| In Rich Case Against Fox
News On Dismissal With Prejudice Now This
Press Release
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 24 –
In the politically charged
lawsuit of Mark Rich's parents
against Fox News, on July 13
the news gathering privilege
was invoked but only partially
vindicated.
U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn
held the July 13 proceeding
(and another on August 4, see
below). Fox's lawyers cited
the privilege; Rich's parents'
lawyers said it was too late
for that.
But now on
November 24, they have dropped
the case with prejudice: "IT
IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by
and between Plaintiffs Joel
and Mary Rich and Defendants
Fox News Network, LLC, Malia
Zimmerman, and Edward
Butowsky, that pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the claims by Joel
and Mary Rich against all
Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice, and each party
waives all right to appeal and
to seek attorneys’ fees and
costs. Dated: November 24,
2020." Inner City Press said
it "aims to have more on
this."
And now much
later on November 24 this
press release, such as it is:
"NEW YORK, Nov. 24, 2020
/PRNewswire/ -- Through their
attorneys at Massey & Gail
LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP,
Joel and Mary Rich, the
parents of murder victim Seth
Rich, today issued the
following statement regarding
the settlement of their
litigation against Fox News
Network and other defendants
(Joel Rich and Mary Rich v.
Fox News Network LLC et al.,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-02223,
S.D.N.Y.): "The
settlement with Fox News
closes another chapter in our
efforts to mourn the murder of
our beloved Seth, whom we miss
every single day. It allows us
to move on from the litigation
we initiated in response to
Fox News' May 2017 article and
televised statements
concerning Seth's murder. We
are pleased with the
settlement of this matter and
sincerely hope that the media
will take genuine caution in
the future. We thank
everyone who has counseled us
and given us strength. We
appreciate the determined
representation by our
attorneys at Massey & Gail
LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP. We
now look forward to devoting
as much time and energy as we
can to family and to
preserving Seth's memory as a
blessing." The Riches
will not be commenting on the
litigation beyond the
statement above."
On
September 11 Judge Netburn,
who also handles an SDNY
September 11 case, held
another proceeding. Inner City
Press live tweeted it:
"Magistrate Judge Netburn just
said she will be recommending
to Judge Daniels to *not*
dismiss the case.
And on
September 27 into the docket
this, from Judge Daniels:
"MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER: re: [102] MOTION to
Dismiss Amended Complaint
filed by Fox News Network LLC.
Fox Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for
conspiracy and aiding and
abetting IIED, (ECF No. 102),
is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
is directed to close the
motion accordingly. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
George B. Daniels."
Butowsky's lawyer
says he will have an expert
saying the DNC emails could
not have been hacked
externally... and may want to
use Julian Assange's
testimony.
Fox's
lawyer: We are working with
the UK to schedule Mr.
Assange's deposition. But he
can present objections to it
occurring. We are actively
working to schedule it this
fall.
The proceeding is
over."
On August 4,
Judge Netburn held another
proceeding, and Inner City
Press live tweeted it
Judge Netburn
begins by noting a "request
for letters rogatory to seek
the deposition of Julian
Assange."
Judge Netburn:
You say you have a liability
expert, to testify about the
practices of Fox News?
Richs' lawyers: They call what
they do "garden variety news
gathering." We want to focus
on outrageousness. We have an
expert on journalistic
standards.
Joseph
Terry for Fox: We'd have an
expert on that as well.
Eden Quainton for Butowsky:
We'd have an expert to say the
leak was from a DNC insider -
and that a story to that
effect is not outrageous, but
founded in fact. Judge
Netburn: So, a hack expert.
Judge Netburn:
What about we extend fact
discovery to the end of the
year, but keep expert
discovery to that limit as
well? Arun Subramanian for
Joel and Mary Rich: We've be
fine with that, subject to
speaking with our brain trust
(laughs).
Judge
Netburn: A personal favor, if
I can have a three minute
recess. Our wind storm is
acting up and I just have to
deal with one thing. "No
problem."
[With Judge
Netburn off the line, both /
all sides' lawyers confer and
agree they are missing much of
what she says. One says, I
tried wi-fi but I still
couldn't hear her.]
Judge Netburn
comes back on: "I muted but I
could hear you.... I'll do my
best."
Eden Quainton for
Ed Butowsky: Our defense will
be accuracy... So we'll need
for confer with many. And
there are medical issues.
Judge Netburn: I
hope those improve. But I
think five months should be
enough. Discovery closes
January 31.
Judge Netburn: On
Julian Assange, I understand
that the Plaintiffs
questioning the relevant, but
don't object. So I'll sign
that order. Anything more?
Butowsky's
lawyer: We'd ask you to rule
on the motion to dismiss, one
way or the other.
Adjourned.
Back on July 13
Judge Netburn asked, Why not
just turn over the 600
documents at issue? Ultimately
she gave Fox two days to make
two filings. Inner City
Press live tweeted it:
Fox' lawyer Meeks
says she's prepared to give a
hit log about a set of
documents, not the documents
themselves.
Judge Netburn:
We're talking about fewer than
700 documents that contain key
players in this case. I have a
hard time believe these are
not relevant... These 700
documents contain hits on
Butowsky and Wheeler - how are
they not relevant?
Meeks: Wheeler
was a consultant, Bukowsky was
a guest. Many of the hits are
about news that has nothing to
do with this case, or the DNC
leaks.
Judge Netburn:
But isn't there one document -
it's confidential so I won't
speak about it here - that is
in fact related to this
case? Meeks: Yes, the
one about Seth Rich and
Wikileaks, we produced in
redacted form. The rest was
about other news
reports.
Judge Netburn:
But haven't the plaintiffs
said they need to rebut Fox's
argument that it was not
working with Butowsky on a day
to day basis?
Meeks: We're
producing the documents about
Ms. Zimmerman, so plaintiffs
have enough
information... These
documents are protecting by
the news gathering privilege.
This is a significant question
under New York law. The
standard is, according to the
2d Circuit, the documents have
to be critical and necessary
to their claim. They'd have to
show this information is not
available from any other
source. They will be able to
take Mr Butowsky's
deposition. Meeks'
colleague Joseph Terry: We
could put in a letter about
the non Seth Rich documents we
withheld.
Judge Netburn:
Let me ask Ms. Barron
[plaintiffs' lawyer]...
Barron: If Fox
stipulates that it regularly
worked with Mr. Bukowsky on
politically motivated stories
maybe we don't need the
documents. Meeks: But they are
not alleging negligent
supervision. The complaint
here alleges that Joel and
Mary Rich "becam[e] collateral
damage in a political war to
which they were innocent
bystanders."
Judge
Netburn: Could you respond to
Fox's claim of privilege?
Barron: No
Judge Netburn: I
am going to direct that the
defendants produce a full
privilege log, and a letter on
privilege, by Wednesday. If I
think I need to see documents
in camera I'll request
that. Barron: Nothing
further from plaintiffs.
Judge: We're
adjourned.
The case is Rich
et al v. Fox News Network LLC
et al, 18-cv-2223 (Daniels /
Netburn)
***
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 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
