Carole Baskin is suing Netflix over 'Tiger King 2'.
Carole Baskin
The Big Cat Resue boss and her husband, Howard Baskin, submitted a complaint to federal court on Monday (01.11.21) aiming to stop the streaming service and directors Rebecca Chaiklin and Eric Goode's company Royal Good Productions from launching their five-episode sequel on 17 November.
The couple have argued the filmmakers have no right to use any footage leftover from 2020's 'Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness' under the deals they signed in 2016 and 2018 and they will be caused "irreparable injury" if it is broadcast.
Documents obtained by Deadline filmed by Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP stated: “Defendants’ unauthorized use of the film footage of the Baskins and Big Cat Rescue secured by Royal Goode Productions under the Appearance Releases will cause the Baskins irreparable injury for which the Baskins have no adequate remedy at law."
"Understanding that the Appearance Releases limited Royal Goode Productions’ use of the footage of the Baskins and Big Cat Rescue to the single, initial documentary motion picture, the Baskins believed that any sequel – though odious – would not include any of their footage.”
Carol has been vocal in the past about her unhappiness at the way she was depicted on the show, in particular the scrutiny over her missing first husband, Don Lewis, and insisted she had expected the programme to focus on her animal rescue efforts.
And Howard fumed in a new statement: "While we cannot stop Netflix and Royal Goode Productions from producing low-brow, salacious and sensational programing, we do believe that we have the right to control footage filmed of us under false pretenses.
"We like to believe that most Americans will agree that we should be entitled to protect our reputations in this manner and hold entertainment giants to their word."
A federal judge has denied the couple their request for a temporary restraining order to stop the programme.
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington ruled: "While the Court understands the Baskins’ frustration, it does not appear that inclusion of Defendants’ footage of the Baskins will cause any immediate harm that cannot be compensated with monetary damages.
"Importantly, the Court merely finds that the Baskins are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order, which would be entered before Defendants have had an adequate opportunity to respond.
“The Court takes no position on whether the Baskins will be able to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction.”
The case has now been referred for a further hearing.