The Appellate Division is expected to rule soon on whether the lower court was right to prevent the New York Times from republishing the privileged legal memos of their litigation opponent.
The New York Times is appealing a New York Supreme Court o…
The Appellate Division is expected to rule soon on whether the lower court was right to prevent the New York Times from republishing the privileged legal memos of their litigation opponent.
The New York Times is appealing a New York Supreme Court order issued on Christmas Eve which required them to return and cease any republication of legal memos written by Project Veritas’ attorneys who historically defeated the paper’s attempts to dismiss a defamation suit brought on by Project Veritas.
In their appeal, The New York Times argued the lower court’s order violated the First Amendment and was “an extraordinary prior restraint” while also arguing they get to publish the privileged memos “even if the Times acted improperly.”
In a new video breaking down the case, Project Veritas Founder and CEO James O’Keefe cited Veritas’ attorney, Libby Locke, who hit back against these claims:
The only thing ‘extraordinary’ about this dispute is the conduct of the [New York] Times. The true gravamen of The Times’ argument is that, as a media outlet, it is entitled to special treatment and that it should not be subject to the same rules of practice and conduct that any other litigant appearing before the New York Supreme Court is held to.
The NYT also tried to argue the memos had no relevance to the ongoing litigation, another claim corrected by Locke in the latest response brief:
‘The Times’ story also specifically referenced the ongoing litigation between The Times and Veritas and stated that the privileged memoranda gave The Times ‘new insight’ into the ‘workings’ of Project Veritas and how it uses tactics ‘outside of mainstream reporting techniques’…In moving to dismiss Veritas’ defamation complaint, the Times asserted as a defense that Veritas is a libel-proof plaintiff because of its history of using ‘sting operations and entrapment tactics.’
A ruling in the case is expected soon.
