Dominion v Fox - Dominion Voting Sues Fox News for $1.6B over 2020 Election Claims in Delaware

[chancery]

Yeah, when the plaintiff in a U.S. defamation action against a TV station wins summary judgment on any issue, it's a pretty good day.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[SuzieC]

Yeah, especially when they can argue to the jury that as a matter of law, the Court has already ruled that all of Fox's claims were false. Seems to me that malice is a slam dunk, because they kept on repeating the false lies they knew were lies.

[humblescribe]

A friend asks:

Will Fox appeal this ruling before trial?

Will Fox now try to settle?

Will there be so much pretrial litigation that trial gets delayed interminably?

[chancery]

A friend asks:

Will Fox appeal this ruling before trial?

This got posted before I was finished. There should be a check-box to delete the whole thing, but I don't see it.

So, please delete.

[chancery]

A friend asks:

Will Fox appeal this ruling before trial?

Not a Delaware lawyer, but I don't think so. Typically a party has to wait until a final judgment in the trial court before she can take an appeal. Delaware appears to follow the majority rule here. The trial court judge has discretion to allow an immediate appeal of an order prior to trial, but it would be cuckoo for him to do so here.

Will Fox now try to settle?

https://twitter.com/questauthority/stat ... 0479744001

Mike Dunford
@questauthority
This is so incredibly bad for Fox that it might even be good for them. It takes their trial risk to a level that might just give them the freedom to offer Dominion the kind of abject surrender that Dominion would need in a settlement.

Will there be so much pretrial litigation that trial gets delayed interminably?

Trial is scheduled to begin in mid April.

[Luke]

Here's the Ruling (130 pages!): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... y-judgment

OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 1m
The terrible week for criminals, liars, adulterers (like a 2X impeached loser who had sex with a porn star right after the birth of his 4th child), and election deniers (including media companies who knew they were lying, for money) ends on a bright note for other Americans.

[Suranis]

Here's the Ruling (130 pages!): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... y-judgment

OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 1m
The terrible week for criminals, liars, adulterers (like a 2X impeached loser who had sex with a porn star right after the birth of his 4th child), and election deniers (including media companies who knew they were lying, for money) ends on a bright note for other Americans.

Fifth. Everyone forgets about Tiffany

[raison de arizona]

Poor Tiffany. What is she up to these days?

Edit: Getting married. That’s what she is up to.

377BFD31-273C-43D2-844E-2FA474257D40.png (425.56 KiB) Viewed 1021 times

[Phoenix520]

I’d much rather see a trial. Get up there on that witness stand, boys and girls, and tell the truth for once so everyone knows you’ve been lying.

[keith]

I’d much rather see a trial. Get up there on that witness stand, boys and girls, and tell the truth for once so everyone knows you’ve been lying.

Me too.

If there is a settlement it SHOULD NOT include an NDA, and it MUST INCLUDE a requirement for each and every liar to admit their perfidy at the top of every hour and randomly twice more per hour every day for six months minimum.

[Phoenix520]

[SuzieC]

Fox cannot appeal the partial summary judgment ruling. It is not a final appealable order. Case must go to jury trial to achieve a final appealable order.

[Slarti the White]

Here's the Ruling (130 pages!): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... y-judgment

OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 1m
The terrible week for criminals, liars, adulterers (like a 2X impeached loser who had boring old man sex with a porn star right after the birth of his 4th child), and election deniers (including media companies who knew they were lying, for money) ends on a bright note for other Americans.

FIFY

You don't want to miss a chance to point out that Trump was Stormy's worst lay ever.

[Volkonski]

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/05/judge- ... ium=social

Axios

Dominion Voting Systems can force Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan to take the witness stand in court at a defamation trial later this month, a Delaware judge ruled at a hearing on Wednesday, per CNN.

[Luke]

Trying to find an answer to this -- will this trial be live on TV and streaming? Not sure of Delaware law. Looked around and asked Oliver Darcy on Twitter... can't find anything saying yes. Does anybody here know? It had better be broadcast live, I've budgeted entertainment time for next week!!

[Luke]

Rupert Murdoch Can Be Forced to Testify in Defamation Trial, Judge Says
Star hosts for Fox News like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity may also appear in person at the high-profile trial, which is set to start April 17.
By Katie Robertson April 5, 2023 Updated 6:07 p.m. ET

The witness list for the Fox News $1.6 billion defamation trial now has more big names than a prime-time lineup. Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch could be forced to testify in person, the judge overseeing the trial said on Wednesday. Other high-profile Fox employees expected to testify in the case, which was brought by Dominion Voting Systems, include the hosts Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Bret Baier.

In a pretrial hearing on Wednesday, the judge, Eric M. Davis of Delaware Superior Court, said that if Dominion issued a subpoena for Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corp, and other corporate officers, he “would not quash it” and “would compel them to come,” because they were directors of a Delaware corporation. Lawyers for Dominion have indicated they want Mr. Murdoch to testify, as well as Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s son and the chief executive of Fox. Dominion said it might also call Viet Dinh, Fox’s chief legal officer, and Paul Ryan, a Fox board member, to the stand. “Both parties have made these witnesses very relevant,” the judge said.

