Fox Hit With Sanctions For Withholding Information In Dominion Libel Lawsuit
from the well,-when-lying-is-your-business... dept
It doesn’t look like Fox News is going to get away with badmouthing Dominion Voting Systems for weeks following Donald Trump’s unsurprising loss in the 2020 election. Evidence already handed over to Dominion in its libel lawsuit shows many Fox News executives — as well as anchors and commentators — were aware the claims were false but chose to give them airtime anyway.
That led to the recent decision in a Delaware state court where the judge made two key determinations before allowing the lawsuit to move into the jury trial phase. First, the judge said the statements made about Dominion by Fox and its personalities were so obviously damaging to Dominion’s business prospects that there was no need for the company to prove it had been harmed.
More importantly, the judge removed any doubt about the veracity of the Fox statements Dominion is suing over:
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.
So, actual malice then, if Dominion can show the false statements were made by people fully aware the things they were saying were false.
But Fox can’t even get to the trial it never wanted without tripping over itself. As pretty much everywhere reports (going with NBC News for this first bit), Fox has been sanctioned by the court for withholding information it was required to turn over during discovery.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis on Wednesday sanctioned Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., for withholding evidence in the Dominion defamation suit and said he’s considering further investigation and censure.
One of Grossberg’s attorneys, Parisis G. Filippatos, said that lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems played recordings Fox News producer Abby Grossberg made during 2020, which were not handed over to Dominion’s lawyers during discovery.
These recordings — the ones not handed over to Dominion — add even more ammo to Dominion’s already ample stockpile. They’re pre-interview recordings, ones in which Rudy Giuliani admits he doesn’t have any evidence backing his Dominion claims (Giuliani is also being sued by Dominion). Nor does he have any evidence linking Nancy Pelosi to Dominion.
A second recording features a Trump campaign official telling a Fox producer “there weren’t any physical issues with [voting] machines” inspected in Georgia by election officials following Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud and other bogus conspiracy theories.
The judge isn’t happy. The sanctions (for now) include an opportunity for Dominion to engage in a second round of depositions at Fox’s expense. The special master overseeing the discovery process that Fox apparently circumvented now has a new task: to see if there are any other discovery violations and recommend additional sanctions if more misconduct is revealed.
This isn’t the only deception by Fox currently displeasing this court. The Associated Press reports that Fox hastily tried to slide something in over the recent holiday weekend — an admission that’s crucial to part of Dominion’s case, that being whether or not Fox Corporation itself can be held liable for these defamatory claims.
Fox Corp. had asserted since Dominion filed its lawsuit in 2021 that Rupert Murdoch had no official role at Fox News. In its filings, it had listed Fox News officers as Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace and Joe Dorrego. But on Easter Sunday, Fox disclosed to Dominion’s attorneys that Murdoch also is “executive chair” at Fox News. The disclosure came after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis wondered aloud during a status conference last week who Fox News’ officers were.
Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.
“My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.
The judge suggested that had this been disclosed sooner, his recent decision might not have left the question of Fox Corp.’s participation in alleged libel up to the jury to decide.
As goes Fox News, so go its legal reps:
To Fox attorney Matthew Carter, Davis said: “You have a credibility problem.”
This opens Rupert Murdoch to Dominion’s discovery efforts, since he’s apparently more involved with Fox News than previously disclosed. Meanwhile, the legal team that’s currently irritating the court continues to pretend it’s on the up-and-up, claiming this information has been in SEC filings since forever and that it was unaware of recordings made by its producers until after they surfaced in another lawsuit against Fox News.
What already looked terrible for Fox now looks immeasurably worse. Well, not immeasurably. Once the special master has concluded its investigation, we’ll have some measure of how much worse it is. But it definitely isn’t getting any better! Fox knew the truth, but chose to side with a deposed president and his batshit enablers, literally for the clicks.
Filed Under: actual malice, defamation, discovery, eric davis, rupert murdoch, sanctions
Companies: dominion, fox news
Comments on “Fox Hit With Sanctions For Withholding Information In Dominion Libel Lawsuit”
What’s sad is that “I’m lying for profit” won’t reach the right ears, and if it does they’ll deny it. Then they’ll attack vulnerable people, because the people they voted for as a result made them poor again.
Re:
Nah.
They already staged a failed insurrection and they’ll do it again.
Powered by the Kochs, fueled by the Murdochs, and every other rich “conservative” in America.
Attacking vulnerable people has ALWAYS been part of the plan.
Re: Re:
Yeah, that’s what I mean, sadly… They’ll be told to their faces that Fox, etc., were lying to them in order to take their money, but because they were already programmed like that they won’t support policies that actually help them. So, they’ll fight for billionaires driving them further into poverty while blaming trans and gay people asking for human rights for their problems.
