Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
2023 WL 2500612 (Del.Super.) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
Superior Court of Delaware.
New Castle County
US DOMINION, INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.,
and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, Defendant;
US Dominion, Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.,
and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
Fox Corporation, Defendant.
Nos. N21C-03-257 EMD, N21C-11-082 EMD.
February 27, 2023.
Jury Trial Demanded
Dominion's Combined Opposition to Fox News Network, LLC's
and Fox Corporation's Rule 56 Motions for Summary Judgment
Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089), Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165), Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801, (302) 777-0300, bfarnan@farnanlaw.com, mfarnan@farnanlaw.com, Rodney Smolla (Bar No. 6327), 164
Chelsea Street, South Royalton, Vermont 05068, (864) 373-3882, rodsmolla@gmail.com, Of Counsel: Thomas A. Clare,
P.C., Megan L. Meier, Dustin A. Pusch, Daniel P. Watkins, Clare Locke LLP, 10 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia
22314, (202) 628-7400, tom@clarelocke.com, megan@clarelocke.com, dustin@clarelocke.com, daniel@clarelocke.com,
Justin A. Nelson, Jonathan J. Ross, Katie Sammons, Laranda Walker, Elizabeth Hadaway, Florence Chen, Kate Farley,
Susman Godfrey LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, #5100, Houston, Texas 77002, (713) 651-9366, jnelson@susmangodfrey.com,
jross@susmangodfrey.com, ksammons@susmangodfrey.com, lwalker@susmangodfrey.com, ehadaway@susmangodfrey.com,
fchen@susmangodfrey.com, kfarley@susmangodfrey.com, Stephen Shackelford, Jr., Mark-Hatch-Miller, Zach Savage,
Christina M. Dieckmann, Eve Levin, Susman Godfrey LLP, 1301 6th Avenue, New York, New York 10019,
(212) 336-8330, sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com, mhatch-miller@susmangodfrey.com, zsavage@susmangodfrey.com,
cdieckmann@susmangodfrey.com, Davida Brook, Jordan Rux, Susman Godfrey LLP, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400,
Los Angeles, California 90067, (310) 789-3100, dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, jrux@susmangodfrey.com, Edgar Sargent,
Katherine Peaslee, Susman Godfrey LlP, 401 Union Street, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 516-3880,
esargent@susmangodfrey.com, kpeaslee@susmangodfrey.com, for plaintiffs.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS .............................................................................................. 8
A. The Chain of Command for Fox Editorial Decisions Goes to the Top--Including Rupert and 8
Lachlan Murdoch ......................................................................................................................................
B. November 3 Through 7: The Election And Its Immediate Aftermath ................................................ 12
C. After the Call: Fox Executives Comprehend the Magnitude of Viewer Backlash--and Change 17
Strategies ...................................................................................................................................................
D. November 10-12: Concern About Fox's Election Coverage and Fallout Rises to the Board Level .... 22
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
E. November 11-18: Fox Executives Continue To Be Preoccupied With Viewer Backlash And 24
Competition ..............................................................................................................................................
F. November 19-December 1: Fox Gets Powell Disavowed After Her Fight With Carlson--But Keeps 28
Bringing Her On Air ................................................................................................................................
G. December 6-January 6: Fox Executives Continue To Debate How To Cover The Conspiracy 31
Allegations--Right Up To January 6 ........................................................................................................
H. January 6 and After: Fox Executives Try to Move Past Trump--But Find It Difficult ....................... 33
RESPONSE TO FNN's “UNDISPUTED” FACTS ................................................................................. 37
A. Fox's Pre-Election Background “Facts” Are Irrelevant ...................................................................... 38
B. Fox's “Blame Trump” Approach Is Legally Irrelevant and Factually Inaccurate ............................... 41
C. Fox's Post-Litigation Argument Ignores Contemporaneous Documents And Mischaracterizes Its 47
Coverage ...................................................................................................................................................
D. Fox Ignores Dominion's Massive Effort to Convince Fox to Stop Airing the Lies ............................ 51
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 52
I. The Accused Statements Are Actionable ............................................................................................. 52
A. Fox's Repackaged “Neutral Reportage” Argument Fails .................................................................... 52
1. The Neutral Reportage Privilege Does Not Apply As A Matter of Law ............................................. 52
2. Fox Could Not Invoke the Neutral Reportage Defense On These Facts Regardless ........................... 53
3. The Court Should Reject Fox's Attempt to Create a New Privilege Far Broader Than Neutral 57
Reportage ..................................................................................................................................................
B. Fox's Fair Report Defense Is Meritless ............................................................................................... 71
1. Fox Has Largely Waived the Defense By Asserting It Solely In Its Appendix ................................... 71
2. Fox's Statements Were Not “Of” a Qualified Proceeding ................................................................... 72
3. Fox's Statements Were Not Fair and True Reports of Those Proceedings .......................................... 76
4. Fox's Waived Arguments Suffer From the Same Common Defects .................................................... 77
C. Fox's “Opinion” Argument Misses the Point ...................................................................................... 78
D. The Challenged Statements Are Actionable Defamation ................................................................... 80
1. November 8, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures, ¶179(a) ......................................... 86
2. November 12, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(b) ......................................................... 90
3. November 13, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(c) ......................................................... 94
4. November 14, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶179(d) ............................................................................. 98
5. November 14, 2020 - Jeanine Pirro, Justice with Judge Jeanine, ¶179(e) .......................................... 99
6. November 15, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Fox and Friends, ¶ 179(f) .................................................... 103
7. November 15, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures, ¶179(g) ....................................... 104
8. November 16, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(h) ........................................................ 107
9. November 18, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(i) ......................................................... 112
10. November 19, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(j) ........................................................ 113
11. November 21, 2020 - Jeanine Pirro, Justice with Judge Jeanine, ¶179(k) ........................................ 114
12. November 24, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(1) ....................................................... 116
13. November 30, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(m) ...................................................... 119
14. November 30, 2020 - Sean Hannity, Hannity, ¶179(n) ..................................................................... 121
15. December 4, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶ 179(o) ........................................................ 123
16. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶1179(p) .......................................................................... 125
17. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(q) ....................................................... 125
18. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶179(r) ............................................................................ 128
19. December 12, 2020 - Fox and Friends, ¶179(s) ................................................................................ 129
20. January 26, 2021 - Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson Tonight, ¶179(t) ............................................... 130
II. Executives at Both Fox News and Fox Corporation Participated in the Publication of the 131
Defamatory Broadcasts .............................................................................................................................
