Britney Spears Sex Tape
Britney Spears lawsuit against Us Weekly magazine won't be dismissed just yet.
On Thursday, March 16, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart Cole says she needs more information in the libel case involving a sex tape story the magazine published about the singer, report news sources.
This will allow Britney Spears legal team to depose an Us Weekly editor and former employee, building a case against them. The magazine, in turn, had filed a motion to drop the case.
The pop princess, Britney Spears, filed a libel lawsuit in December against the celebrity magazine for publishing a story alleging that she and her husband Kevin Federline had made a sex tape and feared that it would get out.
Britney Spears, 24, is seeking a total of $20 million, $10 million in libel damages and $10 million for the misuse of her name and image to promote sales. Unspecified punitive damages are also being sought
The Us Weekly column published in the Oct. 17 issue claims that the "Toxic" singer and her hubby had made a sex tape, viewed it with the estate planning lawyers while "acting goofy the whole time," and gave the lawyers a copy.
"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video,"
states the lawsuit, which also claims that Britney Spears requested a retraction, which the publication refused to give.
The celebrity gossip magazine has been in Britney Spears bad books since February 2005 when it published unauthorized private pictures of Britney Spears and Kevin's honeymoon. A month later, Britney Spears posted a letter on her official website addressed "Dear False Tabloids," taking gossip rags to task for printing what she claims are false rumors.
In contrast, Britney Spears and US Weekly's main competitor have a mutual back-scratching relationship. Britney Spears gave People the rights to publish her wedding photos and the first authorized photos of her baby Sean.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for May 3.
"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video," 





