ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuits

  • Missouri Planned Parenthood sues over transgender inquiry

    Missouri Planned Parenthood sues over transgender inquiry

    Associated Press — Missouri’s state attorney general is investigating gender-affirming care provided by Planned Parenthood, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by the St. Louis health provider.

    Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey demanded documents from Planned Parenthood after finding out that the clinic provides “life-altering gender transition drugs to children with any therapy assessment,” spokeswoman Madeline Sieren said in a statement. She described that as a departure from standard care.

    Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri sued in response, trying to block access to its records. In court filings, the healthcare provider argued Bailey has no authority to investigate the clinic, which is inspected by the state health department.

    A Planned Parenthood doctor described Bailey’s investigation as a “fishing expedition” targeting the clinic, which provides gender-affirming care to adults, and teens ages 16 and older. Dr. Colleen McNicholas, the health center’s chief medical officer, told The Associated Press that the attorney general’s investigation is “an attempt to help him work outside of the legislative process and eliminate access to transgender care for Missourians.”

    The Attorney General’s Office cited its ongoing investigation into a transgender youth clinic run by Washington University, “or others in the state providing similar services,” as the reason for the document request, according to a letter to Planned Parenthood dated March 10.

    Sieren criticized Planned Parenthood for withholding its records.

    “We look forward to prevailing in this request for information and learning what is truly going on with Planned Parenthood in connection with gender transition issues,” Sieren said in a Friday statement.

    In February, Bailey launched an investigation into the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital following allegations of mistreatment by a former employee. The ex-staffer alleged that physicians there did not warn patients and parents enough about potential side effects of puberty blockers and hormones, and that doctors pressured parents to consent to treatment.

    Planned Parenthood argues in its lawsuit that its clinic has nothing to do with the Washington University center.

    The lawsuit comes amid a national push to restrict transgender health care, drag shows, bathroom access and how LGBTQ+ topics are discussed in schools. The lawsuit was filed Friday as rallies were scheduled in cities nationwide as part of Transgender Day of Visibility.

    As the state’s top prosecutor, Bailey is following his predecessor’s lead in using the office to take a stand on social issues. Last week, he announced plans to file an emergency rule to restrict healthcare for transgender children. It would require an 18-month waiting period, 15 therapy sessions and additional mental health treatment before Missouri doctors can provide gender-affirming care to minors.

    “I am dedicated to using every legal tool at my disposal to stand in the gap and protect children from being subject to inhumane science experiments,” Bailey said in a statement announcing the planned rule.

    His office has not yet filed the rule.

    Transgender medical treatment for children has been available in the U.S. for over a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations. Many clinics use treatment plans pioneered in Amsterdam 30 years ago, according to a recent review in the British Psych Bulletin. Since 2005, the number of youth referred to gender clinics has increased as much as tenfold in the U.S., U.K, Canada and Finland, the review said.

    McNicholas, of Planned Parenthood, said Bailey is using the “same playbook” that anti-abortion activists and elected officials have used to restrict abortions.

    Missouri banned almost all abortions in 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    Before that, Republicans fought for years to regulate abortion out of existence in the state. The GOP-led state legislature proposed anti-abortion bills yearly. When increasingly restrictive bans on the procedure were tossed in court, Republican governors stepped in.

    “If we are to learn anything from our past experience with the state targeting us for the provision of lawful abortion care, we know that other folks who are providing this care are certainly going to be targets,” McNicholas said. “If not now, then soon.”

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues Norfolk Southern over derailment

    Justice Department sues Norfolk Southern over derailment

    The federal government has filed a lawsuit against railroad Norfolk Southern over environmental damage caused by a train derailment on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border that spilled hazardous chemicals into nearby creeks and rivers

    ByJOHN SEEWER Associated Press

    The federal government filed a lawsuit against railroad Norfolk Southern over environmental damage caused by a train derailment on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border that spilled hazardous chemicals into nearby creeks and rivers.

    The U.S. Department of Justice said it’s seeking to hold the company accountable for “unlawfully polluting the nation’s waterways and to ensure it pays the full cost of the environmental cleanup,” in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

    It’s asking for fines under the Clean Water Act and for a judgment to hold the railroad accountable for past and future costs.

    The derailment in early February led to the evacuation of half of the 5,000 residents of East Palestine when responders intentionally burned toxic chemicals in some of the derailed cars to prevent an uncontrolled explosion.

    Chemicals from the derailed cars and firefighting foam seeped into creeks and rivers near the village, with some eventually ending up in the Ohio River. So far, more than 9 million gallons (34 million liters) of wastewater have been removed from the site and hauled to hazardous waste storage sites in Ohio and other states, according to the state officials.

    Government officials say tests haven’t found dangerous levels of chemicals in the air or water in the area, but many residents remain concerned about their long-term health.

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources said three weeks after the disaster that the spilled contaminants killed an estimated 44,000 fish, mostly small ones such as minnows.

    Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw has repeatedly apologized for the impact the derailment and the company has pledged to pay for the cleanup. The railroad has promised more than $20 million to help the Ohio community recover while also announcing several voluntary safety upgrades.

    Ohio filed a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern just over two weeks ago to make sure it pays for the cleanup and environmental damage, and pays for groundwater and soil monitoring in the years ahead.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow scores court win that means more than $1

    Gwyneth Paltrow scores court win that means more than $1

    PARK CITY, Utah — All that for a dollar?

    Nah, Gwyneth Paltrow ’s motivation to go to trial to fight a lawsuit accusing her of sending a fellow skier “absolutely flying” at a posh Utah ski resort in 2016 was about vindication.

    She got it when a jury found her not at fault in the collision, granting her exactly the $1 she sought in her countersuit. As a court reporter read the verdict, the courtroom gallery made up mostly of her supporters exhaled while Paltrow sat next to her lawyer intently and avoided displaying emotion that could be interpreted as surprise or gloating.

    She might have come out ahead in the court of public opinion, too, Hollywood lawyers and publicists say.

    “It’s not often that you go through the whole expense and time and bother of litigation for a dollar,” said Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles lawyer who handles many celebrity cases. “But she wanted to turn this into a positive as a way of saying ‘I’m not going to get taken advantage of,’ and ‘I’m a good person.’”

    The actor-turned-influencer avoided engaging in any memorable missteps during the eight-day trial that she attended every day as viewers in Park City, Utah, and around the world watched closely. She even ended things on a classy note when she stopped before leaving court to lean over and put her hands on her accuser’s shoulder to wish him best of luck.

    “She came across on the stand very well,” said Emily D. Baker, legal analyst and former Los Angeles deputy district attorney. “She was personable, she was firm, but she wasn’t ever aggressive. And it actually came across that she had empathy for what this plaintiff has gone through.”

    When 76-year-old Terry Sanderson filed the lawsuit in 2019, it was the kind of case that seemed to scream for the quick, confidential settlement typical in lawsuits against celebrities. Instead, it endured for four years through trial.

    “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” Paltrow posted to her 8.3 million Instagram followers after the verdict.

    Sanderson himself questioned afterward whether the lawsuit was worth it and said he believed that people tend to naturally trust celebrities like Paltrow.

    Holly Baird, a publicist who handles major celebrity crises including many court cases, says that while trials have potential downsides, there is no reason for famous people to avoid them at all costs.

    “I didn’t see this being a downfall for her,” Baird said. “This isn’t like a murder case or anything. It humanizes her. People have similar stories.”

    There were moments of potential pitfall, as when Paltrow answered a question about damages by saying she “had lost half a day of skiing,” acknowledged paying nearly $9,000 for her then-small kids’ skiing instruction and explained why she let her ski instructor stay behind to check on Sanderson and exchange information. As he waited to be tobogganed down the mountain by ski patrol, she followed her children Moses and Apple down the mountain, testifying that she was accustomed to having things done for her.

    But the honest answer may not have done her damage.

    “They live in a different world and it becomes their normal, but people are going to assume that,” Lovell said. “You can have that and people are going to know it and accept. You’ve just got to come across as humble.”

    Baird agreed.

    “I think she was authentic,” she said. “She’s with her children, she’s worried about them.”

    The jury apparently found Paltrow likeable enough, returning after just 2 1/2 hours to give her a resounding win that blamed the collision 100% on Sanderson.

    His lawsuit had sought “more than $300,000, though in closing arguments, his attorneys estimated damages as more than $3.2 million.

    Trial lawyers are known to regularly engage in seemingly friendly repartee with witnesses to try and cultivate sympathy among the jury. But many observers thought Sanderson’s attorney Kristin VanOrman did the actor a major favor when she at times appeared charmed by Paltrow when she was on the stand.

    When VanOrman asked Paltrow her height and she responded “just under 5’10”,” VanOrman replied, “I am so jealous! I think I’m shrinking. I have to wear heels just to make it to 5’5″.”

    VanOrman’s efforts to flag for the jury that Paltrow was larger than the man she collided with were overshadowed when the actor said back: “They’re very nice.”

    Lovell said it was so “bizarre and ineffective” that he thought VanOrman was Paltrow’s attorney when he first tuned in.

    “That was ridiculous,” she said. “The jury sees that and thinks she must not be that bad if the opposing attorney likes her. She seemed star struck.”

