The story is so mixed up as to who sued whom and for what that it is nearly impossible to unwind. As best I can determine from the story, the porn star had some sort of lawsuit against somebody in 2007. The case was settled in 2008, porn star was paid money, and as part of the settlement, porn star signed a release agreement that included a confidentiality provision. The stupid article is so misguided that it suggests money was paid as "hush money" and that somehow, the entire lawsuit was for "hush money."
Yeah, no. Money was paid for the underlying misdeeds, e.g., sexual harassment I am guessing. I have to guess since the article fails to mention what the underlying lawsuit, a public record, alleges or against whom. The release agreement, identifying the porn star and "David Dennison," includes a confidentiality provision. "David Dennison's" signature is not on the agreement. Confidentiality provisions that I have seen - and I have seen dozens of them - universally mandate that the plaintiff (here, the porn star) is subject to a financial penalty for violating the confidentiality provision. The theory is that since the defendant is the one paying for the settlement, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of confidentiality. The article certainly supports that point, since it claims in part, "In return, Clifford was not to disclose any confidential information ..."
Finally, as best I can determine from the garbled article, it seems that the porn star is trying to set aside the settlement agreement, in what is termed rescission. The only problem that porn star may have in seeking rescission is that she is obliged to return the settlement funds to "David Dennison." Wonder if she has $130,000 lying around.
