A woman who alleges Steven Tyler had an illicit relationship with her when she was 16 years old and he was 25 is asking a judge to allow her attorneys to depose the Aerosmith frontman anew to clear up what they say are inconsistencies in his past and current statements.
On Wednesday, Torrance Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Young scheduled a July 17 hearing on the woman’s motion.
In her suit filed in December 2022, Tyler’s accuser alleges that he convinced the plaintiff’s mother to grant him guardianship over her when she was 16 years old, allowing her to live with him and engage in a sexual relationship. She alleges they were together for about three years beginning in 1973.
The plaintiff became pregnant in 1975, causing Tyler to be simultaneously both the father of the plaintiff’s unborn child and her legal guardian, according to the suit, which further states that the Catholic plaintiff later relented under Tyler’s pressure and had an abortion.
In their court papers, the woman’s attorneys state that the pregnancy issue is one that they want to explore in a new deposition of Tyler. Despite testifying numerous times that he impregnated the plaintiff when she was 17 years old, Tyler has changed course, responding in discovery that he lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny that he fathered the child and therefore contests the use of the term `fathered,’ the plaintiff’s lawyers further state in their pleadings.
“Plaintiff is entitled to a competent and full response as to how Tyler has admitted for decades that he impregnated plaintiff, including under oath in this case, but now doubts that he did,” according to the woman’s attorneys’ court papers.
In a sworn declaration, Tyler says his director of business management, not the singer, is the best person to answer the plaintiff’s attorneys’ questions about Tyler’s financial assets. But in their court papers, the woman’s lawyers contend that they should be able to inquire of Tyler on that issue anyway.
“Although plaintiff appreciates that Tyler has offered for deposition the individual whom Tyler believes knows the most about his finances, plaintiff is also entitled to depose Tyler himself regarding these matters,” the woman’s attorneys write in their court papers.
When Tyler first answered the plaintiff’s complaint, he asserted that he was immune from her claims because he was a caregiver and/or guardian of the woman at the time, but he later changed course and dropped that defense, according to the plaintiff’s lawyers’ pleadings.
“Having dropped a material defense, plaintiff is entitled to an explanation of how Tyler previously believed that he was immune as a caretaker and/or guardian and now is not,” the woman’s attorneys further state in their court papers.
In her suit, the plaintiff says she eventually “made a conscious decision to leave and escape the music and drug-addled world seeking to be free from the sexualized culture created by Tyler and the industry” and that she went on to have a family and become active in her faith.
The 78-year-old singer’s attorneys maintain that only one of the plaintiff’s claims have a California connection, while the others are connected to alleged conduct that occurred in Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, where her causes of action would be time-barred.