    Once among the most ubiquitous leading women in Hollywood, the Oscar winner has taken fewer and fewer roles in recent years. Many now identify her more with her wellness-and-lifestyle company Goop, whose offerings have brought her ridicule in some quarters as the quintessential out-of-touch peddler of celebrity woo-woo.

    But that also makes Paltrow her own boss, who is not beholden to others for work, and has brought her a devoted set of customer-fans.

    “Gwyneth has such a cult following in the lifestyle and wellness brand, and people love to see another side of their life like this,” Baird said. “I think her PR team should be using it. She’s getting way more TV time than she would any other way.”

    Paltrow’s fight to clear her name resonated with many of her fans, including those who braved blizzards to fill the gallery of the Park City courtroom for two weeks.

    “When you are a celebrity you know that you’re going to get some of this, but that was totally over the top,” said Ann Malcolm, a Park City local who enjoys skiing at Deer Valley, the mountain where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed.

    A crowd made up of locals and some who traveled from California to catch a glimpse of the trial snapped selfies, showed each other mockups of t-shirts that read “#Gwynnocent” and commended Paltrow for being both gracious and fighting to clear her name.

    “He thought it would be an easy payday,” said David Madow, a retired dentist and avid skier who attended multiple days of court proceedings. “I was impressed with the fact that she said ’No, I’m not gonna do that.”

    ___

    Dalton reported from Los Angeles.

    ___

    Associated Press Writer Krysta Fauria contributed.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

    Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

    PARK CITY, Utah — When two skiers collided on a beginner run at an upscale Utah ski resort in 2016, no one could foresee that seven years later, the crash would become the subject of a closely watched celebrity trial.

    But Gwyneth Paltrow’s live-streamed trial over her collision with Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optometrist, in Park City emerged as the biggest celebrity court case since actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard faced off last year — spawning memes, sparking debate about the burden of fame, and making ski etiquette rules of who was uphill and who had the right of way relevant beyond those who can afford resort chairlift tickets.

    On Thursday, Paltrow won her court battle after a jury decided the movie star wasn’t at fault for the crash. Here is a look back at highlights from the two-week trial:

    ___

    LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND THE FAMOUS

    For seven days, attorneys highlighted — and downplayed — Paltrow and Sanderson’s extravagant lifestyles.

    Sanderson’s attorneys sought more than $300,000 in damages, but the money at stake for both sides paled in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit. Both sides marshalled brigades of expert witnesses, including a biomechanical engineer and collision expert.

    Paltrow’s legal team attempted to represent Sanderson as an angry, aging man who continued to travel internationally after the collision. They introduced photos into evidence of Sanderson camel riding in Morocco, trekking the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu in Peru, and taking a continent-wide loop through Europe with stops in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Belgium.

    Sanderson’s attorneys questioned Paltrow about that day’s $8,890 bill for private ski instructors for four children accompanying her, as well as her decision to leave the slope after the crash to get a massage. They said the accident caused Sanderson to grow distant from friends and family, and they called his ex-girlfriend to testify about how their relationship deteriorated because he “had no joy left in his life.”

    To keep jurors engaged, Paltrow’s team shared a series of advanced, high-resolution animations to accompany their witnesses’ recollections. The renderings reflected the financial investment Paltrow and her defense team devoted to the case.

    ___

    THE BURDEN OF FAME

    Attorneys on both sides tapped into the power of celebrity to make their cases that reputations and moral principles were what was at stake in the trial.

    Sanderson’s side tried to characterize Paltrow, the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer, as clumsy, out of touch and evading accountability. They likened her decision to file a $1 countersuit against Sanderson to Taylor Swift, who filed a similar counterclaim in a lawsuit in 2017 — drawing attention to Paltrow’s testimony that she was “not good friends” with Swift but just “friendly.”

    Paltrow’s defense team called the highly publicized case an attempt to exploit her fame and suggested she is vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits. They questioned witnesses about Sanderson’s “obsession” with the case and homed in on an email subject line in which Sanderson wrote after the collision: “I’m famous.”

    “To become famous, he will lie,” one of Paltrow’s attorneys said. “I’m not into celebrity worship,” Sanderson later rebutted.

    ___

    FACTORY OF MEMES

    Though the trial tested the jury’s endurance as its eight members gradually sunk deeper into their chairs through hours of expert-witness testimony, it titillated spectators worldwide, became late-night television fodder and fed the internet’s insatiable appetite for memes.

    Viewers tuning into proceedings on CourtTV saw Paltrow complain about losing a half-day of skiing after the crash and heard a radiologist testify that Sanderson could no longer enjoy wine tasting. They compared the spectacle to “The White Lotus” — an HBO series that satirizes the petty grievances of rich, white vacationers — and, in a reflection of the courtroom theatrics and rapt public attention, likened Paltrow’s defense to the Salem witch trials of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.”

    Photographs of Paltrow entering and exiting the courtroom — often shielding her face, perp-walk style, with a blue GP-initialed notebook — also have gone viral on social media.

    ___

    UTAH’S POSHEST SKI TOWN

    The proceedings have drawn the world’s attention to Park City, Utah, the silver boomtown-turned posh ski resort where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed and the trial was held. The city annually hosts the Sundance Film Festival, where early in her career Paltrow would appear for the premieres of her movies, including 1998’s “Sliding Doors,” at a time when she was known primarily as an actor, not a celebrity wellness entrepreneur.

    The jury and local residents who have braved blizzards to get to the courthouse each day nodded along as attorneys referenced local landmarks like The Montage Deer Valley, the slope-side luxury resort where Paltrow got a massage after the crash.

    The all-white jury was drawn from registered voters in Summit County, where the average home sold for $1.3 million last month and residents tend to be less religious than the rest of Utah, where the majority of the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Unlike the high-powered Hollywood attorneys that become household names at celebrity trials, both sides were represented by local lawyers. Paltrow’s team specializes in medical malpractice lawsuits, while Sanderson’s lead counsel, Bob Sykes, is known in Salt Lake City for his work suing police departments. Sykes attempted to play up his folksiness, referring to himself as “just a country lawyer” more than six times during the trial. After jurors were sent home Wednesday, both legal teams joked about the trial lawyer gimmick.

    ___

    THE MYSTERIOUS MISSING GOPRO

    Paltrow’s attorneys intrigued the jury with questions about the collision potentially being captured on a helmet-cam video, though no footage was included as evidence in the trial.

    Sanderson’s daughter testified this week that an email she sent the day of the accident referring to a GoPro didn’t imply footage existed. She said she and her father speculated that on a crowded beginner run, someone wearing a camera must have turned to look at the crash after hearing Paltrow scream.

    Internet sleuths following the trial later found and sent attorneys the link included in the email. Rather than revealing GoPro footage though, it contained a chatroom discussion between members of Sanderson’s ski group, including the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness who testified Paltrow crashed into Sanderson.

    ___

    THE VERDICT

    Paltrow looked to her attorneys with a pursed-lips smile when the judge read the eight-member jury’s verdict in the Park City courtroom.

    The jury awarded her $1; however, the attorney fees she asked for in her countersuit were not included in the verdict, leaving the bulk of the final award for the Park City judge to decide.

    Paltrow thanked the judge and jury for their work.

    “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” the actor said in a statement released by her representatives.

    As Paltrow left court, she touched Sanderson’s shoulder and told him, “I wish you well,” Sanderson told reporters outside court. He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

    ___

    Furman reported from Los Angeles.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

    Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

    PARK CITY, Utah — When two skiers collided on a beginner run at an upscale Utah ski resort in 2016, no one could foresee that seven years later, the crash would become the subject of a closely watched celebrity trial.

    But Gwyneth Paltrow’s live-streamed trial over her collision with Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optometrist, in Park City emerged as the biggest celebrity court case since actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard faced off last year — spawning memes, sparking debate about the burden of fame, and making ski etiquette rules of who was uphill and who had the right of way relevant beyond those who can afford resort chairlift tickets.

    On Thursday, Paltrow won her court battle after a jury decided the movie star wasn’t at fault for the crash. Here is a look back at highlights from the two-week trial:

    ___

    LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND THE FAMOUS

    For seven days, attorneys highlighted — and downplayed — Paltrow and Sanderson’s extravagant lifestyles.

    Sanderson’s attorneys sought more than $300,000 in damages, but the money at stake for both sides paled in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit. Both sides marshalled brigades of expert witnesses, including a biomechanical engineer and collision expert.

    Paltrow’s legal team attempted to represent Sanderson as an angry, aging man who continued to travel internationally after the collision. They introduced photos into evidence of Sanderson camel riding in Morocco, trekking the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu in Peru, and taking a continent-wide loop through Europe with stops in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Belgium.

    Sanderson’s attorneys questioned Paltrow about that day’s $8,890 bill for private ski instructors for four children accompanying her, as well as her decision to leave the slope after the crash to get a massage. They said the accident caused Sanderson to grow distant from friends and family, and they called his ex-girlfriend to testify about how their relationship deteriorated because he “had no joy left in his life.”

    To keep jurors engaged, Paltrow’s team shared a series of advanced, high-resolution animations to accompany their witnesses’ recollections. The renderings reflected the financial investment Paltrow and her defense team devoted to the case.

    ___

    THE BURDEN OF FAME

    Attorneys on both sides tapped into the power of celebrity to make their cases that reputations and moral principles were what was at stake in the trial.