Dominion, which makes electronic voting technology, has accused Fox of knowingly broadcasting falsehoods about the company’s software and linking it to voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Fox has denied the accusations. The trial is scheduled to begin on April 17. Fox’s lawyers had argued that the elder Mr. Murdoch, 92, and the other executives should not be compelled to testify because they had already provided filmed depositions and their live appearances would “add nothing other than media interest.” They also said that the executives, in their roles at the parent company of Fox News, were not directly involved in any of the broadcasts. Judge Davis said he understood that it was difficult to schedule appearances by top executives. “Maybe we can work on trying to put the least amount of inconvenience on them as possible,” he said.
***
Fox had also said that its on-air hosts should not have to testify, because they had given taped depositions. But on Tuesday, Fox’s legal team said in a letter to Judge Davis that the lawyers had agreed to make some of the star hosts available for the trial, including Mr. Carlson and Mr. Hannity, and the news anchors Mr. Baier and Dana Perino, as well as the former host Lou Dobbs. They also said Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News, would be available to appear.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/busi ... trial.html

[humblescribe]

So, in civil matters depositions can be entered into evidence without the deponent having to testify?

I would think that depositions are used either to (a) find out information that may not be obvious--sort of a discovery process or to (b) to gather testimony from percipient or participatory individuals who know stuff.

In either situation would not having the deponent testify be using the best evidence available instead of relying upon the court clerk or other individual reading an eight-hour deposition into the record? And would it not be of benefit to either side to be able to compare responses on the witness stand with responses in the deposition? Moreover, aren't there rules about how long a deposition can last? There might be other facts that were skipped due to time constraints that might be more salient with court testimony.

[bob]

So, in civil matters depositions can be entered into evidence without the deponent having to testify?

"Can" being the operative word.

As in, yes, it is possible.

Is it a procedure that both sides and the judge always would want? No.

In this case, it appears the defendants wanted to use a deposition in lieu of live testimony. And, for the reasons you suggested, the court declined that suggestion.

What is mildly interesting is that a witness's advanced age (or health) is one of the most commonly cited reasons to permit a deposition in lieu of testimony. But not in this case, said the judge.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Ruh-roh

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/murdoch- ... 8aefe06697

Judge Expresses Anger As Fox Attorneys In Libel Case Reveal Dual Roles For Murdoch
Attorneys for Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News.

Attorneys defending Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role company founder Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News, a revelation that angered the judge when it came up at a Tuesday hearing.

It was not clear whether the development would affect a trial scheduled to begin Thursday with jury selection. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, saying it damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing false claims that the company helped orchestrate a fraud that cost former President Donald Trump re-election.

The role of Fox executives is at the heart of the case. The company’s attorneys have sought to insulate members of the Murdoch family and to keep them from testifying live before a jury, arguing that their roles at the parent company, Fox Corp., put them at a distance from the Fox News shows that aired the bogus claims.

Fox Corp. had asserted since Dominion filed its lawsuit in 2021 that Rupert Murdoch had no official role at Fox News. In its filings, it had listed Fox News officers as Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace and Joe Dorrego. But on Easter Sunday, Fox disclosed to Dominion’s attorneys that Murdoch also is “executive chair” at Fox News. The disclosure came after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis wondered aloud during a status conference last week who Fox News’ officers were.

Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.

“My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.

Davis suggested that had he known of Murdoch’s dual role at Fox Corp. and Fox News, he might have reached different conclusions in a summary judgment ruling he issued last month. In that ruling, the judge said there was no dispute that the statements aired by Fox were false, but that a jury would have to decide whether Fox News acted with actual malice and whether Fox Corp. directly participated in airing the statements.

[much ado]

Is Fox in deep doo-doo?

[Luke]

At first read, seemed like a tactic for Fox News to somehow get off the hook or get a trial delay over this. But apparently, Dominion reference the information about Rupert's exec status during his deposition. So while the judge is pissed off it doesn't sound like it'll delay things.

Here's a good roundup on the flurry of pretrial rulings: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/media/fo ... index.html. Dominion can't bring up 1/6.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said at a hearing Tuesday that invoking January 6 would be too prejudicial with the jury, and that the case isn’t about whether Fox News “influenced” the insurrection. “That may be for another court at another time, but it’s not for this court at this time,” Davis said.

I STILL can't get a read on if this will be streamed. This lady did a story about it at Quartz https://quadfectee.com/dominion-fox-news-defama ... 1850328030 but didn't say. I think it was RC who mentioned if it was federal probably not, but it's Delaware Superior Court and on their website they talk about video. Do we need Realist to be America's Hero again and work with the court clerk to bring this coverage to America? It will suck if we can't watch this 5-week trial.








Just did this as a joke with sweet Lou, but Tom Ryan retweeted it

[Dr. Ken]

According to a person present in the courtroom, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems played recordings Fox News producer Abby Grossberg made during 2020, which were not handed over to Dominion's lawyers during discovery.

Grossberg, a former producer for Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo and Tucker Carlson, has sued Fox News and said her deposition was coerced. In an amended filing yesterday, she said she had recorded conversations with Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and others.

The sanction gives Dominion a chance to conduct another deposition, at Fox’s expense.

[Phoenix520]

Murdoch and Fox have gotten away with stuff for so many years. If this doesn’t sink them… nothing will.

[Jim]

Murdoch and Fox have gotten away with stuff for so many years. If this doesn’t sink them… nothing will.

Maybe the stockholders?

Fox shareholder sues Rupert Murdoch, other directors over 2020 election coverage

A Fox Corp shareholder sued Chairman Rupert Murdoch and four other board members on Tuesday, saying they failed to stop Fox News from reporting falsehoods about the 2020 U.S. presidential election that damaged its credibility and prompted lawsuits.

Shareholder Robert Schwarz alleged in the lawsuit filed in Delaware Chancery Court that the directors breached their duties to ensure that Fox followed its own ethical standards and avoided reputational risk, and instead sought to keep supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump tuned in.

"FOX knew – from the Board on down – that Fox News was reporting false and dangerous misinformation about the 2020 Presidential election, but FOX was more concerned about short-term ratings and market share than the long-term damages of its failure to tell the truth," he said in the lawsuit, which did not say how many shares he owned.