SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 5 – In the libel case by
Matt Taibbi against Eoin Higgins and Hachette Book Group
over the book "Owned," an oral argument on the defendants'
motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds was held on
March 25 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York Senior Judge George B. Daniels.
Inner City
Press was there, one of only four people in the courtroom
gallery (the other three were court staff) and live
tweeted, here
and some below followed by an extra.
On May 5, Judge Daniel
dismissed the case, saying no defamatory statement had
been alleged. Taibbi v. Higgins et al
Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 25), is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the open motions
and the case accordingly. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge
George B. Daniels on 5/5/2026)
Full 13 page order on
Patreon here.
From March 25:
McNamara: There is a
lack of actual malice here. He does not cite a single fact
about Mr. Higgins or Hachette that either knew it was
false or had serious doubts. I cite Satanic Temple v
Newsweek, and First Amendment Praetorian v NYT
Judge: Mr. Garson? Use
the mic if you want.
Robert Garson: I'm a small man with a big voice, I had to
develop it. It's been a decade since I've been before your
Honor. Here, it's as if Higgins and Hachette raise the
cannons of war but their cannons have no balls
Garson: Imagine a cover
that said, The Tech Billionaires of the Right Bought the
Judges of SDNY - imagine that. I'm sure they'll saw
patronage doesn't mean patronage. Read this: The cronies
now beneficiaries of Silicon Valley largesse. I had to
look up 4th Estate
Garson: He markets
himself as a journalist and *historian." I actually read
this book. It really isn't that good. There is no
following the money. The promise of the front coverage did
not deliver.
Judge Daniels: What was promised on the front cover?
Judge Daniels: I saw,
He's a crony, read my book and you'll see. And there's
nothing there. Is it defamatory?
Garson: He says, I was approached by Hachette to write
this book. What book was he approached to write?
Judge: It's got to be defamatory as it is stated.
Garson: Greenwald is
not part of this case. Hachette, they still chose the
title. They say windfall and cash in but they don't have
evidence. He actually loses money as an independent
journalist on this so-called sell-out. He was
deamplified
Garson: Taibbi twice
refused money
Judge Daniels: It's not their duty to defend Taibbi. If I
say, he's a thief. Someone asks, What proof do you have
and I say, I don't have any. It's just derogatory, not
defamatory.
Garson: There is defamation per se
Judge Daniels: If I
say, he is not an independent journalist - you can't show
that's defamatory.
Garson: If I saw, I'll follow the money and then I publish
a book
Judge Daniels: But if the book backs away from the claim,
I'm not sure that helps your argument
Garson: A man on the
street says Judge Daniels is corrupt, that's one thing.
But if another judge says it...
Daniels: I'm not sure. Everyday the President says things
about journalists and judges. I'm not sure it's all
defamatory.
Judge Daniels: What's
the most defamatory statement you've got?
Garson: The cover. Bought. Owned. Cashing in. That he says
he will follow the money and name names.
Judge: It's
hyperbole.
Judge Daniels: If I
saw, Mr. Garson is bought by the plaintiffs' bar, is that
defamatory?
Garson: If someone says, that judge is bought by the
Mafia, it's defamatory
Judge: I'm not so sure. Why did they write the book?
Garson: To make money
Judge: Exactly (laughs)
Garson: Pardon the pun,
but it's a hatchet job, a Hachette job - this is unique. I
acknowledge that a headline and an article can differ
Judge: You're not complaining about the content of the
book.
Garson: Inside cover. An article you can see right away. A
book?
McNamara: Meanings are
developed through context. New York has a heightened
standard. You had a case about Michael Lewis' book, you
found that "moron" was opinion and not actionable. You
were affirmed by the 2d Circuit. Here, the plaintiff does
not like the cover
Judge Daniels: OK, I
will get back to you [Inner City Press will be on alert
for his ruling and report it]
Extra / analysis on X
for Subscribers here
and Substack
here
The case is Taibbi v. Higgins, et al.,
1:25-cv-9511 (Daniels)