    Sanderson’s side tried to characterize Paltrow, the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer, as clumsy, out of touch and evading accountability. They likened her decision to file a $1 countersuit against Sanderson to Taylor Swift, who filed a similar counterclaim in a lawsuit in 2017 — drawing attention to Paltrow’s testimony that she was “not good friends” with Swift but just “friendly.”

    Paltrow’s defense team called the highly publicized case an attempt to exploit her fame and suggested she is vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits. They questioned witnesses about Sanderson’s “obsession” with the case and homed in on an email subject line in which Sanderson wrote after the collision: “I’m famous.”

    “To become famous, he will lie,” one of Paltrow’s attorneys said. “I’m not into celebrity worship,” Sanderson later rebutted.

    ___

    FACTORY OF MEMES

    Though the trial tested the jury’s endurance as its eight members gradually sunk deeper into their chairs through hours of expert-witness testimony, it titillated spectators worldwide, became late-night television fodder and fed the internet’s insatiable appetite for memes.

    Viewers tuning into proceedings on CourtTV saw Paltrow complain about losing a half-day of skiing after the crash and heard a radiologist testify that Sanderson could no longer enjoy wine tasting. They compared the spectacle to “The White Lotus” — an HBO series that satirizes the petty grievances of rich, white vacationers — and, in a reflection of the courtroom theatrics and rapt public attention, likened Paltrow’s defense to the Salem witch trials of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.”

    Photographs of Paltrow entering and exiting the courtroom — often shielding her face, perp-walk style, with a blue GP-initialed notebook — also have gone viral on social media.

    ___

    UTAH’S POSHEST SKI TOWN

    The proceedings have drawn the world’s attention to Park City, Utah, the silver boomtown-turned posh ski resort where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed and the trial was held. The city annually hosts the Sundance Film Festival, where early in her career Paltrow would appear for the premieres of her movies, including 1998’s “Sliding Doors,” at a time when she was known primarily as an actor, not a celebrity wellness entrepreneur.

    The jury and local residents who have braved blizzards to get to the courthouse each day nodded along as attorneys referenced local landmarks like The Montage Deer Valley, the slope-side luxury resort where Paltrow got a massage after the crash.

    The all-white jury was drawn from registered voters in Summit County, where the average home sold for $1.3 million last month and residents tend to be less religious than the rest of Utah, where the majority of the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Unlike the high-powered Hollywood attorneys that become household names at celebrity trials, both sides were represented by local lawyers. Paltrow’s team specializes in medical malpractice lawsuits, while Sanderson’s lead counsel, Bob Sykes, is known in Salt Lake City for his work suing police departments. Sykes attempted to play up his folksiness, referring to himself as “just a country lawyer” more than six times during the trial. After jurors were sent home Wednesday, both legal teams joked about the trial lawyer gimmick.

    ___

    THE MYSTERIOUS MISSING GOPRO

    Paltrow’s attorneys intrigued the jury with questions about the collision potentially being captured on a helmet-cam video, though no footage was included as evidence in the trial.

    Sanderson’s daughter testified this week that an email she sent the day of the accident referring to a GoPro didn’t imply footage existed. She said she and her father speculated that on a crowded beginner run, someone wearing a camera must have turned to look at the crash after hearing Paltrow scream.

    Internet sleuths following the trial later found and sent attorneys the link included in the email. Rather than revealing GoPro footage though, it contained a chatroom discussion between members of Sanderson’s ski group, including the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness who testified Paltrow crashed into Sanderson.

    ___

    THE VERDICT

    Paltrow looked to her attorneys with a pursed-lips smile when the judge read the eight-member jury’s verdict in the Park City courtroom.

    The jury awarded her $1; however, the attorney fees she asked for in her countersuit were not included in the verdict, leaving the bulk of the final award for the Park City judge to decide.

    Paltrow thanked the judge and jury for their work.

    “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” the actor said in a statement released by her representatives.

    As Paltrow left court, she touched Sanderson’s shoulder and told him, “I wish you well,” Sanderson told reporters outside court. He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

    ___

    Furman reported from Los Angeles.

    Source link

  • San Diego County supervisor to resign after assault lawsuit

    San Diego County supervisor to resign after assault lawsuit

    SAN DIEGO — The chair of San Diego County’s board of supervisors said he will resign amid accusations that he sexually assaulted a government employee, completing a swift and shocking fall for a decorated Marine combat veteran whose star rose with his Democratic Party’s ascendancy in the nation’s eighth-largest city. Nathan Fletcher, who defected from the Republican Party in 2012, was elected to a second term with 65% of the vote in November, two years after Democrats won a board majority that eluded their grasp for decades. Fletcher, 46, was the face of the San Diego region’s muscular response to COVID-19 at daily news conferences. He became half of San Diego’s most powerful political couple after his 2017 marriage to Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, a well-known liberal Democratic state assemblywoman who became a top California labor leader last year. Fletcher’s progressive positions and telegenic presence made him a solid favorite to succeed another prominent California politician, Toni Atkins, in the state Senate. But he announced late Sunday that he was dropping his bid after less than two months to seek treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse. Days later, Fletcher resigned as chair of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System after a former television reporter who worked in the agency’s public relations office alleged sexual harassment and assault in a lawsuit that included screenshots of lurid messages from Fletcher. Hours after that, Fletcher said he would resign from the county board of supervisors, calling the pressure on his family over the last week “immense and unbearable.” “A combination of my personal mistakes plus false accusations has created a burden that my family shouldn’t have to bear,” he said. He will leave office May 15. Fletcher’s fall jolted the city a week after officials made a critical turn in a saga that has captivated the city and threatened other top politicians.

    A 2017 lease-to-own deal for employees to occupy a 19-story downtown office building turned disastrous after asbestos and other deficiencies were discovered and rendered the space uninhabitable. Jason Hughes, an unpaid adviser to the city on the deal, pleaded guilty last week to a misdemeanor and agreed to repay $9.4 million that he collected in a dual role as adviser to the building’s seller, Cisterra LLC.

    The deal was bungled under Mayor Kevin Faulconer, one of California’s most promising Republican leaders until a resounding defeat in a failed 2020 recall effort against Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat.

    Brian Adams, a political science professor at San Diego State University, likened Fletcher to other fallen leaders, including Andrew Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer, both former governors of New York, and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards.

    “They were all seen having promising futures collapse over sexual harassment claims,” said Adams.

    Fletcher’s name entered conversations about who San Diego might elect mayor or member of Congress, Adams said. His troubles may open the way for new faces if Todd Gloria, the Democratic mayor, faces questions over how he handled fallout from the real estate debacle.

    San Diego’s political drama doesn’t appear to have gripped residents like earlier scandal, including the resignation in 2013 of Bob Filner, the first Democratic mayor in 20 years, after weeks of near-daily allegations of harassing women, including city employees.

    A Republican mayor, Dick Murphy, resigned in 2004 after a pension crisis made San Diego a poster child for financial mismanagement.

    In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Diego Superior Court, Grecia Figueroa, 34, says she began exchanging messages with Fletcher in 2021 when he started visiting her social media accounts. He once wrote, “Home alone — no wife and kids.” He urged her to delete his texts and be discreet.

    Figueroa says Fletcher kissed her in the stairway of a hotel where he was staying in May 2022. Weeks later, he allegedly texted her during a meeting that he had five minutes and asked her to go to an adjacent conference room, where he kissed and grabbed her.

    Figueroa was fired Feb. 6 after she “attempted to engage in meaningful, pre-litigation discussions with Fletcher to resolve her claims quietly and amicably,” her lawsuit says. On Sunday — just before Fletcher ended his Senate run — Fletcher’s attorney threatened to sue Figueroa for extortion, she said.

    Fletcher acknowledged “consensual interactions” with someone outside his marriage. “I haven’t done the things that are alleged but I did violate the basic trust of my marriage and set a terrible example for our children,” he said in a statement. San Diego County Democratic Party Chair Becca Taylor said Thursday that Fletcher’s decision to resign was appropriate, echoing other political leaders. Gonzalez Fletcher, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said she loves her husband and believes “his name will be cleared” but that she urged him to resign.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow’s widely watched ski crash trial nears end

    Gwyneth Paltrow’s widely watched ski crash trial nears end

    PARK CITY, Utah — The closely watched trial over a 2016 ski collision between Gwyneth Paltrow and the retired optometrist suing her for the injuries he sustained is expected to draw to a close Thursday, when attorneys give closing arguments and send the case to the eight-member jury.

    Terry Sanderson, 76, is suing Paltrow, claiming she skied out of control and crashed into him, leaving him with four broken ribs and a concussion with symptoms that have lasted years beyond the collision.

    In a courtroom more packed Thursday than any other day of the trial, Sanderson’s attorneys gave their closing arguments first. They tried to poke holes in Paltrow’s testimony, arguing it was unlikely that someone could ski between another skier’s two legs as she said. They also argued that she didn’t deny watching her kids skiing the moment of the crash. They said the crash at Deer Valley Resort had changed the course of Sanderson’s life.

    “He never returned home that night as the same man. Terry has tried to get off that mountain but he’s really still there,” said Sanderson attorney Robert Sykes. “Part of Terry will forever be on that Bandana run.”

