By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 20 – In the case of Sarah Palin versus New York Times and James Bennet, on July 24, 2020 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff held oral arguments. Inner City Press live tweeted them, below.
On August 28, Judge Rakoff issued an order denying summary judgment and finding, inter alia, that "there "there is sufficient evidence to allow a rational finder of fact to find actual malice [by NYT / Bennet] by clear & convincing evidence." So, trial. Inner City Press will cover it - having previously reported Judge Rakoff jokingly perhaps offering that time slot to a criminal case and saying, Ms. Palin may just have to wait.
Now it's set for January 24, 2022. On January 19 the New York Times filed its proposed questions for jurors, including "do any of you believe that the New York Times has a bias against certain political parties or issues?"Also, do you know Ross Douthat? Andrew Sullivan? Robert Semple?
On January 20, Sarah Palin's lawyers filed their proposed questions, including "Have you followed any recent high profile court cases closely?" Can you say, Ghislaine Maxwell? We'll be there.
On January 17 - MLK Day - the New York Times filed a request that juror before opening statements be read a statement including that "Plaintiff claims that two statements in the Editorial falsely communicated to readers that she directly caused Jared Loughner to shoot people in Arizona in 2011." Then, the cross-hairs. Watch this site.
On January 11, Judge Rakoff convened a pre-trial session. Inner City Press live tweeted it here:
Judge Rakoff: Counsel will be able to bring in telephones. But why don't you include that in the list you are sending to my courtroom deputy.
Judge Rakoff: I've also been asked if the parties can leave materials in the court overnight. The large courtrooms have break-out rooms. Or you can use my jury room. The next question was, May counsel remove their masks at podium? Yes. Witnesses too. In the box
Judge Rakoff: In the 6 trials I've held during the pandemic, I've found sidebars best held in the robing room. We'll have room for two counsel from each side. Plaintiff's table can have only three people. That would be Ms. Palin plus two - others, in the gallery
Judge Rakoff: Normally in a civil case I sit eight jurors - this time, I'll sit nine. [Mentions Omicron.] Judge Rakoff: I never use questionnaires. You ask, will the court automatically exclude unvaccinated jurors? The answer is, No.
Judge Rakoff: On the request that I prohibit the defense from raising certain exhibits without prior permission I'll await the defendant's motions in limine due Monday. I'll rule on the morning of trial before voir dire
Judge Rakoff: I usually, in civil cases, pick a jury in less than an hour. Each side gets three peremptory challenges. I usually give the jury the pre-instruction after the opening arguments and some evidence so they have a bit better idea.
Palin's lawyer Shane B. Vogt asks about the spacing of written submissions.
NYT lawyer David L. Axelrod says, We served defendant with motions in limine last night. Adjourned.
On January 10, 2022, Palin filed a motion in limine seeking a rule that the NYT and Bennet cannot use listed exhibits "without first obtaining a ruling from the court on the admissibility of such exhibits." These include:
77: Rep Rodney Davis on Politically-Motivated Violence
79: Palin Tweet: Hey Lisa Murkowski, I can see 2022 from my house...
222: Plain State re Blood Libel. Watch this site.
The NYT and Bennet filed notice of motion to seek reconsideration in light of NYS' after-arising anti-SLAPP law.
Judge Rakoff ruled for the NYT under this new law, saying Palin could not reasonably rely on US Supreme Court precedents being overruled: "Now before the Court is defendants’ motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), for an order modifying the Opinion to reflect the fact that on November 10, 2020, New York amended its “anti-strategic litigation against public participation” (“anti-SLAPP”) law to expressly require that public figures prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Dkt. No. 120. Plaintiff opposes. Dkt. No. 123. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted."
Now on August 12, 2021, adjournment of trial from September 20 to January 24, 2022 amid COVID: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff: In the above-captioned case, a telephone conference was held August 12, 2021 without transcription or recording. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant were present. Developments with the COVID-19 pandemic necessitate the postponement of the jury trial. Accordingly, trial will now commence January 24, 2022. ( Jury Selection set for 1/24/2022 at 09:30AM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.)." Watch this site.
