| As Elliott Prepares to
Depose Moira Donegan About Google Spreadsheet
Section 230 at Issue
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
EDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 5 – In the case of Stephen
Elliott against Moira Donegan
for creating the Google
Spreadsheet called "Shitty
Media Men," on January 5 U.S.
District Court for the Eastern
District of New York
Magistrate Judge Sanket
Bulsara held a proceeding
about the upcoming deposition
of Donegan.
It is both
about #MeToo and Section 230.
Inner City Press live tweeted
it, here:
Judge Bulsara
asks if they want him to limit
scope of deposition.
Judge
Bulsara says the deposition
should not get into whether
and how Ms. Donegan omitted or
"did not preserve" certain
information, says Elliott may
choose to pursue some sort of
sanctions for that.
Judge
Bulsara: Do you want to ask
about the veracity of info in
the spreadsheet?
Lewis for
Elliott: I don't believe Ms.
Donegan knows Mr. Elliott. So
I may want to ask if she took
any steps to understand the
veracity or not. Judge: How
does that fit into immunity?
Judge
Bulsara: I find that the
veracity of the info in the
spreadsheet is beyond the
scope of the deposition. I'm
granting the request for a
protective order. As to Ms.
Donegan's interaction with
other third parties, how about
inquiries into entries without
names?
Judge
Bulsara: I am going to rule
that the transcript of the
deposition be sealed, at least
temporarily.
Now Judge Bulsara
is suggesting that the two
counsel agree before the
deposition which cells of the
spreadsheet should be asked
about, and which should not.
That would be counsel to
counsel communication not
subject to public access.
Now Judge Bulsara
is being asked about an
affidavit submitted to him
under seal. He cuts in to say,
Yes I received it and it may
obviate getting into this at
this time. It can be dealt
with at the end of the case.
The lawyer
thank Judge Bulsara for
working so late. He says,
"It's early for us."
Discovery will
now closed by the end of next
week. The deposition will
happen, with the described
limitations.
The case is
Elliott v. Donegan, et al., 18-cv-05680,
EDNY (LaShann Moutique DeArcy Hall / Sanket
J. Bulsara)
***
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 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