    After a judge dismissed his initial $3.1 million complaint, Sanderson amended and refiled the lawsuit seeking “more than $300,000” — a threshold that that provides the opportunity to introduce the most evidence and depose the most witnesses allowed in civil court. In closing arguments, his attorneys estimated damages as more than $3.2 million.

    Paltrow has countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.

    Paltrow’s defense team used most of their final full day in control of the witness stand to call medical experts to testify. Sanderson’s attorneys are expected to begin on Thursday morning by recalling their medical experts to rebut claims made by Paltrow’s. Each side will then have roughly one hour to give the jury their closing arguments.

    Paltrow’s attorneys are expected to continue their two-pronged approach, both arguing that the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer didn’t cause the accident and that its effects aren’t as bad as Sanderson claims. They’ve painted him as an “obsessed” man pushing “utter B.S.” claims against someone whose fame makes them vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits.

    In their closing arguments, Sanderson’s team also noted how the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness testified to seeing Paltrow hit their client. Though they’ve tapped into themes including the power of fame throughout the trial, they said that the case ultimately wasn’t about celebrity, but simply damages.

    Sanderson testified Friday that he had continued to pursue damages seven years after the accident because the cascading events that followed — his post-concussion symptoms and the accusation that he sued to exploit Paltrow’s celebrity — added insult to injury.

    “That’s the purpose: to make me regret this lawsuit. It’s the pain of trying to sue a celebrity,” he said on Wednesday in response to a question from his attorney about Paltrow’s team probing his personal life, medical records and extensive post-crash international travel itinerary.

    Though both sides have marshaled significant resources to emerge victorious, the verdict could end up being remembered as an afterthought dwarfed by the worldwide attention the trial has attracted. The amount of money at stake pales in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit, private security detail and expert witness-heavy trial.

    With lengthy rosters of witnesses on call, attorneys have confronted difficult choices about how to juggle their hired experts with family members, doctors and testimony from Sanderson and Paltrow themselves.

    Paltrow’s defense team picked mostly experts to mount their final defense on Wednesday. They chose to call four medical experts to testify rather than Paltrow’s husband, television producer Brad Falchuk.

    In the final hour of their last full day to call witnesses, they called Sanderson back to the witness stand. A day earlier, they read depositions from Paltrow’s two children — Apple and Moses — rather than calling them to testify as they earlier indicated they had planned.

    Among the most bombshell testimony has been from Paltrow and Sanderson. On Friday members of the jury were riveted when Paltrow said on the stand that she initially thought she was being “violated” when the collision began. Three days later Sanderson gave an entirely different account, saying she ran into him and sent him “absolutely flying.”

    The trial has also shone a spotlight on Park City, known primarily as a ski resort that welcomes celebrities like Paltrow for each year’s Sundance Film Festival.

    Local residents have increasingly filled the courtroom gallery throughout the trial. They’ve nodded along as lawyers and witnesses have referenced local landmarks like Montage Deer Valley, the ski-side hotel-spa where Paltrow got a massage after the collision. At times they have appeared captivated by Paltrow’s reactions to the proceedings, while at others they have mirrored the jury, whose endurance has been tested by hours of jargon-dense medical testimony.

    Source link

  • Prince Harry back in court for phone hacking hearing finale

    Prince Harry back in court for phone hacking hearing finale

    LONDON (AP) — A London judge said Thursday he would rule as soon as possible on whether to throw out or limit a phone hacking lawsuit brought by Prince Harry, Elton John and other well-known figures against a British tabloid publisher.

    The Duke of Sussex made a late arrival and early departure for the finale of a four-day High Court hearing on his invasion of privacy case against the company that publishes The Daily Mail. His surprise appearance during three days of the legal wrangling indicates the lawsuit’s importance in the prince’s broader battle against the British press.

    Harry, John, and actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost are among a group of seven people suing Associated Newspapers Ltd. for allegedly paying private investigators to illegally bug homes and cars and to record phone conversations.

    The publisher denied the allegations and has argued that lawsuits based on alleged incidents dating as far back as 1993 should be thrown out because the cases were not filed within a six-year limitation period.

    Attorney David Sherborne, who represents Harry and the other famous claimants, argued that the deadline for filing the lawsuits should be extended because the alleged snooping was covert and the publisher concealed evidence of it through denials “likely to lead the claimants off the scent.”

    The claimants said they were unaware of phone hacking done for Associated Newspapers until private investigators, including Gavin Burrows, came forward in the last couple of years to disclose the covert work they allegedly did.

    Burrows, who said in a 2021 witness statement that he came forward to “do the right thing” and help the people he targeted, has since issued another sworn statement saying he had not been commissioned by Associated Newspapers to do unlawful work.

    In his earlier admission, however, he described how much he charged for different jobs and how Harry, John and his husband, David Furnish, and Hurley and Frost were “just a small handful of my targets.”

    He said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” between 2000 and 2005 for a Mail on Sunday journalist whose name is redacted.

    In one section cited by Sherborne, Burrows described tapping Hurley’s home phone, hacking her voicemail and digging up travel and medical details on her when she was pregnant. Burrows said that John didn’t have a mobile phone but he got a lot of information about the singer from Hurley’s phone because she was close friends with him, and through the phone of John’s gardener.

    “I hacked, tapped and bugged Liz a number of times,” Burrows said in his earlier statement. “She (like Hugh Grant) was a huge earner for me. I could get an itemized phone bill for Liz and Hugh and sell each one for 5,000 pounds (about $6,185), much more than the average price on my menu.”

    Until she read Burrows statement, Hurley did not know who had been the source of the information about her, Sherborne said.

    “That’s the trigger. That’s when the scales fall from her eyes,” Sherborne said.

    Attorney Adrian Beltrami said the claims had been brought “far too late” and should be tossed out. He argued that a national scandal on phone hacking by journalists at other papers a decade ago could have inspired the claimants to look into articles written about them and file their lawsuits alleging wrongdoing within the time limits.

    Justice Matthew Nicklin said there was a difference between applying time limits to discovery of the alleged unlawful information gathering and the articles that resulted from some of those acts.

    “It’s clear what the claimants are not entitled to pursue because of limitation,” Nicklin said. “But what they are entitled to pursue is slightly more nuanced than simply striking out reference to the articles.”

    Attorney Steven Heffer, who is not involved in the case, said the defense is unlikely to prevail at this stage if they concealed the unlawful activity.

    “Other newspaper groups emphatically denied phone hacking or any unlawful information gathering, but have had to pay millions in damages and costs,” Heffer said.

    The publisher is also seeking to have evidence of payments to investigators barred from being used by claimants because it was protected by confidentiality rules when it was turned over by the publisher to a government inquiry into media law breaking.

    Sherborne argued the evidence is in the public domain.

    Attorney Michael Gardner, who also is not involved in the litigation, said Harry and the other claimants face an uphill battle on several fronts.

    “First, the events in question took place so long ago that they may now be statute barred,” Gardner said. “Secondly, the evidence they are relying on includes material that may be inadmissible. Thirdly, a key witness in the case appears to have signed two completely contradictory statements.”

    Source link

  • Court hears appeal of ruling favoring Musk in SolarCity deal

    Court hears appeal of ruling favoring Musk in SolarCity deal

    DOVER, Del. — Attorneys for a group of Tesla shareholders are asking the Delaware Supreme Court to overturn a judge’s decision in favor of CEO Elon Musk in a lawsuit challenging the electric car maker’s $2.4 billion acquisition of a solar panel company founded by two of his cousins.

    The plaintiffs argued Wednesday that a Chancery Court judge erred in finding that Tesla’s deal to acquire SolarCity in 2016 was “entirely fair,” even though the judge found that the process by which Tesla’s board of directors negotiated and recommended the deal to shareholders was “far from perfect.”

    “Elon was more involved in the process than a conflicted fiduciary should be. And conflicts among other Tesla Board members were not completely neutralized,” former Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights wrote last year. “With that said, the Tesla board meaningfully vetted the acquisition, and Elon did not stand in its way. Equally if not more important, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that Tesla paid a fair price — SolarCity was, at a minimum, worth what Tesla paid for it, and the acquisition otherwise was highly beneficial to Tesla.”

    At the time of the acquisition, Musk owned about 22% of Tesla’s common stock and was the largest stockholder of SolarCity, as well as chairman of its board of directors.

    A key issue presented to the Supreme Court is Slights’ conclusion that the deal met the heightened scrutiny of Delaware’s “entire fairness” standard.

    Typically, under Delaware’s “business judgment” rule, courts give deference to a corporate board’s decision-making unless there is evidence that directors had conflicts or acted in bad faith. If a plaintiff can overcome the business judgment rule’s presumption because the deal involved a controlling shareholder or because directors might have been conflicted, the board’s action is subject to an “entire fairness” analysis. That shifts the burden to the corporation to show that the deal involved both fair dealing and fair price.

    Plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Hanrahan argued Wednesday that Slights put too much emphasis on the price Tesla paid for SolarCity, and not enough on the deal process, which the plaintiffs contend was tainted by the failure to appoint an independent committee to negotiate the deal. He also argued that the judge’s analysis of the deal price was flawed, and that shareholders who voted to approve the deal, even though the vote was not required under Delaware law, were not properly informed.

    “Musk’s pervasive and undisclosed interference in the process require a legal conclusion of unfair dealing,” Hanrahan said.

