LOS ANGELES—The scene in Judge Charmaine F. Olmeda’s court was crowded Wednesday morning as witnesses, defendants and their attorneys gathered for a sentencing hearing in the complex case against LA Direct Models owner and talent agent Derek Hay and two co-defendants.
In late May, Hay pleaded guilty to felony counts of perjury and conspiracy to commit pandering as part of a plea agreement in the case against him and the two co-defendants originally brought in 2020 by then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
A total of 12 felony counts were initially filed against Hay and his co-defendants, but current California AG Rob Bonta secured a new grand jury indictment in September of 2022 that brought more charges, including counts of pimping, pandering, conspiracy, money laundering and perjury. Hay was arraigned on the grand jury indictment in March 2023.
Five actresses involved in the case, referred to as the “Jane Does,” originally accused Hay and his agency LA Direct of labor code violations in 2018 via a complaint filed on their behalf by attorney Allan Gelbard before the California Labor Commissioner's Office. The labor hearings stretched throughout 2019, and in 2020, Labor Commissioner hearing officer Patricia Salazar found for the five models, ruling that Hay violated the law when he withheld commission payments to the performers. Hay was ordered to pay back the commissions, including attorney fees and court costs. Hay's attorney, Richard Freeman, told AVN at the time that he immediately filed an appeal for trial de novo in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Eventually identifying themselves, all five models—Charlotte Cross, Shay Evans, Sofi Ryan, Andi Rye and Hadley Viscara—appeared at the Wednesday hearing under their performing names to testify in the penalty phase of the proceedings. In addition, an impact statement was read on behalf of onetime adult performer Bobbi Dylan.
One by one, the actresses read statements to the court explaining how the actions of Hay and his co-defendants negatively impacted their health, well-being, finances and potential for future employment. Each of them reported suffering from anxiety, treatment-resistant depression, and CPTSD as a result of the case.
Andi Rye, also known as Jane Doe #3, stated that in 2017, she was a “naïve and vulnerable” 24-year-old with cardiac health issues and medical bills, which influenced her decision to seek employment as a webcam model. After being scouted online by LA Direct, Rye said she was “led to believe I could trust Derek and his agency to do the best for my career.”
Instead, she said she was manipulated into performing extreme sexual acts that ultimately damaged her mental and physical health, as well as her chances for a career as a successful adult performer. As bookings for video work declined, she said she was pressured into escorting jobs. Rye said she believed this was a strategy used on her and other clients of Hay, as part of a conspiracy to coerce models into escort work.
Her experience with the case, she said, has led to “lifetime damage,” which included cardiac arrest requiring hospitalization, anxiety, treatment-resistant depression and PTSD, as well as ongoing “fear of retaliation” by Hay and his co-defendants.
Fear of retaliation was a common thread in each of the actresses’ stories. Rye described an interview she gave to promote a content scene for director Pierre Woodman. Encouraged to be as “depraved” as possible during the interview, her quotes were later used to mock and bully her on social media, after she joined the labor violations case.
Jane Doe #2, Sofi Ryan, apologized for being emotional during her statement and noted that she was “post-partum.” Through tears, she said, “I just want to be strong and stick up for myself ... I no longer get to live a normal life.
“The day I met Derek Hay, my life turned upside down,” Ryan continued. She added that after becoming involved in the case, she felt intimidated by Hay, his attorney Richard Freeman, as well as by relentless social media trolling attached to the case.
“I’m scared, broken, and hurt by these people,” Ryan said.
Shay Evans, also known as Jane Doe #5, told the defendants, “I trusted everything you said ... I thought they were looking out for me, but I confused control with protection.”
She described a working relationship with Hay and his co-defendants that eventually devolved as she attempted to comply with the defendants’ demands and complaints about her appearance. The 2017 overdose death of her friend and fellow performer Yurizan Beltran brought the cold realization that “four women died in two months at LA Direct and no one batted an eyelash—and that’s when I knew.”
Evans said she had also been harassed and especially targeted for being mixed race. The Mike South adult industry blog, she said, was a source of retaliatory articles and negative social media aimed at her and the other Jane Does and she accused the defendants of attempting to “control the narrative” through manipulation of industry media.
She added that she suffers from CPTSD and depression and fears that, if the defendants receive light sentences, they will “return to their activities.”
