The Tri Star executive accused of helping Britney Spears’ dad “mirror” his daughter’s iCloud account to spy on the pop star’s private messages has lost a last-minute bid to delay a key hearing next week on whether she must sit for a deposition and cough up documents.
Robin Greenhill sought the postponement this week by saying she hired a new law firm last weekend — and her new counsel needed more time to “become familiar” with her motion to quash the subpoenas served by Britney’s lawyer Mathew Rosengart last October.
Rosengart, on the other hand, opposed the request for delay. He argued in a dueling file Tuesday that Greenhill was still being represented by Eric Adler, her long-standing lawyer. And that evidence from a third party allegedly showed Greenhill made the allegations. “false or materially misleading public statements” in a prior sworn declaration.
Los Angeles County Judge Brenda Penny denied Greenhill’s request in a ruling made public Friday. Greenhill failed to prove she would suffer, the court ruled. “irreparable harm” if the hearing on her motion remained on calendar for July 27, where it’s been for months.
Greenhill and her boss, Tri Star CEO Lou Taylor, are both fighting Rosengart’s quest to depose them on video — as well as his subpoenas demanding all documents and communications related to “electronic surveillance, cloning or monitoring of Britney’s phone,” anything related to Tri Star’s compensation from the estate and anything regarding Britney’s medical care, the singer’s claim she was coerced to work and the alleged bugging of Britney’s bedroom.
Rosengart issued the subpoenas after Greenhill was specifically singled out in blockbuster statements made by former Spears security staffer Alex Vlasov in theNew York Times documentary, Britney Spears is under control.
According to Vlasov, Greenhill was on a group chat with Britney’s dad Jamie Spears and Vlasov’s boss, Edan Yemini, head of Black Box security, that dissected “every step”Britney was forced to take the following photos during her court-ordered conservatorship.
“Even in the sacred place, her home, every single request was monitored and recorded. Her intimate relations were closely managed,”Vlasov stated. “You know, Britney could not have someone in the privacy of her house without those three people knowing.”
Vlasov stated that Yemini was at one time, “had an audio recording device put into Britney’s bedroom.” He also said it was Greenhill who proposed setting up an iPad loaded with Britney’s iCloud account so it would “mirror”All of her activities. The system purportedly allowed the trio to see all the singer’s messages, notes, call logs, browser history, and photographs.
“Edan would bring me text messages Britney would have, and he would ask me to encrypt those messages and give it to him so he could pass it on to Robin and Jamie,”Vlasov stated.
Greenhill claimed in a Nov. 4 sworn declaration that her motion to quell the subpoenas was accompanied by a counter-subpoena. “no one at Tri Star has ever suggested monitoring Ms. Spears’ electronic communications.”She also denied having any knowledge of a “hidden electronic surveillance device placed in Ms. Spears’ bedroom” and suggested Rosengart’s request for records dating back 14 years was “grossly overbroad” because Tri Star wasn’t involved in Britney’s career or the creation of the conservatorship in early February 2008.
“Tri Star played no part whatsoever in suggesting the establishment of the conservatorship,”Greenhill wrote.
According to Rosengart and his co-counsel Kyle Freeny, Greenhill’s statements were false. In a July 1 sworn statement, Freeny told the court that Black Box Security had produced Word documents containing screenshots of Britney’s text messages that Yemini circulated via email to both Jamie and Greenhill without comment between 2016 and 2019.
The lawyers also supplied the court with a Jan. 1, 2008, email that Jamie’s lawyer Geraldine Wyle sent to Taylor discussing the best time to file for the conservatorship.
“Lou, We have run into a problem with our judge selection – the only judge who will be able to hear our case on Friday is the one (judge) who will not give Jamie the power to administer psychotropic drugs to B. The first time she is off the bench is Wednesday. That is the first safe day to be in court on this matter,” Wyle wrote in the email a month before Britney’s conservatorship was granted. “If we go earlier, all of this work could well be for virtually nothing.”
In a subsequent email to Jamie Spears on Jan. 17, 2008, Taylor wrote that she already had spoken to others about Andrew Wallet, the man who ultimately would become Jamie’s co-conservator. “He and tri star will serve as co’s w you,”Taylor wrote that Taylor meant her company would join Wallet to be a co-conservator. It never happened.
“Tri Star’s own internal emails — obtained from a third-party — demonstrate that Tri Star’s Lou Taylor played a substantial role in Ms. Spears’s affairs prior to and in the early days of the conservatorship,”Rosengart informed the court in a July 1, filing.
Rosengart claims Tri Star made more than $18 million from Britney’s estate during her conservatorship. He contends Tri Star’s unwillingness to answer his questions shows the company “has much to hide.”Taylor is accused of using estate funds improperly to pay for expenses like an advertisement. The Hollywood Reporter• Personal legal fees
Britney’s lawyer, a former federal prosecutor, also has challenged Jamie’s agreement to pay Tri Star a $500,000 minimum annual guarantee even after Britney went on hiatus and was no longer performing toward the end of her conservatorship. That agreement was in place when Taylor suddenly quit as Britney’s business manager in October 2020, around the same time the “Toxic” singer’s former lawyer started voicing public objections to Jamie’s role managing the estate. (Britney’s conservatorship was terminated Nov. 12.)
Tri Star lawyers claim Britney has not shown any evidence of infidelity. “extrinsic fraud”Her former management team would be able to subpoena records from previous accounting periods that were previously approved by court. They’ve claimed only records dating back to Jan. 1, 2019 are fair game for subpoenas.