    “The trial court misapplied entire fairness because it essentially wrote fair dealing out of the standard, holding that the linchpin of entire fairness is fair price,” Hanrahan added. “…Because the Court of Chancery made fair price the foundation of its opinion, if its fair price finding was wrong, the whole house of cards comes down.”

    Evan Chesler, an attorney for Musk, noted that the SolarCity acquisition had been a strategic objective for Tesla for 10 years before the deal was completed, belying the argument that it was a last-minute “bailout” to save an insolvent SolarCity from bankruptcy.

    Chesler also noted that, despite the judge’s concerns about Musk’s involvement, his ruling includes 10 pages discussing the strengths of the deal process.

    “Basically, the appellants seek reversal because they don’t agree with the way the trial court marshaled and weighed the evidence,” he said.

    Slights’ ruling last April followed a July 2021 court appearance in which a defiant Musk defended the deal and sparred with attorneys for the plaintiffs, calling one lawyer “a bad human being.” Musk chose to fight the lawsuit in court even after other directors on Tesla’s board reached a $60 million settlement, without admitting fault.

    The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling within 90 days.

    Source link

  • Minnesota youth vaping trial of e-cigarette maker Juul opens

    Minnesota youth vaping trial of e-cigarette maker Juul opens

    MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison will personally open his state’s case against Juul Labs on Tuesday, the first of thousands of cases against the e-cigarette maker to reach trial.

    Minnesota is seeking more than $100 million in damages, Ellison said, accusing San Francisco-based Juul of unlawfully targeting young people to get a new generation addicted to nicotine.

    Juul has faced thousands of lawsuits nationwide but most have settled, including 39 with other states and U.S. territories. Not Minnesota, which won a landmark $7.1 billion settlement with the tobacco industry in 1998. Minnesota added tobacco industry giant Altria, which formerly owned a minority stake in Juul, as a co-defendant in 2020.

    Altria completed its divestiture this month and says it effectively lost its $12.8 billion investment. But it didn’t abandon e-cigarettes: Just a few days later, Altria announced a $2.75 billion investment in Juul’s rival, the startup NJOY.

    “We will prove how Juul and Altria deceived and hooked a generation of Minnesota youth on their products, causing both great harm to the public and great expense to the State to remediate that harm,” Ellison said in a statement. He plans to hand the case over to attorneys for two outside law firms after delivering part of the opening statements.

    The jury trial before Hennepin County District Judge Laurie Miller is expected to last about three weeks. The trial over the lawsuit by the state and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota lasted nearly four months before big tobacco companies settled, just ahead of closing arguments.

    That case forced the release of millions of pages of previously secret industry documents. Part of the $7.1 billion supported anti-smoking programs, but Juul and Altria have noted in court that lawmakers spent much of it to fund state government.

    The 2019 lawsuit against Juul alleges consumer fraud, creating a public nuisance, unjust enrichment and a conspiracy with Altria that “preyed upon and enticed Minnesota’s children, through deceptive and illegal tactics, to buy a product that may sentence them to a lifetime of nicotine addiction and other destructive behaviors.”

    The state’s brief said Juul’s marketing was designed to ensnare children by attracting “cool kids” and using social media and celebrities to act as “pushers” of its addictive products. “Defendants claim their conduct was in the name of helping ‘aging smokers’ to stop smoking. That claim is false; it is a smoke screen,” it said.

    Juul said Minnesota’s insistence on going to trial has deprived its citizens of some of the nearly $440 million in settlement money other states are using to reduce tobacco use.

    “Effective interventions to address underage use of all tobacco products in Minnesota, including vapor, depends not on headline-driven trials, but on evidence-based policies, programs, and enforcement,” Juul’s statement said.

    Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group — which makes Marlboro cigarettes and other tobacco products and was formerly known as Phillip Morris Cos. — said it bought a 35% stake in Juul Labs in 2018 only after Juul assured Altria “and announced to the world” that it had made meaningful changes to its marketing.

    Juul Labs launched in 2015 on the popularity of flavors like mango, mint and creme brulee. Teenagers fueled its rise, and some became hooked on Juul’s high-nicotine pods. Amid a backlash, Juul dropped all U.S. advertising and discontinued most of its flavors in 2019, losing popularity with teens. Juul’s share of the now multibillion-dollar market has fallen to about 33% from a high of 75%.

    Juul is now appealing the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of its application to keep selling its vaping products as a smoking alternative for adults. Juul is still being sued by New York, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Alaska, Illinois, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow’s experts to testify in Utah ski crash case

    Gwyneth Paltrow’s experts to testify in Utah ski crash case

    PARK CITY, Utah — Gwyneth Paltrow’s attorneys are expected to call a series of experts and read depositions from her two teenage children on Tuesday in the first full day of the movie star ‘s trial that they have to call witnesses to make their case.

    Due to the trial’s judge-imposed eight-day clock, Paltrow’s defense team is expected to face tough time management decisions much like Sanderson’s did throughout last week as they attempt to juggle family members, ski instructors and experts in skiing and brain science.

    Paltrow is in court fighting a lawsuit from Terry Sanderson, the 76-year-old retired optometrist suing her for more than $300,000 over a 2016 ski collision that he says left him with broken ribs and years of lasting concussion symptoms. The actor and Goop founder-CEO has denied Sanderson’s claims that she crashed into him, countersuing for $1 and contending that he, in fact, skied into her.

    Her defense attorneys will likely use their witnesses to continue making their two central, yet separate, arguments to the eight-member jury: That Paltrow did not ski into Sanderson and that he and his lawyers have exagerrated the extent of his injuries. As they cross-examined witnesses testifying on Sanderson’s behalf last week, they connected the two claims by raising questions about Sanderson’s motivations, painting him as an “obsessed” man trying to exploit Paltrow’s wealth and celebrity.

    The first five days of the trial in Park City, the posh Utah ski town where the actor and retired optometrist crashed culminated with explosive testimony from Paltrow on Friday and Sanderson on Monday. After Paltrow said that a groaning Sanderson had veered into her from behind causing her to panic and wonder if she was being “violated,” Sanderson testified that Paltrow skied squarely into his back, sending him flying down the beginner run at Deer Valley resort.

    “All I saw was a whole lot of snow. And I didn’t see the sky, but I was flying,” Sanderson testified Monday morning as a blizzard blanketed Park City outside the courtroom and Paltrow sat feet away.

    In a show of how the trial’s costs likely dwarf the amount of money at stake both sides have contracted brigades of experts to testify on their client’s behalf. But those experts have come up against the eight-day clock Judge Kent Holmberg put on the trial. In a show of how the case’s costs likely dwarf the amount of money at stake, lawyers on both sides have appeared strained as they’ve weighed their witness list and asked the judge to repeatedly clarify the time constraints. Paltrow’s attorneys have complained about the schedule and repeatedly noted that their medical experts have flown in from out of state to testify on her behalf.

    Similarly, Sanderson’s attorneys last week called to the stand his personal doctor as well as experts in neurology, neuropsychology and radiology to testify on the extent of his injuries and post-concussion syndrome. They also questioned two of his three daughters, his ex-girlfriend and a ski buddy who claims to be the sole eyewitness to the collision.

    To appeal to the eight-member jury, Paltrow’s attorneys will confront decisions about how to balance the jargon-dense testimony of medical experts with that of family members and acquaintances. On Monday, her legal team called Deer Valley ski instructors and ski patrol to testify while high resolution animations of their recollections played on a projector between the witness stand and jury box.

    On Tuesday, Paltrow’s lead counsel Steve Owens said he planned to bring a skiing expert and neurological rehabilitation expert to the stand Tuesday as the trial over a 2016 ski collision in Utah enters its sixth day. Though he earlier said he planned to have them testify, Owens said excerpts from the depositions of Paltrow’s children, 18-year-old Apple and 16-year-old Moses, would also be read in court. He said he was unsure whether his witness list would include Paltrow’s husband, television producer Brad Falchuk as the judge indicated he intended to abide by the trial’s eight-day clock.

    Source link

  • New York to pay $5.5M to man exonerated in Sebold rape case

    New York to pay $5.5M to man exonerated in Sebold rape case

    SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A man who spent 16 years in prison after he was wrongfully convicted of raping writer Alice Sebold when she was a Syracuse University student has settled a lawsuit against New York state for $5.5 million, his lawyers said Monday.

    The settlement comes after Anthony Broadwater’s conviction for raping Sebold in 1981 was overturned in 2021. It was signed last week by lawyers for Broadwater and New York Attorney General Letitia James, David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys, said.

    Broadwater, 62, said in a statement relayed by Hammond, “I appreciate what Attorney General James has done, and I hope and pray that others in my situation can achieve the same measure of justice. We all suffer from destroyed lives.”

    “Obviously no amount of money can erase the injustices Mr. Broadwater suffered, but the settlement now officially acknowledges them,” Sebold said in a statement released through a spokesperson.

    Sebold was an 18-year-old first-year student at Syracuse when she was raped in a park near campus in May 1981. She described the attack and the ensuing prosecution in a memoir, “Lucky,” published in 1999.

    Sebold went on to win acclaim for her 2002 novel “The Lovely Bones,” which recounts the aftermath of a teenage girl’s rape and murder and was made into a movie starring Saoirse Ronan, Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci.