A. Responsibility Extends to Any Person In the Chain of Command Who Participates in the 131
Publication of the Defamatory Statements, Including By Knowingly Allowing Them to Occur ............
B. Individuals at Both Fox News and Fox Corporation Throughout the Chain of Command Knew 137
What Was Happening And Let The Defamatory Broadcasts Proceed .....................................................
1. Fox News Hosts and Producers Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ................................................ 141
2. Fox News Executives Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ............................................................... 142
3. Fox Corporation Executives Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ..................................................... 143
III. Fox News and Fox Corporation Acted with Actual Malice .............................................................. 157
A. Fox Corporation Acted with Actual Malice ....................................................................................... 159
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
1. Fox Corporation Individuals in the Chain of Command Knew or Recklessly Disregarded the Truth .. 159
2. Circumstantial Evidence Confirms Fox Corporation's Actual Malice ................................................. 164
B. Fox News Acted with Actual Malice ................................................................................................. 168
C. Fox News Fails to Raise a Question of Fact Disputing that Its Hosts Acted with Actual Malice ....... 168
D. Fox Cannot Escape its Actual Malice by Denying Credible Evidence Regarding the 2020 172
Presidential Election .................................................................................................................................
E. Additional Circumstantial Evidence Demonstrates FNN's Actual Malice .......................................... 178
IV. Dominion is Entitled to Substantial Economic Damages For Its Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the 181
Destruction of its Brand and Business .....................................................................................................
V. Fox News and Fox Corporation Are Subject to Punitive Damages .................................................... 189
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 194
Table of Authorities
Cases
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................ 158
Bandido's, Inc. v. Journal Gazette Co., Inc., 575 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. 135
App. 1991) ...........................................................................................
Baumann v. Newspaper Enterprises, Inc., 270 A.D. 825 (N.Y. App. 74
Div. 1946) ............................................................................................
Blankenship v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00236, 2022 79, 133, 134
WL 321023 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 2, 2022) ...............................................
Boulos v. Newman, 302 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2003) . 67
Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) ............................ passim
Brown v. New York, 31 N.Y.3d 514 (2018) .......................................... 188
Bufalino v. Associated Press, 692 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1982) .................. 62
Butler v. Gazette Co., 119 A.D. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1907) .. 187
Cabello-Rodon v. Dow Jones & Co., No. 16-CV-3346 (KBF), 2017 178
WL 3531551 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2017) ..............................................
Campo Lindo for Dogs, Inc. v. New York Post Corp., 65 A.D.2d 650 53
(N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1978) ...........................................................
Ceberus Int'l., Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002) 187
Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 181, 182, 190
2000) ....................................................................................................
Cholowsky v. Civiletti, 69 A.D.3d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) ............. 73
Cianci v. New Times Pub. Co., 639 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1980) (Friendly, passim
J.) ..........................................................................................................
Clifford v. Trump, 339 F. Supp. 3d 915 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .................... 80
Croce v. N.Y. Times Co., 930 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2019) ........................ 57, 63, 64, 81
Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) .................................... 191
Den Norske Ameriekalinje Actiesselskabet v. Sun Printing & Publ'g 184
Ass'n, 226 N.Y. 1 (1919) .....................................................................
Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (S.D. 103, 132
Fla. 2021) .............................................................................................
Dickey v. CBS Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 (3d Cir. 1978) ............................... 53
Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) .............. 70
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec y of Pennsylvania, 830 44
Fed.Appx. 377 (3d Cir. 2020) .............................................................
Duci v. Daily Gazette Co., 102 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 69
1984) ....................................................................................................
Dun & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 183
(1985) ...................................................................................................
Easton v. Pub. Citizens, Inc., No. 91 CIV. 1639 (JSM), 1991 WL 73
280688 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 1991) .......................................................
Edwards v. Nat'l Audubon Soc., Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977) ...... passim
Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 2003 WL 21003437 (Del. Ch. Apr. 28, 72, 85
2003) ....................................................................................................
Fine v. ESPN, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 3d 209 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) .................... 73, 76
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
Garcia v. O'Keefe, 5 Misc. 3d 1006, 2004 WL 2375284 (N.Y. Sup. 191
Ct. Sept. 9, 2004) ................................................................................
Geary v. Goldstein, No. 91 CIV. 6222 (KMW), 1996 WL 447776 85
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 199 6) .....................................................................
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) ............................... 58, 185
Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 414 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1969) .......................... 69
Grace v. eBay Inc., 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192 (Ct. App.), review granted 136
and opinion superseded on other grounds, 99 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2004) ........
Green v. CBS Inc., 286 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................. 69, 70
Greenlee v. Imperial Homes Corp., 1994 WL 465556 (Del. Super. Ct. 190
July 19, 1994) ......................................................................................
Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163 (N.Y. 1993) ....................... 86, 112
GS Plasticos Limitada v. Bureau Veritas, 84 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. 67
Div. 2011) ............................................................................................
Harte-Hanks Commc'ns v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) .......... 166, 180
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) ............................................... 158
Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow, 8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) ........ 80
Hinerman v. Daily Gazette Co., Inc., 423 S.E.2d 560 (W. Va. 1992) ... 191
Hogan v. Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1982) 52, 53, 62, 69
...............................................................................................................
Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity v. N. Y. Times 76
Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 1979) ............................................................
Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, 720 F.2d 631 (11*th Cir. 1983) ....................... 135
Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235 (1991) ...................... 68
Israel Travel Advisory Serv., Inc. v. Israel Identity Tours, Inc., 61 184
F.3d 1250 (7th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................
Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1985) ................... 70
Karedes v. Ackerly Group, Inc., 423 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2005) .............. 76
Karp v. Hill & Knowlton, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ...... 77
Keogh v. N.Y. Herald Trib., Inc., 274 N.Y.S.2d 302 (Sup. Ct. 1966) ... 72
Kerwick v. Orange Cnty. Publications Div. of Ottaway Newspapers, 82
Inc., 420 N.E.2d 970 (N.Y.1981) .........................................................
Khalil v. Fox Corp., 2022 WL 4467622 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2022) ...... 54, 57
King v. Whitmer, 556 F.Supp.3d 680 (E.D. Mich. 2021) ..................... 45, 180
Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 234 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) ..... 53
Kostolecki v. Buffalo Courier Exp. Co. Inc., 163 A.D.2d 856 (App. 190, 193
Div. 1990) ............................................................................................