In July, NYT lawyer, Jay Brown of Ballard, says Bennet - since ousted or resigned - is able to bring this motion. Judge Rakoff: I was not persuaded by plaintiff's argument on that. NYT lawyer: This is Palin's contention that a jury might disbelieve Mr Bennet's testimony
NYT: There's no need for the court to make credibility determinations. There's no dispute of material fact. Let me turn to the merits. Did Bennet act with actual malice when he wrote the sentences? Did he accuse her of inciting shooting? We say no, not with malice
NYT: Bennet was unaware that his words would be interpreted that way. Judge Rakoff: Isn't it partly a function of what a reasonable jury could infer where the language is essentially unambiguous, like if the Defendant said, "Mr Jones is a cold blooded murderer"
Judge Rakoff: .. the jury could draw an inference. NYT: The defamatory statement can't be considered in isolation. "Under NYT v. Sullivan, the statement must be judged entire based on what the publisher intended it to mean."
Judge Rakoff: But I'm to follow case law, and not treatises, no? Let me go back to my rather over-simple hypo. Supposing the defendant at his deposition, When I said Jones was a cold blooded murderer, I didn't mean that literally, I just meant he's nasty
Judge Rakoff: Cannot a jury say, That's preposterous. The words were so without qualification we don't believe you didn't mean it literally? Can't that be part of the mix?
NYT: The language of the publication is part of the mix -- [then NYT lawyer is cut off]
Judge Rakoff [after NYT lawyer is cut off]: I interpret that to mean he thought his rhetoric was so electric...
NYT is back: Elizabeth Williamson prepared a draft of the editorial... In her draft, she said, "Just as in 2011, the rage in Virginia was nurtured," etc. Mr. Bennet removed the Virginia reference, there, but kept in "link to political incitement was clear."
NYT lawyer: Let's consider the 5:08 am email by Bennet: "I don't know what the truth is here... We may have relied too much on our own earlier editorials."
Judge Rakoff: Plaintiff says Bennet committed at his deposition that he had read a report in The Atlantic Judge Rakoff: Why couldn't a jury infer that he had read it, and knew what he wrote was false, but after criticism was trying to cover his read end? NYT: Let's compare what Mrs. Palin said and what the Second Circuit ruled.
lawyer: Mr. Bennet did not click on hyperlinks in [his] editorial... He relied on fact checkers to ensure his editorials were accurate
Palin's lawyer: There's nothing binding from the Supreme Court imposing the defendant's standard here. Judge Rakoff: Even under your approach you have to show reckless disregard, no? Palin's lawyer: Correct.
Palin's lawyer: The decision was already made to write about gun control, and "hate speech" of people on the Right. Judge Rakoff: You're saying he started with a bias? Palin's lawyer: Yes, your Honor.
Palin's lawyer: The NYT was already under fire, sponsoring Shakespeare in the Park portraying Trump as Caesar, some advertisers were pulling out. So Bennet was back pedaling. Palin's lawyer: They resorted to framing, to pre-conceived notions.
This is a case of willful avoidance of the truth. He published the editorial without re-acquainting himself with what the Atlantic [he is or was affiliated with] published
Palin's lawyer: Bennet has a narrative he wanted to tell and he didn't care what the fact checkers said. It's purposeful avoidance of truth. Bennet insisted on persisting with narrative even after corruption came out, he told CNN it didn't undercut the editorial
Palin's lawyer: Bennet was still insisting that the piece was justifiable. The international edition cut out the defamatory terms, but Ms. Cohen claimed it still conveyed the same message. So Bennet was engaged in political score-keeping
Palin lawyer: There were 3 to 4 other editorials ready that could have run that day. All of this could have been avoided. But this falls in line with Bennet's pre-determined narrative. There was recklessness. So the summary judgment motion should be denied.
Judge Rakoff: I'll give the defendant nine minutes, then I have to head up to my courtroom for a proceeding.
NYT's lawyer: This may have been negligence, but it is not defamation of a public figure.
Judge Rakoff tells the lawyer the history of "malapropism," promises an end of August ruling before Feb 2021 trial.
The case is Palin v. The New York Times Company, 17-cv-4853-JSR (Rakoff)
***
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