    Sebold, who is white, wrote in “Lucky” that she spotted a Black man in the street months after being raped and was sure that he was her attacker.

    “He was smiling as he approached. He recognized me. It was a stroll in the park to him; he had met an acquaintance on the street,” Sebold wrote. “ ‘Hey, girl,’ he said. ‘Don’t I know you from somewhere?’ ”

    Police arrested Broadwater, who was given the pseudonym Gregory Madison in “Lucky.” But Sebold failed to identify him in a police lineup, picking a different man as her attacker.

    Broadwater was nonetheless tried and convicted in 1982 after Sebold identified him as her rapist on the witness stand and an expert said microscopic hair analysis had tied Broadwater to the crime. That type of analysis has since been deemed junk science by the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Broadwater was released from prison in 1999. But he still had to register as a sex offender until his conviction was vacated in November 2021.

    William J. Fitzpatrick, the current district attorney for Onondaga County, the central New York county that includes Syracuse, joined the motion to vacate the conviction, noting that witness identifications, particularly across racial lines, are often unreliable.

    Broadwater’s settlement with the state must be approved by a judge before it becomes final.

    “Anthony Broadwater was convicted for a crime he never committed, and was incarcerated despite his innocence. While we cannot undo the wrongs from more than four decades ago, this settlement agreement is a critical step to deliver some semblance of justice to Mr. Broadwater,” James said in an emailed statement.

    Broadwater has also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Onondaga County, the city of Syracuse and an assistant district attorney and a police officer who were involved in prosecuting him. That case is pending.

    Sebold apologized to Broadwater in a 2021 statement released to The Associated Press and later posted on Medium.

    She wrote that “as a traumatized 18-year-old rape victim, I chose to put my faith in the American legal system. My goal in 1982 was justice — not to perpetuate injustice. And certainly not to forever, and irreparably, alter a young man’s life by the very crime that had altered mine.”

    Source link

  • Man suing Gwyneth Paltrow to testify in Utah ski crash trial

    Man suing Gwyneth Paltrow to testify in Utah ski crash trial

    The man suing Gwyneth Paltrow over a 2016 collision at an upscale Utah ski resort is expected to take the stand

    BySAM METZ Associated Press

    PARK CITY, Utah — The man suing Gwyneth Paltrow over a 2016 collision at one of the most upscale ski resorts in North America is expected to take the stand on Monday as the closely watched trial goes into its second week in Utah.

    Attorneys said Friday that retired optometrist Terry Sanderson, 76, would likely testify first on Monday, before his attorneys rest and hand the courtroom over to Paltrow’s defense team to make their case. Paltrow’s attorneys are expected to call her two children — Moses and Apple — and a ski instructor who was present the day of the collision.

    Sanderson is suing Paltrow for more than $300,000, claiming she skied recklessly into him from behind, breaking four of his ribs and head trauma that post-accident manifested as post-concussion syndrome. Paltrow has countersued for $1 and attorney fees, alleging that Sanderson was at fault and veered into her from behind.

    After Paltrow testified Friday that the collision began when Sanderson’s skis veered between her two legs, attorneys will likely question Sanderson on his recollections. Craig Ramon, the sole eyewitness of the crash, testified that he heard a loud scream and saw Paltrow hit Sanderson, causing his skis to fly up into the air before he plumetted down on the beginner run in a “spread eagle” position.

    Attorneys will also likely question Sanderson on the post-concussion symptoms that medical experts and his doctors testified about last week. And Paltrow’s attorneys are expected to ask about his references to Paltrow’s fame and whether the lawsuit amounts to an attempt to exploit it.

    Though the courtroom in Park City, Utah, was far from full throughout the first week of the trial, the case has emerged as the most closely watched celebrity trial since Johnny Depp took Amber Heard to court almost a year ago in Virginia. Clips of attorney outbursts and Paltrow’s Friday testimony have been cut and circulated widely on social media, while observers have debated the motivations on both sides to sustain the prolonged legal battle seven years after the collision.

    The amount of money at stake for both sides pales in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit, private security detail and expert witness-heavy trial.

    Source link

  • Doctor charged with murder in Florida lawyer disappearance

    Doctor charged with murder in Florida lawyer disappearance

    A Florida surgeon has been charged with murder in the disappearance of a Tampa area attorney

    ByTERRY SPENCER Associated Press

    A Tampa-area plastic surgeon has been charged with murder, accused of killing a lawyer missing since last week from a firm that represents former co-workers the doctor has been suing in a business dispute.

    Largo police arrested Dr. Tomasz Kosowski on a first-degree murder charge on Saturday in the disappearance of Steven Cozzi, who was last seen Tuesday at Blanchard Law, the firm where he worked.

    Police said Sunday that while Cozzi’s body has not been found, they have evidence that he was killed by Kosowski.

    They said Cozzi’s wallet, phone and keys were found in the law office along with a significant amount of blood in the bathroom. They say a suspicious person and car were seen at the office, leading them to Kosowski. A search of the doctor’s Tarpon Springs home found evidence that led to his arrest, police said. They did not elaborate.

    Kosowski, 44, who goes by “Dr. K,” was being held without bail on Sunday at the Pinellas County Jail. Court and jail records do not indicate if he has hired an attorney.

    Blanchard Law has been representing Kosowski’s former employer and co-workers in a lawsuit he filed against them four years ago and is ongoing. Jake Blanchard, the firm’s principal partner, did not immediately respond Sunday to an email and phone message seeking comment.

    In the lawsuit, Kosowski said he began working for Laufer Institute of Plastic Surgery in 2016, mostly doing breast reconstruction surgery. He said the woman Laufer Institute assigned to do his insurance billing didn’t file claims and lied to his patients, costing him tens of thousands of dollars and resulting in negative reviews of him to be posted online.

    “Dr. K’s promising young career has essentially been obliterated” by the woman’s actions, Kosowski lawsuit says. “Through no fault of his own, his career was put directly in jeopardy and his reputation has been deeply tarnished.”

    He left Laufer Institute in 2018 and had set up his own practice. Laufer Institute did not immediately return a call seeking comment Sunday.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow takes the stand in Utah ski collision trial

    Gwyneth Paltrow takes the stand in Utah ski collision trial

    PARK CITY, Utah — Gwyneth Paltrow takes the stand to testify about a 2016 ski collision at a Utah ski resort where a man is suing her, saying he’s since suffered from broken ribs and brain damage. Paltrow says that the 76-year-old Utah man is the culprit for the collision at Deer Valley Resort in Park City, and her legal team has raised questions about whether the lawsuit is motivated by an attempt to exploit her wealth and celebrity. After a judge threw out an earlier, $3.1 million dollar lawsuit, the man is now seeking at least $300,000. In a counterclaim, Paltrow is seeking a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    Gwyneth Paltrow took the stand on Friday to testify in a trial over a 2016 ski collision at a Utah ski resort, where a man claims that the movie star’s recklessness on the slope caused broken ribs, brain damage and lasting physical injuries.

    Paltrow and Terry Sanderson, the retired optometrist suing her, are both expected to answer questions about the crash while their attorneys jostle to convince the 8-member jury which skier was positioned downhill and had the right of way. The actor-turned-lifestyle influencer has said that Sanderson was responsible for the crash.

    Paltrow’s heavily anticipated testimony comes halfway into the trial and on the final afternoon Sanderson’s attorneys could compel her to testify. Throughout the week in Utah, her attorneys have asked for special restrictions, including limiting photography both in the courtroom and in the public parking lot outside — where a rope cordons off Paltrow’s entrance and exit paths.

    Her testimony could last longer than an hour and is expected to mirror what she said in a previous deposition about how she “froze” when the crash happened.

    “We came crashing down together. This man was behind me on the mountain,” she said in November 2020. “My knee – and our skis — were still sort of tangled up. Our bodies were almost spooning and I moved away quickly. And my knee splayed open, and I was in shock.”

    Next week, Paltrow’s team is expected to call to the stand medical experts, ski instructors and her two children, Moses and Apple.

    The trial has touched on themes ranging from skier’s etiquette to the power — and burden — of celebrity.

    After the collision, Sanderson sent his daughters an email with the subject line: “I’m famous … At what cost?” One of the daughters wrote back: “I also can’t believe this is all on GoPro.”

    GoPro cameras are commonly worn by outdoor athletes and patrons of upscale ski resorts to capture action sports.

    Sanderson’s daughter, Shae Herath, testified Friday that she didn’t know whether GoPro footage existed, despite her email. She said her father told her over the phone that he assumed there must be GoPro footage of the collision — from someone on the crowded run with a camera affixed to their helmet.

    “There was this big, blood curdling scream. Someone would’ve looked,” Herath said, recalling the conversation with her father about how Paltrow shrieked during their collision.

    While Sanderson’s attorneys have focused on their client’s deteriorating health, Paltrow’s legal team has intrigued the jury with recurring questions about the mysterious, missing GoPro footage. No video footage has since been located or entered as evidence.

    The trial thus far has shone a spotlight on Park City, Utah — the posh ski town known for rolling out a red carpet for celebrities each January during the Sundance Film Festival — and skiers-only Deer Valley Resort, where Paltrow and Sanderson collided. The resort is among the most upscale in North America, known for sunny slopes, après-ski champagne yurts and luxury lodges.