KTRK Television v. Felder, 950 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997) ...... 70
Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, N.A., 494 N.E.2d 70 (N.Y. 1986) ....... 191, 192
Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) ............. 179
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC 489 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 80
2020) ....................................................................................................
McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........ 177
Metro. Opera Ass'n. v. Local 100, 2005 WL 1712241 (S.D.N.Y. July 183, 184
19, 2005) ..............................................................................................
Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) .............. 177, 178
Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) .................................... passim
Morris v. Flaig, 511 F.Supp.2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .......................... 191
Morsette v. “The Final Call”, 764 N.Y.S.2d 416 (App. Div. 2003) ..... 190
Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. JourAzur S.A., 759 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 80
1985) ....................................................................................................
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................... 134
Norton v. Glenn, 860 A.2d 48 (Pa. 2004) ............................................ 53
Nunes v. Lizza, 12 F.4th 890 (8th Cir. 2021) ....................................... 167
Orr v. Lynch, 60 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1978) ............. 53, 69, 126
Page v. Oath, 270 A.3d 833 (Del. 2022) ............................................. passim
Palmer v. Matthews, 162 N.Y. 100 (1900) .......................................... 187
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
Palmer v. New York News Publishing Co., 31 A.D. 210 (N.Y. App. 187, 188
Div. 1st Dep't 1898) .............................................................................
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church, 537 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. App. 135
1975) ....................................................................................................
Present v. Avon Prod., Inc., 253 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) ... 190
Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Commc'ns, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 34 (N.Y. 190
1993) ....................................................................................................
Robertson v. Doe, No. 05-cv-7046, 2010 WL 11527317 (S.D.N.Y. 185
May 11, 2010) .....................................................................................
Rose v. Imperial Engine Co., 127 App.Div. 885 ................................. 193
Rupert v. Sellers, 65 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. 1978) ............................ 185
Sandals Resorts Int'l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32 (N.Y. App. 67
Div. 1st Dep't 2011) .............................................................................
Sharon v. Time, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ..................... 173, 175
Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................... 132, 158, 162
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Coastal Transmission Serv., Inc., 307 136
S.E.2d 83 (Ga. 1983) ...........................................................................
Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................... 181
Stokes v. Morning J. Ass'n, 72 A.D. 184 (App. Div. 1902) ................. 191
Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc., 330 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1975) 135
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 2007 WL 76
4820968 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) .....................................................
US Dominion, Inc. v. Newsmax Media, Inc., No. CV N21C-08-063 123
EMD, 2022 WL 2208580 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022) ................................
US Dominion, Inc. v. Powell, 554 F.Supp.3d 42 (D.D.C. 2021) .......... 37
Vengroff v. Coyle, 231 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1996) .... 67
Waste Distillation Tech. v. Blasland & Bouck Eng'rs, P. C., 136 184
A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1988) .......................................
Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 549 N.E.2d 453 (N.Y. 1989) .................. 52, 53, 62
Wenz v. Becker, 948 F. Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................. 74, 75
Wood v. Raffensperger, 501 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (N.D. Ga. 2020) ........... 102
Yesner v. Spinner, 765 F. Supp. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) ............................ 182
Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1987) ..... 181
Statutes
N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 74 ...................................................................... passim
N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 75 ...................................................................... 60, 61
N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 76 ...................................................................... 60
Rules
Pattern Jury Instructions § 3:30 ........................................................... 190
Constitional Provisions
First Amendment ................................................................................. 2, 3, 37
Other Authorities
Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 112 ........................................................ 182
The Law of Libel and Slander in the State of New York ¶ 228 (1941) .. 72
The Publicly Held Corporation As Defamation Plaintiff, 39 St. Louis 183
U. L.J. 1167 (1995) .............................................................................
INTRODUCTION
Q. What should the consequences be when Fox News executives knowingly allow lies to be broadcast? A. They should
be reprimanded - They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, Fox Corporation (Ex.600,
R.Murdoch 341:5-11)1
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
Q. Mr. Dinh, should Fox broadcast election fraud allegations that it knows to be false? A. No. Viet Dinh, Chief Legal &
Policy Officer (CLPO), Fox Corporation (Ex.601, Dinh 160:6-9)
Q. Do you think that Fox has an obligation not to broadcast false claims to its audience? A. Yes, ma'am. Jay Wallace, President,
Fox News Network (Ex. 147, Wallace 24:13-16)
Rupert Murdoch, Viet Dinh, and Jay Wallace are right: news networks should not knowingly broadcast lies. Other executives
at Fox Corporation (FC) and Fox News Network (FNN) admitted much the same thing in their own depositions, including FC
CEO Lachlan Murdoch, FNN CEO Suzanne Scott, FNN Executive Vice President of Primetime Programming Meade Cooper,
and FNN Senior Vice President for Weekend News and Programing David Clark.2
It is such a simple point. Yet it is a point that Fox refuses to acknowledge in its summary judgment papers. To the contrary,
Fox asks the Court to hold that it has no legal responsibility whatsoever for broadcasting even the most horrible allegations that
it knows to be false, as long as they are “newsworthy.” Unable to contest the falsity of the statements or Fox's knowledge of
falsity at the time, Fox asks the Court to make new law that would vastly expand a broadcaster's immunity and would upend
settled defamation law.
At least the “neutral reportage” defense from Edwards v. National Audubon Soc., Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977), has some
safeguards in place, requiring that the source whose charges are published be “responsible” and “prominent,” id. at 120, and
that the party publishing the allegations report “accurately and dispassionately,” without “‘espous[ing]” or “concur[ring]”’ in
the charges, FNN MTD Order pp.42, 44 (quoting Edwards, 556 F.2d at 120). Fox appears to be asking for a one-factor test,
where a publisher has complete immunity to publish false allegations, knowing or recklessly disregarding the truth, as long
as they are “newsworthy.” Under Fox's test, the source of the false charges need not be “responsible” or “prominent,” and the
publisher is free to espouse or concur in the charges all it wants, with impunity. See FNN MSJ p.3 (“The First Amendment
protects the right of the press to cover and comment on allegations that are inherently newsworthy because of who made them
or the context in which they were made.”).3
The Court should reject that test, which has no support in New York or First Amendment law. Infra § I.A.3. New York's
highest court was unwilling even to approve the Edwards “neutral reportage” immunity; it would never approve the vastly more
expansive immunity Fox asks for here. And not for nothing, but the immunity Fox asks for in its papers is flatly inconsistent
with the simple truths its top executives acknowledged under oath at their depositions.