Charlotte Cross, also known as Jane Doe #1, in her statement, started by saying that she was a student at UCLA studying criminal appellate law, as well as a marathon runner. Sex workers, she said, were often “dehumanized” and objectified by society and the industry.
Regarding the case, Cross said, “I wish there was a way that we could be safe and they could not go to prison—but there’s nothing to keep us safe,” adding that “I don’t think six years (the maximum sentence) will be enough.”
Jane Doe #4, Hadley Viscara, said she was hoping for a way to pay for college when she signed on with Hay and LA Direct. She described the “private appearances” that she was asked to do as encounters with controlling clients, and told the court, “I would like to see the harshest punishment—like they did to the girls.”
The long day in court was broken up by long breaks, with victims’ statements read in the morning followed by restitution statements in the afternoon. The Jane Does were sworn in to testify as to financial losses, expenses, and pain and suffering associated with the case. Each actress had a similar list of fees and expenses accrued while under contract with Hay. All of them also reported extensive expenses related to ongoing psychiatric therapy and medications.
Hay, who appeared in court dressed in a grey suit and blue shirt and tie, sat stoically through the statements, flanked by lawyers and the co-defendants.
In closing arguments, both sides argued vigorously, despite the foregone conclusion of guilt. Attorney Freeman argued that, unlike the co-defendants, his client Hay had no criminal record and had received a dozen letters of support (including from a cat rescue organization). He argued for a light sentence, stating that Hay had a “very small degree of involvement” with the actresses regarding their escorting arrangements. Freeman added that many performers work as escorts, including those contracted by other licensed agents in the industry and that also should be taken into consideration regarding Hay’s sentencing.
Hay’s attorney pointed out his legal defense of sex workers going back to the ‘70s and apologized for any behavior during cross-examination that might have been perceived as aggressive by the actresses.
Given the opportunity to speak in front of the court, Hay was the only defendant to do so. With a jab at industry media, Hay started his statement by saying that while the Jane Does felt they had received harsh treatment at the hands of Mike South and social media, he had also been smeared in the press, citing AVN specifically.
“AVN is much diminished now,” Hay said, “Viewership has gone down ... Gelbard has AVN in his pocket—none of the other entities has acted as AVN has, never hesitating to print a bad story about me.”
Hay went on to say that he had little involvement with most of the Jane Does and was barely acquainted with most of them.
“Andi Rye, for me, is a strange person to stand in front of the court and talk about me,” he stated. “I never talked to Andi Rye, except once ... Charlotte Cross was the most truthful, [about] escorting long before meeting me. Charlotte also testified she barely spoke to me.”
As the afternoon wore on, prosecuting attorneys who had hoped for sentences to be handed down on Wednesday watched as the opportunity slipped away and there was little time left for the prosecution’s closing arguments.
Arguing for the State, attorney Jeffrey Segal told the court, “Mr. Hay has not expressed a single bit of remorse or empathy to indicate he’s reflected—he’s the victim. He got bad press. He took the opportunity to attack the victims.”
Segal continued, “Mr. Hay used a privileged license given to him by the state of California. He had a fiduciary duty to these women and he used it to lure these vulnerable, naïve women into prostitution. They thought he was a licensed agent they could trust.
“It’s not a business,” the attorney went on. “It’s a racket. This is a prostitution racket. Hay with a convicted felon exploited vulnerable women—homeless, with medical issues.
“They organized a criminal enterprise and did it for one reason—to make money,” Segal added. Attempts to blame the victims for their involvement in the case were unfounded, he explained. “How does [victim-blaming] in any way explain what the defendants were doing? If they had never met these women, they would still be running a prostitution ring.”
Finally, Judge Olmeda decided to end the hearing for the day and carry sentencing for Hay over to August 2. If he receives a jail sentence, he will be surrendered to deputies on that day, immediately following sentencing.
After the May plea deal, the judge noted Hay was likely to face a sentence of two years probation and up to 270 days incarceration in a county jail.
Asked whether Hay felt any remorse or empathy for the actresses following their testimony Wednesday, Freeman told AVN via email Thursday morning: "I think that Derek does have empathy and remorse. However the Does continue to push their own inaccurate and untruthful narrative. Derek accepts responsibility for what he did that was wrong, but there is much alleged that he did not do. He is willing to accept the Court’s sentence and the punishment for what he did wrong but that does not extend to being punished for things he didn’t do.
