| Milo Yiannopoulos Is Ordered
To Name His Source In 2 Weeks Or Face Contempt
Charge
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Dec 7 – Milo Yiannopoulos has
been subpoenaed for
information for a lawsuit
about the United the Right
event, Sines v. Kessler, et
al., 18-cv-72 (W.D. Va.)
On July 29 U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Katherine Polk Failla
held a motion to compel
hearing, with Yiannopoulos by
video.
Inner City Press
live tweeted it, here
and some below.
Now on December
7, Judge Failla has ruled
(order on Patreon here)
that Milo "is hereby ORDERED
to disclose to Movants the
names and locations of the two
confidential sources referred
to in his letter dated October
20, 2020. (See Dkt. #25).
Respondent shall provide this
information to Movants in
writing within fourteen (14)
days of the date of this
Order. The Court will view a
violation of this Order
through the lens of its
contempt powers. (Signed by
Judge Katherine Polk Failla on
12/7/2020)."
Also,
"Respondent’s opposition was
due on or before November 19,
2020, and when Respondent
failed to submit an
opposition, the Court sua
sponte extended his deadline
to respond to November 27,
2020. (Dkt. #28). To date,
Respondent has not submitted
an opposition to the instant
motion. Therefore, the Court
considers the renewed motion
to compel to be unopposed,
fully briefed, and ripe for
decision."
We published the M at Milo.net
emails saying "I am intensely
sympathetic to the aims of
your lawsuit as they relate to
Richard Spencer... Stop lying
to the court," on Patreon here.
In the
second half of October Milo
Yiannopolous wrote to Judge
Failla: "Source A is the
person from whom I received
every video I published on
YouTube and supplied to the
Plaintiffs, along with basic
descriptions of what the
videos show. I have been in
semi-regular contact with this
person, who initially
indicated that they would be
willing to co-operate with
Plaintiffs, but then
subsequently: (a) insisted
that I not disclose their
name, even under seal, and;
(b) denied that he had been
the one to play me the
recordings Plaintiffs are
seeking. That situation has
not changed since you last
heard from me... Respectfully
submitted /s/ Milo
Yiannopoulos."
Now on November 5
the plaintiffs have shot back,
full letter on Patreon here:
"Movants questioned Defendant
Elliott Kline at length on the
subject of Unite the Right
planning meetings—and whether
they were recorded—at both of
his two depositions.1
Mr. Kline was one of the
central figures in the
planning of Unite the Right
and he attended nearly all
planning sessions for it. See
supra note 1. In fact, Mr.
Kline drafted what was
referred to as the central
“planning document” for the
event. Bloch Decl. Ex. 6 at
106, 120-23, 372-79. And
indeed, Mr. Kline was the
primary individual Respondent
identified to Movants’ counsel
as being present at one of the
Unite the Right-related events
depicted in one of the audio
recordings that was supposedly
in Respondent’s possession.
See Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 14c.
Despite Mr. Kline’s centrality
to Unite the Right planning
sessions, however, at neither
of his depositions did he
describe recordings of
planning sessions that match
the description of what
Respondent has described.
Further, Mr. Kline made plain
that he took no notes at any
of those meetings, and did not
have any documents, including
any e-mails or text messages,
regarding those meetings.
Bloch Decl. Ex. 6 at 196. Mr.
Kline also made plain that he
did not “make any kind of
recording” of a meeting with
Richard Spencer to plan Unite
the Right. Id. at 198. Mr.
Kline also testified that he
never appeared in a video that
someone else had recorded
regarding planning of Unite
the Right. See id. at 187.
Finally, Mr. Kline confirmed
that although there were
weekly audio meetings on the
on-line chat forum, Discord,
that he did not record those
meetings. Id. at 378.2
For the avoidance of doubt,
despite the topic of in-person
planning meetings arising at
depositions of witnesses in
this case, no witness
testified to their awareness
of the type of recordings that
Respondent has described in
this action. See Bloch Decl. ¶
4. * * * Throughout what could
be described as a tumultuous
litigation, Movants have
remained steadfastly focused
on seeking evidence of what
occurred at the planning
meetings for the Unite the
Right event. Despite these
best efforts, however, they
have simply not been able to
uncover the evidence that
Respondent has described to
them. Given that, they have
also of course been unable to
identify any supposed
source(s) for this material.