Under actual First Amendment and New York law doctrines, Fox's motion fails. The Court should confirm at summary judgment
what it suggested at the pleading stage: the “neutral reportage” defense is unavailable to Fox, both because the doctrine is not
good law, and because Fox as a matter of law could never satisfy its requirements for the twenty accused statements. Infra
§§ I.A, I.D.
While Fox does argue at times that its hosts were reporting “neutrally”--without “endorsing” any of the lies about Dominion--
the record demonstrates the opposite. Infra § I.D. The hosts of the accused shows repeatedly endorsed the “stolen election” lies.
Even Rupert Murdoch had to concede the point:
Q. You are aware now that Fox did more than simply host these guests and give them a platform; correct?
A. I think you've shown me some material in support of that.
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
Q. In fact, you are now aware that Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election?
A. Not Fox, No. Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators.
Q. We went through Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, yes?
A. Yes. C'mon
Q. Fox host Jeanine Pirro?
A. I think so.
Q. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs?
A. Oh, a lot.
Q. Fox host Sean Hannity?
A. A bit.
Q. All were in that document; correct?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. About Fox endorsing the narrative of a stolen election; correct?
A. No. Some of our commentators were endorsing it.
Q. About their endorsement of a stolen election?
A. Yes. They endorsed.
Ex.600, Rupert Murdoch, 361:8-362:21.4
There you have it. FC Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath, as he had to once he finally faced the evidence, that
the hosts of the accused Fox shows did far more than just “host these guests and give them a platform”--though that would be
enough for Fox to be liable, infra pp.59-60 (publisher liable for republishing false and defamatory statement while knowing
or recklessly disregarding the truth). He admitted that each of the Fox hosts (other than Tucker Carlson) “endorsed” the stolen
election lies. As for Carlson, Rupert admitted that it was “wrong” to host Mike Lindell on January 26, 2021 “to repeat those
allegations against Dominion” if Carlson “didn't contest it.” Ex.600, R.Murdoch 345:4-8. And Carlson admitted he did not
contest it. Ex.105, Carlson 198:5-201:13. For those and numerous other reasons, Fox has no viable “neutral reportage” defense,
even if the doctrine were good law.
While New York does provide a defense for “fair reports” of official proceedings, that defense is also unavailable to Fox as
a matter of law on the facts of this case. The proceedings Fox purports to have been “reporting” on in the accused broadcasts
were either not yet pending, or not identified in the broadcast, or did not include any of the allegations Fox claimed to have
been “reporting”--or sometimes all of the above. Infra §§ I.B, I.D. Any one of those failures of proof is sufficient to preclude
Fox as a matter of law from asserting the defense.
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
Fox's “opinion” defense also goes nowhere. Even if some of Fox's hosts' statements could qualify as “opinions,” they are still
actionable if--as here--they are based on false or undisclosed facts. Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990). And
in many instances, the statements Fox claims are “opinions” are enthusiastic endorsements of the false allegations against
Dominion, making those statements (whether “opinion” or not) fatal to any defense.
Fox also moves for summary judgment on actual malice, and to avoid the many bad facts that have come out during discovery,
Fox tries to limit the number of people whose actual malice is relevant to its corporate liability. The test under New York law
is straightforward, imposing liability on the company if any of the persons who “‘participated in the creation or the publication
of the statements at issue”’ did so with actual malice, i.e., knowing or recklessly disregarding the truth. FC MTD Order p.15
(quoting Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2005 WL 2086339, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005)). Fox, however, seems to think that the
only people relevant to this analysis in this case are the hosts of the accused shows. FNN MSJ pp. 127-132 (only analyzing state-
of-mind of the hosts). That is not so. The record in these cases proves people from show-level producers, to mid-tier executives,
to the top executives at FNN and FC, all “participated in the creation or the publication” of the accused statements. Infra §§
II, III; Dom. MSJ pp.101-161.
This is not about “collective knowledge.” The evidence confirms that executives in the “chain of command,” from both FC
and FNN, knew Fox was broadcasting these known lies, had the power to stop it, but chose to let it continue. That was wrong,
and for that, FC and FNN are both liable.
FC Chief Legal and Policy Officer (“CLPO”) Viet Dinh, the highest-ranking lawyer in the entire corporate structure, said it best:
Q. If any of the people in that chain of command who had the power to exercise control over Lou Dobbs' show knew that what
Sidney Powell was alleging was false, didn't they have an obligation to prevent her from coming on the show to tell those lies?
A. Yes.
Q. But when the executives at Fox News know that hosts of shows are broadcasting allegations that the executives know or
believe to be false, in that situation, the executives have an obligation to act, right?
A. If they are within the chain of command and if they -- and if they come to that knowledge, yes.
Q. And by “act,” that means to put a stop to it, right?
Q. They have an obligation under those circumstances, the executives do, in the chain of command, to put a stop to those
broadcasts, right, sir?
A. Yes, to prevent and correct known falsehoods.
Ex.601, Dinh 287:12-19, 316:5-25. Exactly. When those executives fail that obligation, the company is liable.
The evidence of both defendants' participation in the defamation and the actual malice of those who participated is
overwhelming. As FC Executive Raj Shah told Lachlan Murdoch, Suzanne Scott, and Viet Dinh on November 23 when they
successfully lobbied the White House to disavow Sidney Powell, these claims were “outlandish.” Ex.163. That statement is one
of many along similar lines made by both FC and FNN personnel. Fox, “the most trusted news source,” knowingly spread these
lies. Ex.654 p.4. The Court should deny Fox's motions for summary judgment, and grant Dominion's.
The other two areas Fox addresses in its motions both concern damages. Fox argues that the Court should grant summary
judgment holding Dominion is entitled as a matter of law to no economic damages. That request ignores not only the evidence,
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023
US DOMINION,
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
but the simple fact that in a defamation per se case like this, damages are presumed. Fox also argues that the Court should
grant summary judgment holding Dominion cannot recover punitive damages as a matter of law, but there, Fox badly misstates
the governing standard, which Dominion easily meets on the record here. The Court should deny both of these requests, as
well. Infra §§ IV, V.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS[Text redacted in copy]c5
A. The Chain of Command for Fox Editorial Decisions Goes to the Top--Including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.
