| In Rich Case NY News
Gathering Privilege Cited But Partially
Rejected in SDNY
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 13 –
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 a proceeding. Fox's
lawyers cited the privilege;
Rich's parents' lawyers said
it was too late for that.
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
|
,