In light of Movants’ efforts,
this case is dissimilar to the
authorities cited by the Court
which rejected challenges to
the invocation of the
journalist’s privilege. See
Dkt. No. 24 at 17– 18. In In
re Petroleum Prod. Antitrust
Litig., 680 F.2d 5, 8-9 (2d
Cir. 1982), the court noted
that although there had been
significant deposition
testimony taken in the action,
“there [was] no indication
that anyone was asked [at
deposition] the simple
question [at issue].” As shown
above, that is not the case
here—the subject of Unite the
Right planning meetings came
up regularly at depositions.
Similarly, in In re Pishevar,
439 F. Supp. 3d 290, 307
(S.D.N.Y. 2020), it was “far
from clear what other
non-press sources have [the
sought-after] information.”
Here, for the reasons
addressed above, Movants
simply have no reason to
believe that there is any
other available nonpress
source (assuming, arguendo,
that Respondent is a member of
the “press”) for the
information that Respondent
has described.... Movants have
engaged a multi-prong and
sustained effort to acquire
the identities of individuals
who attended planning meetings
and to acquire recordings of
planning meetings in any form.
In sum, the only ever
indication that there exist
recordings of in-person
planning meetings for Unite
the Right came from a single
source: Respondent. For these
reasons, and those stated in
Movants’ earlier submissions,
Movants respectfully request
that the Court reject
Respondent’s invocation of the
journalist’s privilege."
Inner City Press
will continue to cover this
case, as many others in the
SDNY. This one began this way:
Milo Yiannopoulos
is saying he'd like to see
Richard Spencer in jail but
doesn't like "the funders of
this lawsuit, the ADL."
Milo
Yiannopoulos: I just publish
stuff as I get it. Spencer
spent $10,000 to doctor a
video to make it appear I was
singing to white nationalists.
I'm happy to help them with
this lawsuit, I just don't
have anything. I'm happy to
comply with any court order.
Judge
Failla: I'll swear you in.
Milo Y: I'm a Christian.
Judge Failla: ...
so help you God. Milo Y: I do.
I was served at the Roger
Stone trial. Judge Failla: The
subpoena was from November
2019. And you met plaintiffs'
counsel in Dec?
Milo Y: That
sound right.
Judge Failla: You
published the Spencer video
within 48 hours of receipt?
Milo Y: Yes. And
I wrote about it. I heard from
a reporter at the Washington
Post that he had heard similar
things privately from Spencer
as well. So I asked about that
in my piece.
Milo Y: The
FBI called me on my cell phone
and asked to meet.
Judge Failla: Did
you meet?
Milo Y: Yes.
Judge Failla: Can
you talk about it?
Milo Y: I prefer
not to.
Judge Failla: Had
you made a representation to
movant's counsel that you had
no such materials?
Milo Y: Let me
look it up. Judge Failla: I
believe it was April 6 of this
year. Milo Y: That the video
dropped? Judge Failla: Yes.
Milo Y: I
met with them once in their
offices in the Empire State
Building. I think it's in my
online calendar. Give me a
moment. 11 am, Wednesday Dec
18. Judge Failla: That's what
my law clerk says.
And we're
back: Movant's counsel
Benjamin White says that Milo
Y recorded a video about the
subpoena, flashed at camera an
orange hard drive calling it
"the vault," saying it was at
his home in New York. It is
responsive to our subpoena.
Was he lying then or now?
White: Mr
Yiannopoulos says he was
"messing around." But it has
hurt our case, and wasted our
time. He has proposed today
one possible solution -
allowing an inspection of the
devices. Let's start with the
vault.
Judge
Failla: It may just be that he
was playing you. But it does
not mean that he has
responsive materials. What
evidence of it do you have,
that the representations he is
making to me today are false?
Answer: The
specificity of his
descriptions of what he had
Movants' lawyer:
We are asking your Honor to
test the accuracy of what Mr.
Yiannolpoulos is saying.
Appoint a master to look
through the materials. He's
offered his cell phone and his
email addresses. Let's search
them.
More here.
The case is
Sines, et al. v. Yiannopoulos,
20-mc-241 (Failla).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