Executives at all levels of Fox6--both FNN and FC--knowingly opened Fox's airwaves to false conspiracy theories about
Dominion. They did so to protect FNN, which “contributes a very outsized portion of the profits of Fox Corporation” and is “an
incredibly important part” of the company. Ex.620, Ryan 54:18-55:4. Dominion's Motion for Summary Judgment tells some
of this story, including of FC's involvement, and that evidence is still developing. It is already clear, though, that how to cover
the false election fraud allegatio
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 2023 WL 2500612 (Del.Super.) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Superior Court of Delaware. New Castle County US DOMINION, INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, Defendant; US Dominion, Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Fox Corporation, Defendant. Nos. N21C-03-257 EMD, N21C-11-082 EMD. February 27, 2023. Jury Trial Demanded Dominion's Combined Opposition to Fox News Network, LLC's and Fox Corporation's Rule 56 Motions for Summary Judgment Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089), Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165), Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302) 777-0300, bfarnan@farnanlaw.com, mfarnan@farnanlaw.com, Rodney Smolla (Bar No. 6327), 164 Chelsea Street, South Royalton, Vermont 05068, (864) 373-3882, rodsmolla@gmail.com, Of Counsel: Thomas A. Clare, P.C., Megan L. Meier, Dustin A. Pusch, Daniel P. Watkins, Clare Locke LLP, 10 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, (202) 628-7400, tom@clarelocke.com, megan@clarelocke.com, dustin@clarelocke.com, daniel@clarelocke.com, Justin A. Nelson, Jonathan J. Ross, Katie Sammons, Laranda Walker, Elizabeth Hadaway, Florence Chen, Kate Farley, Susman Godfrey LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, #5100, Houston, Texas 77002, (713) 651-9366, jnelson@susmangodfrey.com, jross@susmangodfrey.com, ksammons@susmangodfrey.com, lwalker@susmangodfrey.com, ehadaway@susmangodfrey.com, fchen@susmangodfrey.com, kfarley@susmangodfrey.com, Stephen Shackelford, Jr., Mark-Hatch-Miller, Zach Savage, Christina M. Dieckmann, Eve Levin, Susman Godfrey LLP, 1301 6th Avenue, New York, New York 10019, (212) 336-8330, sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com, mhatch-miller@susmangodfrey.com, zsavage@susmangodfrey.com, cdieckmann@susmangodfrey.com, Davida Brook, Jordan Rux, Susman Godfrey LLP, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, California 90067, (310) 789-3100, dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, jrux@susmangodfrey.com, Edgar Sargent, Katherine Peaslee, Susman Godfrey LlP, 401 Union Street, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 516-3880, esargent@susmangodfrey.com, kpeaslee@susmangodfrey.com, for plaintiffs. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS .............................................................................................. 8 A. The Chain of Command for Fox Editorial Decisions Goes to the Top--Including Rupert and 8 Lachlan Murdoch ...................................................................................................................................... B. November 3 Through 7: The Election And Its Immediate Aftermath ................................................ 12 C. After the Call: Fox Executives Comprehend the Magnitude of Viewer Backlash--and Change 17 Strategies ................................................................................................................................................... D. November 10-12: Concern About Fox's Election Coverage and Fallout Rises to the Board Level .... 22 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 E. November 11-18: Fox Executives Continue To Be Preoccupied With Viewer Backlash And 24 Competition .............................................................................................................................................. F. November 19-December 1: Fox Gets Powell Disavowed After Her Fight With Carlson--But Keeps 28 Bringing Her On Air ................................................................................................................................ G. December 6-January 6: Fox Executives Continue To Debate How To Cover The Conspiracy 31 Allegations--Right Up To January 6 ........................................................................................................ H. January 6 and After: Fox Executives Try to Move Past Trump--But Find It Difficult ....................... 33 RESPONSE TO FNN's “UNDISPUTED” FACTS ................................................................................. 37 A. Fox's Pre-Election Background “Facts” Are Irrelevant ...................................................................... 38 B. Fox's “Blame Trump” Approach Is Legally Irrelevant and Factually Inaccurate ............................... 41 C. Fox's Post-Litigation Argument Ignores Contemporaneous Documents And Mischaracterizes Its 47 Coverage ................................................................................................................................................... D. Fox Ignores Dominion's Massive Effort to Convince Fox to Stop Airing the Lies ............................ 51 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 52 I. The Accused Statements Are Actionable ............................................................................................. 52 A. Fox's Repackaged “Neutral Reportage” Argument Fails .................................................................... 52 1. The Neutral Reportage Privilege Does Not Apply As A Matter of Law ............................................. 52 2. Fox Could Not Invoke the Neutral Reportage Defense On These Facts Regardless ........................... 53 3. The Court Should Reject Fox's Attempt to Create a New Privilege Far Broader Than Neutral 57 Reportage .................................................................................................................................................. B. Fox's Fair Report Defense Is Meritless ............................................................................................... 71 1. Fox Has Largely Waived the Defense By Asserting It Solely In Its Appendix ................................... 71 2. Fox's Statements Were Not “Of” a Qualified Proceeding ................................................................... 72 3. Fox's Statements Were Not Fair and True Reports of Those Proceedings .......................................... 76 4. Fox's Waived Arguments Suffer From the Same Common Defects .................................................... 77 C. Fox's “Opinion” Argument Misses the Point ...................................................................................... 78 D. The Challenged Statements Are Actionable Defamation ................................................................... 80 1. November 8, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures, ¶179(a) ......................................... 86 2. November 12, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(b) ......................................................... 90 3. November 13, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(c) ......................................................... 94 4. November 14, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶179(d) ............................................................................. 98 5. November 14, 2020 - Jeanine Pirro, Justice with Judge Jeanine, ¶179(e) .......................................... 99 6. November 15, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Fox and Friends, ¶ 179(f) .................................................... 103 7. November 15, 2020 - Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures, ¶179(g) ....................................... 104 8. November 16, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(h) ........................................................ 107 9. November 18, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(i) ......................................................... 112 10. November 19, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(j) ........................................................ 113 11. November 21, 2020 - Jeanine Pirro, Justice with Judge Jeanine, ¶179(k) ........................................ 114 12. November 24, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(1) ....................................................... 116 13. November 30, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(m) ...................................................... 119 14. November 30, 2020 - Sean Hannity, Hannity, ¶179(n) ..................................................................... 121 15. December 4, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶ 179(o) ........................................................ 123 16. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶1179(p) .......................................................................... 125 17. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, ¶179(q) ....................................................... 125 18. December 10, 2020 - Lou Dobbs, twitter, ¶179(r) ............................................................................ 