the payment of my delivery advance under the UK contract is different than the question of my entitlement to the protection of the first proceeds under the US contract, the opinion of Ms. Cheetham, an internationally respected and highly experience editor is surely, I submit, entitled to some weight. It certainly belies plaintiffs' claim that I had never lived up to my obligations under the Contract.
B. I SUBMITTED A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT FOR WORK #2
10. As was explained in my prior affirmation, and as is clear from my and Gemini's motion for partial summary judgment, I have always followed theatrical and motion picture usage and referred to "draft" or "manuscript" interchangeably. Therefore, my labeling a manuscript as a "draft" was not intended to have any bearing on the content of the work.
11. Although I occasionally get mixed up about dates and I use the words "draft" and "manuscript" as synonyms, there is at least one thing about which I am certain: I submitted two separate manuscripts to Random House US. Those manuscripts are annexed to this motion as Exhibits MS-1 and MS-2.
12. I submitted the manuscript of the first novel I wrote for plaintiffs, MS-1, in September of 1991. In my letter that accompanied it, I wrote to my editors "Well, here it is. The first draft of The Ruling Passion." (Annexed hereto as Exhibit B.) In that letter, I acknowledged that the manuscript needed some additional work, but my belief was that it was near completion. That I intended it to be something more than a rough draft is evidenced by the fact that in the letter, I expressed the hope that the manuscript would be published in the spring of 1992.
13. In March of 1992, I had a meeting with Joni Evans and Julie Grau. At that time, I was told for the first time that the manuscript was completely unsatisfactory. Even still, I hoped to somehow be able to salvage the book that I had spent so much time and energy writing.
14. One month later, I was deposed in connection with the Globe case. At that time, not only was I starring in the Broadway production of "Private Lives," but I was also worrying about the Globe case and coming to terms with the publication of intimate pictures of myself in a tabloid newspaper. Furthermore, I was trying to deal with the fact that Joni Evans and Julie Grau had in effect completely rejected my complete manuscript. All of these events took place in an extremely short time span -- from March to April of 1992.
15. When I was deposed in connection with the Globe case and stated that I was still working on the first manuscript, I meant what I said. At some point in time very close to that deposition, however, I realized that I had to accept my publisher's directions and cease completely all work on Work # 1. So I began the laborious process of writing a new book.
16. Thus, in April 1992, I wrote to Joni Evans explaining that I was preparing to write the entirely new plot that she, Julie Grau and I had worked out in March. In my letter to her I stated "Have been thinking seriously about the synopsis and I will be speaking to you in the middle of next week before I start getting down to it." (A copy of this letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.) My acceptance of Ms. Evans' view that I needed to write an entirely new book came several weeks after the Globe deposition, and I did not actually start writing Work #2, whose working title was Hell Hath No Fury, until the early spring of 1992.
17. Statements made by Joni Evans during her deposition in connection with the Globe case confirm all of this. Ms. Evans testified that the manuscript delivered by me in September of 1991 was not acceptable. In a series of questions about letters that contained editorial comments about work #1, Ms. Evans was asked:
Q: So, in essence, this letter memorialized your lack of satisfaction with the book?
A: Yes.
(Evans Globe deposition, page 80, lines 13-16, annexed hereto as Exhibit D). In the same deposition, Ms. Evans admitted that after she rejected my first effort as unacceptable, stopped working on Work #1 and began a new book from scratch.
18. What all of this shows is that while there may not be a definitive date, and while my memory of events may have rendered my globe deposition inaccurate, it is indisputable that ultimately I delivered in a timely manner two different, complete manuscripts.
London, England January 3, 1996
/s/
Joan Collins
NOTES
(1.) Counsel have agreed that in view of the fact that I am presently in London, England, where I reside, I may submit this statement in support of my motion under penalties of perjury rather than under formal oath administered by a notary public.