    The proceedings have delved deep into the 76-year-old Sanderson’s medical history and personality changes, with attorneys questioning whether his deteriorating health and estranged relationships stemmed from the collision or natural process of aging.

    After a judge threw out Sanderson’s earlier $3.1 million lawsuit, Sanderson then claimed damages of “more than $300,000.” Paltrow has countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees. The amount of money at stake for both sides pales in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit, private security detail and expert witness-heavy trial.

    Lawyers for Paltrow spent much of Thursday raising questions about Sanderson’s mentions of their client’s wealth and celebrity as well as what they called his “obsession” with the lawsuit.

    The first three days of the trial featured testimony from medical experts, Sanderson’s personal doctor, a ski companion and his daughter, who said she noticed post-concussion symptoms less than a year after the accident.

    Her lawyers Thursday asked Sanderson’s daughter whether her father thought it was “cool” to collide with a celebrity like Paltrow, the Oscar-winning star of “Shakespeare in Love” and founder-CEO of lifestyle brand, Goop.

    Paltrow’s attorneys have cast doubt on Sanderson’s medical experts and suggested that the lawsuit could be an attempt to exploit her fame and celebrity.

    __

    Associated Press writer Anna Furman contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

    Source link

  • Gwyneth Paltrow expected to testify in ski collision trial

    Gwyneth Paltrow expected to testify in ski collision trial

    PARK CITY, Utah — Gwyneth Paltrow is expected to testify Friday in a trial over a 2016 ski collision at a Utah ski resort, where a man claims that the movie star’s recklessness on the slope caused broken ribs, brain damage and lasting physical injuries.

    Paltrow and Terry Sanderson, the retired optometrist suing her, are both expected to answer questions about the crash while their attorneys jostle to convince the 10-member jury which skier was positioned downhill and had the right of way. The actor-turned-lifestyle influencer has said that Sanderson was responsible for the crash.

    In a trial that Judge Kent Holmberg and attorneys for both parties have agreed will last eight days, each side has four days to call their own witnesses. Friday marks the final day that Sanderson’s attorneys can compel Paltrow to testify.

    She will likely testify in the afternoon, and her testimony is expected to mirror what she said in previous depositions about how she “froze” when the crash happened.

    “We came crashing down together. This man was behind me on the mountain,” she said in November 2020. “My knee – and our skis — were still sort of tangled up. Our bodies were almost spooning and I moved away quickly. And my knee splayed open, and I was in shock.”

    Next week, Paltrow’s team is expected to call to the stand medical experts, ski instructors and her two children, Moses and Apple.

    The trial has touched on themes ranging from skier’s etiquette to the power — and burden — of celebrity.

    After the collision, Sanderson sent his daughters an email with the subject line: “I’m famous … At what cost?” One of the daughters wrote back: “I also can’t believe this is all on GoPro.”

    GoPro cameras are commonly worn by outdoor athletes and patrons of upscale ski resorts to capture action sports.

    Sanderson’s daughter, Shae Herath, testified Friday that she didn’t know whether GoPro footage existed, despite her email. She said her father told her over the phone that he assumed there must be GoPro footage of the collision — from someone on the crowded run with a camera affixed to their helmet.

    “There was this big, blood curdling scream. Someone would’ve looked,” Herath said, recalling the conversation with her father about how Paltrow shrieked during their collision.

    While Sanderson’s attorneys have focused on their client’s deteriorating health, Paltrow’s legal team has intrigued the jury with recurring questions about the mysterious, missing GoPro footage. No video footage has since been located or entered as evidence.

    The trial thus far has shone a spotlight on Park City, Utah — the posh ski town known for rolling out a red carpet for celebrities each January during the Sundance Film Festival — and Deer Valley Resort, where Paltrow and Sanderson collided. The resort is among the most upscale in North America, known for sunny slopes, après-ski champagne yurts and luxury lodges.

    The proceedings have delved deep into the 76-year-old Sanderson’s medical history and personality changes, with attorneys questioning whether his deteriorating health and estranged relationships stemmed from the collision or natural process of aging.

    Sanderson is seeking “more than $300,000” in damages, while Paltrow has countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees. The amount of money at stake for both sides pales in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit, private security detail and expert witness-heavy trial.

    Lawyers for Paltrow spent much of Thursday raising questions about Sanderson’s mentions of their client’s wealth and celebrity as well as what they called his “obsession” with the lawsuit.

    The first three days of the trial featured testimony from medical experts, Sanderson’s personal doctor, a ski companion and his daughter, who said she noticed post-concussion symptoms less than a year after the accident.

    Her lawyers Thursday asked Sanderson’s daughter whether her father thought it was “cool” to collide with a celebrity like Paltrow, the Oscar-winning star of “Shakespeare in Love” and founder-CEO of lifestyle brand, Goop.

    Paltrow’s attorneys have cast doubt on Sanderson’s medical experts and suggested that the lawsuit could be an attempt to exploit her fame and celebrity.

    __

    Associated Press writer Anna Furman contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

    Source link

  • Fox, Dominion argue over legal standards to prove defamation

    Fox, Dominion argue over legal standards to prove defamation

    WILMINGTON, Del. — Lawyers for Fox News and a voting machine company tangled Wednesday over the high bar to prove defamation in a $1.6 billion lawsuit that has embarrassed the conservative network over its airing of false claims related to the 2020 presidential election.

    The argument is at the heart of each side’s attempt to persuade a Delaware judge that he should grant summary judgment in its favor and avoid a jury trial scheduled to start next month that would focus in part on media protections afforded in a nearly six-decade-old libel standard.

    Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems claims that Fox program hosts, with the knowledge of executives for both Fox News and parent company Fox Corp., repeatedly allowed allies of former President Donald Trump to falsely claim that the machines and the software the company used were responsible for Trump’s election loss. Documents released during the lawsuit have shown that top Fox executives and personalities didn’t believe the claims but aired them anyway.

    Fox contends that it can’t be held liable for defamation for simply reporting on newsworthy allegations — a sitting president’s claim that the election was being stolen from him.

    Fox attorney Erin Murphy argued Wednesday that the parent company cannot be held “vicariously liable” simply because Fox Corp. executives, including chairman Rupert Murdoch, might have had knowledge of who was appearing on Fox shows and sometimes communicated with Fox News officials.

    “Fox Corp. doesn’t belong in the case at all,” she said.

    Murphy also argued that Dominion cannot demonstrate that anyone at Fox Corp. acted with actual malice without first proving that that person directly participated in any of 17 programs that aired between Nov. 8, 2020, and Jan. 26, 2021, in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made. In addition to the programs, Dominion is claiming that three tweets from former Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs were defamatory.

    Dobbs repeatedly offered a platform for Trump lawyer Sidney Powell to make unproven allegations about Dominion. Murphy argued that Dobbs often went “out of his way” to acknowledge evidence on the other side and explained why he had doubts. He also offered several invitations for Dominion representatives to appear on his show but was always turned down, Murphy said.

    “I don’t think that’s consistent with actual malice,” she said.

    Her comments came one day after Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said Fox appeared to have “a Dobbs problem.”

    Stephen Shackelford Jr., an attorney for Dominion, said Fox can’t escape the fact that Powell, during a Nov. 13, 2020, Dobbs program, made a clearly false statement that Dominion was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for late president Hugo Chavez.

    “Fox viewers don’t expect Dobbs to bring liars on to his show to lie to them,” Shackelford said.

    “Sidney Powell was hunting for somebody to make her relevant, and Fox made her relevant,” he added.

    The two-day summary judgment hearing was perhaps the most significant court action to date in a lawsuit that already has revealed Fox personalities’ private disdain for Trump and illustrated how political pressures can inform its coverage. The case also holds the potential for redefining libel law in the U.S.

    Dominion attorneys say Fox employees allowed guests to falsely claim that the company had rigged the election, flipped large numbers of votes from Trump to Joe Biden through a secret algorithm, was owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for Chavez, and offered bribes or kickbacks to government officials who used its machines.

    Fox attorneys argue that the key issue is not whether the allegations were true or false, but whether it was accurately reporting the allegations. They also argue that there is a critical distinction between a factual statement and an opinion.

    “Despite the noise and confusion that Dominion has generated by presenting cherry-picked quotes without context, this case is ultimately about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute need to cover the news,” Fox News said in a prepared statement Wednesday.

    Dominion said in a statement that it is “a strong believer in the First Amendment and its protections.”

    “As long-settled law makes clear, the First Amendment does not shield broadcasters that knowingly or recklessly spread lies,” the statement added.

    Source link

  • Residents sue Louisiana parish to halt polluting plants

    Residents sue Louisiana parish to halt polluting plants

    Residents of a Louisiana parish located in the heart of a cluster of polluting petrochemical factories filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday raising allegations of civil rights, environmental justice and religious liberty violations.

    The lawsuit names St. James Parish as the defendant and says the parish council approved the construction of several factories in two Black districts of the parish that emit harmful amounts of toxic chemicals. It said the pollution negatively affected the health of the area’s Black residents.

    Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are calling for a moratorium on petrochemical plants like one being built by Formosa Plastics that was approved by the council in 2019. The Associated Press reached out to the council for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

    For several years, Black residents of St. James Parish have lobbied the parish council and state government to do something about petrochemical plants emitting toxic chemicals into the air they breathe. But they’ve been ignored, according to Shamyra Lavigne of Rise St. James, a local climate justice organization.