128 19. December 12, 2020 - Fox and Friends, ¶179(s) ................................................................................ 129 20. January 26, 2021 - Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson Tonight, ¶179(t) ............................................... 130 II. Executives at Both Fox News and Fox Corporation Participated in the Publication of the 131 Defamatory Broadcasts ............................................................................................................................. A. Responsibility Extends to Any Person In the Chain of Command Who Participates in the 131 Publication of the Defamatory Statements, Including By Knowingly Allowing Them to Occur ............ B. Individuals at Both Fox News and Fox Corporation Throughout the Chain of Command Knew 137 What Was Happening And Let The Defamatory Broadcasts Proceed ..................................................... 1. Fox News Hosts and Producers Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ................................................ 141 2. Fox News Executives Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ............................................................... 142 3. Fox Corporation Executives Allowed the Defamatory Broadcasts ..................................................... 143 III. Fox News and Fox Corporation Acted with Actual Malice .............................................................. 157 A. Fox Corporation Acted with Actual Malice ....................................................................................... 159 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 1. Fox Corporation Individuals in the Chain of Command Knew or Recklessly Disregarded the Truth .. 159 2. Circumstantial Evidence Confirms Fox Corporation's Actual Malice ................................................. 164 B. Fox News Acted with Actual Malice ................................................................................................. 168 C. Fox News Fails to Raise a Question of Fact Disputing that Its Hosts Acted with Actual Malice ....... 168 D. Fox Cannot Escape its Actual Malice by Denying Credible Evidence Regarding the 2020 172 Presidential Election ................................................................................................................................. E. Additional Circumstantial Evidence Demonstrates FNN's Actual Malice .......................................... 178 IV. Dominion is Entitled to Substantial Economic Damages For Its Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the 181 Destruction of its Brand and Business ..................................................................................................... V. Fox News and Fox Corporation Are Subject to Punitive Damages .................................................... 189 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 194 Table of Authorities Cases Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................ 158 Bandido's, Inc. v. Journal Gazette Co., Inc., 575 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. 135 App. 1991) ........................................................................................... Baumann v. Newspaper Enterprises, Inc., 270 A.D. 825 (N.Y. App. 74 Div. 1946) ............................................................................................ Blankenship v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00236, 2022 79, 133, 134 WL 321023 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 2, 2022) ............................................... Boulos v. Newman, 302 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2003) . 67 Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) ............................ passim Brown v. New York, 31 N.Y.3d 514 (2018) .......................................... 188 Bufalino v. Associated Press, 692 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1982) .................. 62 Butler v. Gazette Co., 119 A.D. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1907) .. 187 Cabello-Rodon v. Dow Jones & Co., No. 16-CV-3346 (KBF), 2017 178 WL 3531551 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2017) .............................................. Campo Lindo for Dogs, Inc. v. New York Post Corp., 65 A.D.2d 650 53 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1978) ........................................................... Ceberus Int'l., Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002) 187 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 181, 182, 190 2000) .................................................................................................... Cholowsky v. Civiletti, 69 A.D.3d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) ............. 73 Cianci v. New Times Pub. Co., 639 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1980) (Friendly, passim J.) .......................................................................................................... Clifford v. Trump, 339 F. Supp. 3d 915 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .................... 80 Croce v. N.Y. Times Co., 930 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2019) ........................ 57, 63, 64, 81 Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) .................................... 191 Den Norske Ameriekalinje Actiesselskabet v. Sun Printing & Publ'g 184 Ass'n, 226 N.Y. 1 (1919) ..................................................................... Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (S.D. 103, 132 Fla. 2021) ............................................................................................. Dickey v. CBS Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 (3d Cir. 1978) ............................... 53 Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) .............. 70 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec y of Pennsylvania, 830 44 Fed.Appx. 377 (3d Cir. 2020) ............................................................. Duci v. Daily Gazette Co., 102 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 69 1984) .................................................................................................... Dun & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 183 (1985) ................................................................................................... Easton v. Pub. Citizens, Inc., No. 91 CIV. 1639 (JSM), 1991 WL 73 280688 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 1991) ....................................................... Edwards v. Nat'l Audubon Soc., Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977) ...... passim Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 2003 WL 21003437 (Del. Ch. Apr. 28, 72, 85 2003) .................................................................................................... Fine v. ESPN, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 3d 209 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) .................... 73, 76 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 Garcia v. O'Keefe, 5 Misc. 3d 1006, 2004 WL 2375284 (N.Y. Sup. 191 Ct. Sept. 9, 2004) ................................................................................ Geary v. Goldstein, No. 91 CIV. 6222 (KMW), 1996 WL 447776 85 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 199 6) ..................................................................... Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) ............................... 58, 185 Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 414 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1969) .......................... 69 Grace v. eBay Inc., 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192 (Ct. App.), review granted 136 and opinion superseded on other grounds, 99 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2004) ........ Green v. CBS Inc., 286 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................. 69, 70 Greenlee v. Imperial Homes Corp., 1994 WL 465556 (Del. Super. Ct. 190 July 19, 1994) ...................................................................................... Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163 (N.Y. 1993) ....................... 86, 112 GS Plasticos Limitada v. Bureau Veritas, 84 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. 67 Div. 2011) ............................................................................................ Harte-Hanks Commc'ns v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) .......... 166, 180 Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) ............................................... 158 Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow, 8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) ........ 80 Hinerman v. Daily Gazette Co., Inc., 423 S.E.2d 560 (W. Va. 1992) ... 191 Hogan v. Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1982) 52, 53, 62, 69 ............................................................................................................... Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity v. N. Y. Times 76 Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 1979) ............................................................ Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, 720 F.2d 631 (11*th Cir. 1983) ....................... 