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

[Kendra]

I was wondering about this.

[Luke]

Thank you, Andy, for the gift link, everybody should read that WaPo story. It has the inside details of what happened and how the settlement came about. The mediator was on holiday in Romania and dealt with the whole thing on his phone.

[Kendra]

Recording of Peter Navarro talking about Sidney Powell

FYI, Nicolle Wallace at Abby's attorney on her show today. Interesting conversation IMHO.

[Kendra]

MSNBC was rocking this afternoon. First Nicolle Wallace had Abby Grossberg on for a nice long interview. Then...Ari Melber comes up for his hour and he's got tapes of phone calls (I believe these came from Abby's lawyer if I'm following correctly). First up, one between Ted Cruz and Bartiromo. Bless Acyn for getting us a clip or two.

Bartiromo: Who's deciding who gets inaugurated?
Cruz: It would be the results of that commission and what they find..

Cruz 1/2/21: I think that the country deserves to have a credible assessment of these claims and what the evidence shows and the mechanism to try to force that is denying certification on the 6th

Then, when it got time to ask questions of the lawyer, this happens.

“I have been contacted by several law enforcement authorities”
“Is the doj one of those entities?”
“Yes”
“And is it the special counsel? “
“It would be the special counsel, yes”

At the end of the show, Ari plays a tape of phone call between Abby G. (I think) and Navarro that won't play well in court.

[Kendra]

Newsmax host attacks Abby Grossberg for her discovery that Tucker Carlson’s workplace was just as sexist as his show was in public.

“Wait, he was the same off-air as he was on-air? In other words, he was genuine. It wasn’t an act. And in the minds of some, that’s out of bounds?”

[AndyinPA]

[Luke]

Axios has a big exclusive this morning:

Exclusive: Dominion Voting Systems tells its Fox News lawsuit story

Fox News, one of America's most powerful media companies, earlier this month agreed to pay $787.5 million to settle a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, related to false statements made about Dominion on Fox's air.

Oral history: What follows is an edited transcript of an exclusive interview with three of Dominion's key players, including its CEO, private equity owner and outside attorney on the Fox case.

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/01/fox-ne ... it-history

[raison de arizona]

Fox is not happy with the Tucker leaks.

► Show Spoiler

Katharine L. Mowery 302-651-7623 mowery@rlf.com
May 5, 2023
BY EMAIL
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
Farnan LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Counsel:

I write on behalf of Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation (together, “Fox”). Fox has become aware that documents Fox produced to your clients in discovery in this litigation have been shared with members of the media. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/busi ... e-men.html; https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-ca ... inion-docs. To our knowledge, portions of documents described and quoted in these articles were never made public on the docket, and, notably, three of the documents cited in The Daily Beast were only exhibits at Mr. Carlson’s deposition (not in any Court filings). Additionally, the testimony from Mr. Carlson’s confidential deposition quoted in the Daily Beast article was never made public on the docket.

As you must be aware, such disclosure by your clients would be a violation of the Court’s Amended Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information. For example, paragraph 10 of that Order provides that “Discovery Material shall be used solely for purposes of this Litigation and shall not be used for any other purpose.” Particularly now that the action has been settled and is no longer active, sharing confidential discovery material with the media could never be said to be “for purposes of this Litigation.” Nor are members of the media included among the persons (listed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of that Order) with whom confidential discovery material may be shared. See also Order ¶ 27. Moreover, paragraph 23 expressly provides that the terms of the Order “continue to be binding throughout and after the conclusion of the Litigation.”

Moreover, such disclosure by your clients would not only be a violation of the Order but also a breach of the parties’ Release and Settlement Agreement, which requires return or destruction of all of Fox’s Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material within 30 days of dismissal of the case.

Accordingly, Fox requests that you and your clients immediately make an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this inexcusable release of confidential discovery material and report back to Fox by the close of business on May 8, 2023.
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Is/ Katharine L. Mowery
Katharine L. Mowery

► Show Spoiler

WINSTON &STRAWN LLP
May 5, 2023
NORTH AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA EUROPE ASIA
Justin A. Nelson Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002

Thomas A. Clare Clare Locke LLP
10 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314
35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601
T +1 (312) 558-5600 F (312) 558-5700

DAN WEBB Co-Executive Chairman (312) 558-5856 DWebb@winston.com
Re: US Dominion, Inc., et al. v. Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation C.A. No. N21C-03- 257 EMD, C.A. No. N21C-11-082 EMD

Dear Justin and Tom:

I write on behalf of Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation (together, “Fox”) regarding provisions of the Amended Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (the “Protective Order”) and the April 18, 2023 Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Protective Order and the Agreement both contain provisions governing the handling, disclosure, and destruction of documents produced and exchanged in the above captioned litigation.

Over the last several days, Fox has learned that documents which Fox produced in this litigation were disclosed to media organizations and published for mass consumption. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/busi ... e-men.html; https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-ca ... inion-docs. To our knowledge, portions of documents described and quoted in these articles were never made public on the docket, and, notably, three of the documents cited in The Daily Beast were only exhibits at Mr. Carlson’s deposition (not in any Court filings). Additionally, the testimony from Mr. Carlson’s confidential deposition quoted in the Daily Beast article was never made public on the docket.

Disclosure of these documents would violate the Protective Order and the Agreement. In particular, paragraph 10 of the Protective Order provides that “Discovery Material shall be used solely for purposes of this Litigation and shall not be used for any other purpose.” Paragraph 25 also specifically prohibits the disclosure of such Discovery Material “to any person except pursuant to a court order or agreement by the Producing Party or except as otherwise required by law.” There is no exception for members of the media. Moreover, the Protective Order’s obligations “continue to be binding … after the conclusion of the Litigation.” Order
These disclosures also violate the text and spirit of the parties’ Agreement, which requires return or destruction of all of Fox’s Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material within 30 days of dismissal of the case.

Fox takes these improper disclosures seriously and requests that you and your clients investigate and confirm that you are not the source of these improper disclosures. This is not a baseless request considering your colleague Stephen Shackelford’s comment to the press that he “hope[ s] it all gets un-redacted at some point.” See https://www.axios.com/2023/05/01/fox-ne ... it-history. By close of business on May 8, 2023, please let me know the nature and conclusions of the investigation you conducted. Please also confirm that you, your firm, and your clients understand the full extent of their obligations under the Protective Order and the Agreement.
Best regards,
Dan Webb
¶ 23.

► Show Spoiler

[realist]

And they have every right, including legal ones with remedies, if materials which are part of a protective order and settlement agreement are being published through the print and social media.

[Chilidog]

Was it Tucker himself who leaked?

[Ben-Prime]

And they have every right, including legal ones with remedies, if materials which are part of a protective order and settlement agreement are being published through the print and social media.

But do those rights allow them to go after the media companies or just the leakers?

[neonzx]