    “We stand here today to say we will not be ignored. You will not sacrifice our lives. And we will not take any more industry in the fourth or fifth district of St. James. Enough is enough,” Lavigne said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana.

    Lavigne was one of St. James residents at the briefing who shared about their frustration from living near polluting factories and how they believe the parish council is responsible for creating environmental injustice.

    “Every one of us has been touched by the parish’s repeated decisions to pack Black neighborhoods with toxic chemical plants,” said Barbara Washington, co-founder of the environmental justice organization Inclusive Louisiana. “Every one of us has had stories about our own health and the health of our relatives and friends, who have had …. cancer and COPD.”

    The plaintiffs live along Cancer Alley, an 85-mile (135-kilometer) corridor that runs along the Mississippi River between New Orleans to Baton Rouge and is filled with industrial plants that emit toxic chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens. In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency said it has evidence that Black residents in the region have an increased risk of cancer from at least one nearby plant, which they sued last month in a separate case.

    The lawsuit filed Tuesday also claims that some of the factories were built on and destroyed the burial grounds of deceased slaves, which made it impossible for their descendants visit their dead ancestors. Some of these descendants, plaintiffs claim, are among those affected by the toxic chemical releases.

    “For some of us, St. James Parish is …. the home of our ancestors, who were slaves, who worked the land for generations and never got paid,” said Gail LeBoeuf, another co-founder of Inclusive Louisiana. LeBoeuf has liver cancer, which she acknowledged can’t be traced back to petrochemical plant pollution with certainty, but said it can’t be ruled out either.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they are seeking remedies for the environmental injustices sustained by the residents, which they seek to halt by invalidating permits for factories underway and land use regulations that allow for the placement of factories in black districts. They are also seeking independent environmental monitoring of air, water and soil. The case will be assigned and the parish will be served, then will have an opportunity to respond in the coming weeks.

    ___

    Follow Drew Costley on Twitter: @drewcostley.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Source link

  • Residents sue Louisiana parish to halt polluting plants

    Residents sue Louisiana parish to halt polluting plants

    Residents of a Louisiana parish located in the heart of a cluster of polluting petrochemical factories filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday raising allegations of civil rights, environmental justice and religious liberty violations.

    The lawsuit names St. James Parish as the defendant and says the parish council approved the construction of several factories in two Black districts of the parish that emit harmful amounts of toxic chemicals. It said the pollution negatively affected the health of the area’s Black residents.

    Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are calling for a moratorium on petrochemical plants like one being built by Formosa Plastics that was approved by the council in 2019. The Associated Press reached out to the council for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

    For several years, Black residents of St. James Parish have lobbied the parish council and state government to do something about petrochemical plants emitting toxic chemicals into the air they breathe. But they’ve been ignored, according to Shamyra Lavigne of Rise St. James, a local climate justice organization.

    “We stand here today to say we will not be ignored. You will not sacrifice our lives. And we will not take any more industry in the fourth or fifth district of St. James. Enough is enough,” Lavigne said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana.

    Lavigne was one of St. James residents at the briefing who shared about their frustration from living near polluting factories and how they believe the parish council is responsible for creating environmental injustice.

    “Every one of us has been touched by the parish’s repeated decisions to pack Black neighborhoods with toxic chemical plants,” said Barbara Washington, co-founder of the environmental justice organization Inclusive Louisiana. “Every one of us has had stories about our own health and the health of our relatives and friends, who have had …. cancer and COPD.”

    The plaintiffs live along Cancer Alley, an 85-mile (135-kilometer) corridor that runs along the Mississippi River between New Orleans to Baton Rouge and is filled with industrial plants that emit toxic chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens. In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency said it has evidence that Black residents in the region have an increased risk of cancer from at least one nearby plant, which they sued last month in a separate case.

    The lawsuit filed Tuesday also claims that some of the factories were built on and destroyed the burial grounds of deceased slaves, which made it impossible for their descendants visit their dead ancestors. Some of these descendants, plaintiffs claim, are among those affected by the toxic chemical releases.

    “For some of us, St. James Parish is …. the home of our ancestors, who were slaves, who worked the land for generations and never got paid,” said Gail LeBoeuf, another co-founder of Inclusive Louisiana. LeBoeuf has liver cancer, which she acknowledged can’t be traced back to petrochemical plant pollution with certainty, but said it can’t be ruled out either.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they are seeking remedies for the environmental injustices sustained by the residents, which they seek to halt by invalidating permits for factories underway and land use regulations that allow for the placement of factories in black districts. They are also seeking independent environmental monitoring of air, water and soil. The case will be assigned and the parish will be served, then will have an opportunity to respond in the coming weeks.

    ___

    Follow Drew Costley on Twitter: @drewcostley.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Source link

  • Producer claims Fox coerced testimony in Dominion libel case

    Producer claims Fox coerced testimony in Dominion libel case

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A Fox News producer has filed a lawsuit claiming the network pressured her to give misleading testimony in a separate lawsuit that alleges Fox slandered a voting machine company by amplifying baseless allegations of fraud following the 2020 presidential election.

    The lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, who said she is on a forced administrative leave, alleges that the network also discriminated against her based on her gender and Jewish faith. It came as a hearing began Tuesday in Delaware Superior Court in the larger legal battle between Fox and Dominion Voting Systems, which seeks $1.6 billion from the network in its defamation claim.

    The Dominion lawsuit provides the legal backdrop for Grossberg’s claim and already has embarrassed the network by revealing its personalities’ private disdain for former President Donald Trump and illustrating how political pressures can inform its coverage. The case also holds the potential for redefining libel law in the U.S.

    Denver-based Dominion, which sells electronic voting hardware and software, contends that some Fox News employees deliberately amplified false claims by Trump allies that Dominion machines had changed votes in the 2020 election and that Fox provided a platform for guests to make false and defamatory statements about the company.

    Attorneys for Fox argue that the network was obligated to report on arguably one of the most newsworthy stories of the time — that a sitting president was claiming he had been cheated out of reelection. Records released previously in the case show the Fox personalities and executives doubted the claims, but gave repeated air time to those making them.

    Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis heard arguments Tuesday on requests by both sides to grant summary judgment in their favor. To prevail, Dominion must convince Davis that Fox employees acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, and that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.

    Davis told lawyers for both sides he hasn’t made up his mind.

    “I need to be educated,” the judge said as the hearing began. “I haven’t pre-decided this.”

    If Davis allows the case to go forward, the trial is scheduled to start April 17.

    Dominion attorney Rodney Smolla began Tuesday’s arguments by rejecting Fox’s claim that it should not be held liable for reporting what Trump supporters were saying.

    “If you repeat or publish a defamatory statement from someone else, you adopt it as your own,” he said.

    He added that Fox’s reputation gave statements being made by Trump allies Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell “gravitas.” Smolla said Fox employees did not engage in neutral reporting, but instead “espoused and endorsed” false statements made by program guests.

    “There was a deliberate decision by those responsible for the broadcasts … to let the story be out there,” Smolla said, adding that Fox News was desperate to win back viewers infuriated that the network had correctly called Arizona, a key battleground state, on election night for Joe Biden.

    “What they did to get viewers back was start this new narrative that the election had been stolen and that Dominion was the thief,” he said.

    Dominion attorneys argued that Fox employees allowed guests to falsely claim that the company had rigged the election, flipped large numbers of votes to Biden through a secret algorithm, was owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for Hugo Chavez, and bribed government officials.

    They pointed to deposition testimony and internal communications — including fact checks from a Fox “brain room,” indicating that, within days of the election, many Fox employees harbored serious doubts about those claims: “There’s no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election,” according to one fact check from Nov. 13, 2020.

    Attorneys for Fox were to present their arguments later in the day.

    Meanwhile, in her lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in New York City, Grossberg contends that Fox attorneys advised her against hiring a personal attorney for the case and implied that she should not be “too candid” in her depositions.

    “Ms. Grossberg convinced herself that discretion would be the better part of valor in this instance, and decided she would follow the directions of the attorneys who claimed they represented her best interests in connection with her deposition and kept her truth to herself,” Grossberg’s lawsuit contends.

    During her deposition, when asked by a Dominion attorney whether it was important to correct a falsehood that a guest said on one of her shows, Grossberg replied: “No.” In her lawsuit, she says she gave that answer because she thought that was what Fox wanted her to say.

    Her lawsuit said she was a producer for the Tucker Carlson show at the time of her leave and had previously worked with another prominent network personality, Maria Bartiromo.

    Fox countered with its own lawsuit, seeking to bar Grossberg from sharing confidential discussions with company lawyers.

    “Her allegations in connection with the Dominion case are baseless and we will vigorously defend Fox against all of her claims,” the network said in a statement.

    Grossberg also alleges that she already was struggling to advance her career at the network in the face of sexism.

    Her lawsuit alleges that she received a poor performance review earlier this year after complaining about repeated sexual discrimination at Fox, especially on Carlson’s show, to which she had recently been transferred. She claims that the show’s offices were decorated with a poster of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a revealing bathing suit and that the show’s staffers engaged in crude sexist banter about female politicians.

    ___

    Riccardi reported from Denver.

    Source link