135 Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235 (1991) ...................... 68 Israel Travel Advisory Serv., Inc. v. Israel Identity Tours, Inc., 61 184 F.3d 1250 (7th Cir. 1995) .................................................................... Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1985) ................... 70 Karedes v. Ackerly Group, Inc., 423 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2005) .............. 76 Karp v. Hill & Knowlton, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ...... 77 Keogh v. N.Y. Herald Trib., Inc., 274 N.Y.S.2d 302 (Sup. Ct. 1966) ... 72 Kerwick v. Orange Cnty. Publications Div. of Ottaway Newspapers, 82 Inc., 420 N.E.2d 970 (N.Y.1981) ......................................................... Khalil v. Fox Corp., 2022 WL 4467622 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2022) ...... 54, 57 King v. Whitmer, 556 F.Supp.3d 680 (E.D. Mich. 2021) ..................... 45, 180 Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 234 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) ..... 53 Kostolecki v. Buffalo Courier Exp. Co. Inc., 163 A.D.2d 856 (App. 190, 193 Div. 1990) ............................................................................................ KTRK Television v. Felder, 950 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997) ...... 70 Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, N.A., 494 N.E.2d 70 (N.Y. 1986) ....... 191, 192 Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) ............. 179 McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC 489 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 80 2020) .................................................................................................... McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........ 177 Metro. Opera Ass'n. v. Local 100, 2005 WL 1712241 (S.D.N.Y. July 183, 184 19, 2005) .............................................................................................. Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) .............. 177, 178 Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) .................................... passim Morris v. Flaig, 511 F.Supp.2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .......................... 191 Morsette v. “The Final Call”, 764 N.Y.S.2d 416 (App. Div. 2003) ..... 190 Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. JourAzur S.A., 759 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 80 1985) .................................................................................................... New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................... 134 Norton v. Glenn, 860 A.2d 48 (Pa. 2004) ............................................ 53 Nunes v. Lizza, 12 F.4th 890 (8th Cir. 2021) ....................................... 167 Orr v. Lynch, 60 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1978) ............. 53, 69, 126 Page v. Oath, 270 A.3d 833 (Del. 2022) ............................................. passim Palmer v. Matthews, 162 N.Y. 100 (1900) .......................................... 187 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 Palmer v. New York News Publishing Co., 31 A.D. 210 (N.Y. App. 187, 188 Div. 1st Dep't 1898) ............................................................................. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church, 537 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. App. 135 1975) .................................................................................................... Present v. Avon Prod., Inc., 253 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) ... 190 Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Commc'ns, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 34 (N.Y. 190 1993) .................................................................................................... Robertson v. Doe, No. 05-cv-7046, 2010 WL 11527317 (S.D.N.Y. 185 May 11, 2010) ..................................................................................... Rose v. Imperial Engine Co., 127 App.Div. 885 ................................. 193 Rupert v. Sellers, 65 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. 1978) ............................ 185 Sandals Resorts Int'l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32 (N.Y. App. 67 Div. 1st Dep't 2011) ............................................................................. Sharon v. Time, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ..................... 173, 175 Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................... 132, 158, 162 Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Coastal Transmission Serv., Inc., 307 136 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. 1983) ........................................................................... Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................... 181 Stokes v. Morning J. Ass'n, 72 A.D. 184 (App. Div. 1902) ................. 191 Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc., 330 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1975) 135 Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 2007 WL 76 4820968 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) ..................................................... US Dominion, Inc. v. Newsmax Media, Inc., No. CV N21C-08-063 123 EMD, 2022 WL 2208580 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022) ................................ US Dominion, Inc. v. Powell, 554 F.Supp.3d 42 (D.D.C. 2021) .......... 37 Vengroff v. Coyle, 231 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1996) .... 67 Waste Distillation Tech. v. Blasland & Bouck Eng'rs, P. C., 136 184 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1988) ....................................... Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 549 N.E.2d 453 (N.Y. 1989) .................. 52, 53, 62 Wenz v. Becker, 948 F. Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................. 74, 75 Wood v. Raffensperger, 501 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (N.D. Ga. 2020) ........... 102 Yesner v. Spinner, 765 F. Supp. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) ............................ 182 Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1987) ..... 181 Statutes N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 74 ...................................................................... passim N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 75 ...................................................................... 60, 61 N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 76 ...................................................................... 60 Rules Pattern Jury Instructions § 3:30 ........................................................... 190 Constitional Provisions First Amendment ................................................................................. 2, 3, 37 Other Authorities Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 112 ........................................................ 182 The Law of Libel and Slander in the State of New York ¶ 228 (1941) .. 72 The Publicly Held Corporation As Defamation Plaintiff, 39 St. Louis 183 U. L.J. 1167 (1995) ............................................................................. INTRODUCTION Q. What should the consequences be when Fox News executives knowingly allow lies to be broadcast? A. They should be reprimanded - They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, Fox Corporation (Ex.600, R.Murdoch 341:5-11)1 © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 Q. Mr. Dinh, should Fox broadcast election fraud allegations that it knows to be false? A. No. Viet Dinh, Chief Legal & Policy Officer (CLPO), Fox Corporation (Ex.601, Dinh 160:6-9) Q. Do you think that Fox has an obligation not to broadcast false claims to its audience? A. Yes, ma'am. Jay Wallace, President, Fox News Network (Ex. 147, Wallace 24:13-16) Rupert Murdoch, Viet Dinh, and Jay Wallace are right: news networks should not knowingly broadcast lies. Other executives at Fox Corporation (FC) and Fox News Network (FNN) admitted much the same thing in their own depositions, including FC CEO Lachlan Murdoch, FNN CEO Suzanne Scott, FNN Executive Vice President of Primetime Programming Meade Cooper, and FNN Senior Vice President for Weekend News and Programing David Clark.2 It is such a simple point. Yet it is a point that Fox refuses to acknowledge in its summary judgment papers. To the contrary, Fox asks the Court to hold that it has no legal responsibility whatsoever for broadcasting even the most horrible allegations that it knows to be false, as long as they are “newsworthy.” Unable to contest the falsity of the statements or Fox's knowledge of falsity at the time, Fox asks the Court to make new law that would vastly expand a broadcaster's immunity and would upend settled defamation law. At least the “neutral reportage” defense from Edwards v. National Audubon Soc., Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977), has some safeguards in place, requiring that the source whose charges are published be “responsible” and “prominent,” id. at 120, and that the party publishing the allegations report “accurately and dispassionately,” without “‘espous[ing]” or “concur[ring]”’ in the charges, FNN MTD Order pp.42, 44 (quoting Edwards, 556 F.2d at 120). Fox appears to be asking for a one-factor test, where a publisher has complete immunity to publish false allegations, knowing or recklessly disregarding the truth, as long as they are “newsworthy.” Under Fox's test, the source of the false charges need not be “responsible” or “prominent,” and the publisher is free to espouse or concur in the charges all it wants, with impunity. See FNN MSJ p.3 (“The First Amendment protects the right of the press to cover and comment on allegations that are inherently newsworthy because of who made them or the context in which they were made.”).3 The Court should reject that test, which has no support in New York or First Amendment law. Infra § I.A.3. New York's highest court was unwilling even to approve the Edwards “neutral reportage” immunity; it would never approve the vastly more expansive immunity Fox asks for here. And not for nothing, but the immunity Fox asks for in its papers is flatly inconsistent with the simple truths its top executives acknowledged under oath at their depositions. Under actual First Amendment and New York law doctrines, Fox's motion fails. The Court should confirm at summary judgment what it suggested at the pleading stage: the “neutral reportage” defense is unavailable to Fox, both because the doctrine is not good law, and because Fox as a matter of law could never satisfy its requirements for the twenty accused statements. Infra §§ I.A, I.D. While Fox does argue at times that its hosts were reporting “neutrally”--without “endorsing” any of the lies about Dominion-- the record demonstrates the opposite. Infra § I.D. The hosts of the accused shows repeatedly endorsed the “stolen election” lies. Even Rupert Murdoch had to concede the point: Q. You are aware now that Fox did more than simply host these guests and give them a platform; correct? A. I think you've shown me some material in support of that. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 Q. In fact, you are now aware that Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election? A. Not Fox, No. Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators. Q. We went through Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, yes? A. Yes. C'mon Q. Fox host Jeanine Pirro? A. I think so. Q. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs? A. Oh, a lot. Q. Fox host Sean Hannity? A. A bit. Q. All were in that document; correct? A. Yes, they were. Q. About Fox endorsing the narrative of a stolen election; correct? A. No. Some of our commentators were endorsing it. Q. About their endorsement of a stolen election? A. Yes. They endorsed. Ex.600, Rupert Murdoch, 361:8-362:21.4 There you have it. FC Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath, as he had to once he finally faced the evidence, that the hosts of the accused Fox shows did far more than just “host these guests and give them a platform”--though that would be enough for Fox to be liable, infra pp.59-60 (publisher liable for republishing false and defamatory statement while knowing or recklessly disregarding the truth). He admitted that each of the Fox hosts (other than Tucker Carlson) “endorsed” the stolen election lies. As for Carlson, Rupert admitted that it was “wrong” to host Mike Lindell on January 26, 2021 “to repeat those allegations against Dominion” if Carlson “didn't contest it.” Ex.600, R.Murdoch 345:4-8. And Carlson admitted he did not contest it. Ex.105, Carlson 198:5-201:13. For those and numerous other reasons, Fox has no viable “neutral reportage” defense, even if the doctrine were good law. While New York does provide a defense for “fair reports” of official proceedings, that defense is also unavailable to Fox as a matter of law on the facts of this case. The proceedings Fox purports to have been “reporting” on in the accused broadcasts were either not yet pending, or not identified in the broadcast, or did not include any of the allegations Fox claimed to have been “reporting”--or sometimes all of the above. Infra §§ I.B, I.D. Any one of those failures of proof is sufficient to preclude Fox as a matter of law from asserting the defense. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 Fox's “opinion” defense also goes nowhere. Even if some of Fox's hosts' statements could qualify as “opinions,” they are still actionable if--as here--they are based on false or undisclosed facts. Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990). And in many instances, the statements Fox claims are “opinions” are enthusiastic endorsements of the false allegations against Dominion, making those statements (whether “opinion” or not) fatal to any defense. Fox also moves for summary judgment on actual malice, and to avoid the many bad facts that have come out during discovery, Fox tries to limit the number of people whose actual malice is relevant to its corporate liability. The test under New York law is straightforward, imposing liability on the company if any of the persons who “‘participated in the creation or the publication of the statements at issue”’ did so with actual malice, i.e., knowing or recklessly disregarding the truth. FC MTD Order p.15 (quoting Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2005 WL 2086339, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005)). Fox, however, seems to think that the only people relevant to this analysis in this case are the hosts of the accused shows. FNN MSJ pp. 127-132 (only analyzing state- of-mind of the hosts). That is not so. The record in these cases proves people from show-level producers, to mid-tier executives, to the top executives at FNN and FC, all “participated in the creation or the publication” of the accused statements. Infra §§ II, III; Dom. MSJ pp.101-161. This is not about “collective knowledge.” The evidence confirms that executives in the “chain of command,” from both FC and FNN, knew Fox was broadcasting these known lies, had the power to stop it, but chose to let it continue. That was wrong, and for that, FC and FNN are both liable. FC Chief Legal and Policy Officer (“CLPO”) Viet Dinh, the highest-ranking lawyer in the entire corporate structure, said it best: Q. If any of the people in that chain of command who had the power to exercise control over Lou Dobbs' show knew that what Sidney Powell was alleging was false, didn't they have an obligation to prevent her from coming on the show to tell those lies? A. Yes. Q. But when the executives at Fox News know that hosts of shows are broadcasting allegations that the executives know or believe to be false, in that situation, the executives have an obligation to act, right? A. If they are within the chain of command and if they -- and if they come to that knowledge, yes. Q. And by “act,” that means to put a stop to it, right? Q. They have an obligation under those circumstances, the executives do, in the chain of command, to put a stop to those broadcasts, right, sir? A. Yes, to prevent and correct known falsehoods. Ex.601, Dinh 287:12-19, 316:5-25. Exactly. When those executives fail that obligation, the company is liable. The evidence of both defendants' participation in the defamation and the actual malice of those who participated is overwhelming. As FC Executive Raj Shah told Lachlan Murdoch, Suzanne Scott, and Viet Dinh on November 23 when they successfully lobbied the White House to disavow Sidney Powell, these claims were “outlandish.” Ex.163. That statement is one of many along similar lines made by both FC and FNN personnel. Fox, “the most trusted news source,” knowingly spread these lies. Ex.654 p.4. The Court should deny Fox's motions for summary judgment, and grant Dominion's. The other two areas Fox addresses in its motions both concern damages. Fox argues that the Court should grant summary judgment holding Dominion is entitled as a matter of law to no economic damages. That request ignores not only the evidence, © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 07:56 PM INDEX NO. 653908/2023 US DOMINION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92INC., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and..., 2023 WL 2500612... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024 but the simple fact that in a defamation per se case like this, damages are presumed. Fox also argues that the Court should grant summary judgment holding Dominion cannot recover punitive damages as a matter of law, but there, Fox badly misstates the governing standard, which Dominion easily meets on the record here. The Court should deny both of these requests, as well. Infra §§ IV, V. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS[Text redacted in copy]c5 A. The Chain of Command for Fox Editorial Decisions Goes to the Top--Including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch. Executives at all levels of Fox6--both FNN and FC--knowingly opened Fox's airwaves to false conspiracy theories about Dominion. They did so to protect FNN, which “contributes a very outsized portion of the profits of Fox Corporation” and is “an incredibly important part” of the company. Ex.620, Ryan 54:18-55:4. Dominion's Motion for Summary Judgment tells some of this story, including of FC's involvement, and that evidence is still developing. It is already clear, though, that how to cover the false election fraud allegatio