I don’t know what the solution is here, but I certainly know that Tucker saying on screen “I have been lying and stealing from you” won’t change some minds. Which is very depressing.
Re: Re: Re: 'I reject your reality and substitute my own emotional support one!'
I mean the excuses practically write themselves for the Eternal Victims that comprise their viewers.
‘Sure they said they were lying in court and/or on tv, the courts forced them to say that, but that’s just further evidence that they were on to something and the liberal courts tried to shut them down for it.’
As for the solution? That’s… a tricky one. I’ve no doubt that a good chunk of them are all but lost causes, so invested in the whole ‘everyone but me and those on my side are to blame for my woes’ worldview they’ve been sold that it would be damn near impossible to convince them otherwise, all the more so since a big part of doing that would require them to admit that they’ve not only been had but far from being the persecuted they are the the ones engaging in persecution.
The short and long-term solutions are probably roughly the same really in the form of education and refutation. Pointing out when someone is mistaken/misleading/outright lying along with presenting the refuting evidence to back the counter up or highlighting the lack of evidence being put forth. It won’t reach everyone and some are just not going to accept that they’re being lied to but when dealing with liars and worldviews built upon lies critical thinking skills, education and [Citation Needed] are likely going to be the most effective tools.
Re: Re: Re:2
“That’s cheating, and also quite rude — can’t you see how counter-productive that hostility is?
Also, that smug superior attitude is exactly why you libtards keep driving away anyone on the Right who might otherwise be inclined to maybe consider your point of view.”
Re: Re: Re:2
“I’ve no doubt that a good chunk of them are all but lost causes, so invested in the whole ‘everyone but me and those on my side are to blame for my woes’ worldview they’ve been sold that it would be damn near impossible to convince them otherwise, all the more so since a big part of doing that would require them to admit that they’ve not only been had but far from being the persecuted they are the the ones engaging in persecution.”
Got it in one. Fox whole business model is in supplying grievance to addicts. I like to describe it as “America’s second opioid crisis” – because the addiction caused by being in a permanent state of fear and hatred is every bit as harmful and difficult to kick as heroin, with the DHS and the FBI having issued studies where reformed white supremacists found themselves going through actual withdrawal.
We’re talking about dozens of millions hard addicts. To them accepting factual reality means to let go of the needle. For the overwhelming majority of them that’s not going to be a thing short of outside intervention – and you can’t scale drug detoxification to include that many people.
Bluntly put, we might not want to. The junkie who spends their evening frothing at the mouth while screaming at the TV screen is one who deprived of his fix isn’t going completely postal and looking for a final adrenaline ride bringing their AR-15 into a gay club or known liberal hangout.
It will take generations to get rid of this large cadre of grievance addicts, and it’ll still only happen after we manage to somehow make major media abstain from making outrage farming part of their revenue stream.
If we’re lucky the Fox case might de-incentivize them from that, but I wouldn’t hold my breath unless it ends with them finding out that lying to their audience means meaningful fiscal risk far exceeding their expected revenue of continuing as-is.
Re: Re: Re:3
Or people to finally take the bitter pill and actually excise the cancer.
Re: Re: Re:3
https://leftycartoons.com/2023/01/07/might-as-well-face-it-were-addicted-to-fear/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wow! A group of people convinced that everyone else is to blame for their problems. Surely only Fox News viewers are like that!
It’s not as if the TechDirt commenters don’t have their heads so far up their woke ideological behinds that they think that men can be women or that criminals should be let out of prisons.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your head is so far up the right wing ass that you are repeating what they tell you about the opposition, and basing you position on what you have been told about an imaginary opposition.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hyman.
You have been told REPEATEDLY to knock it off.
And by YOUR admission, you’ve been banned from those fine conservative places for being a disruptive asshole.
Now you’re harassing us because it’s almost impossible to ban you from posting.
I’d tell you to get a grip, but you won’t, because your head is so far up your digestive tract any way of getting it out would be unethical at best.
Re: Re: Re:3
With the number of times you bring up transgender folks, I would assume that you’re trying to compensate for a an attraction that you’re feeling guilt about.
Unless the number of transgender people in your life is significant, I fail to understand your fascination with them. How do they affect your daily life such that you bring them up every time your signature ‘woke idealogue’ tripe shows up?
Do you work at a place that is perhaps frequented by the transgender crowd?
Do they hit on you and you don’t like it?
Conversely, do they hit on you, and you do like it, but a guilt complex prevents you from following your feelings?
Do you feel uncomfortable in your own gender identity, and are lashing out in jealousy, disguised as anger?
Even if you choose not to respond, I’d suggest asking yourself these questions, as your malicious infatuation appears to be rooted in something deeper that you’re not telling us. And if you’re feeling guilt and anger about those feelings, it isn’t healthy and doesn’t contribute positively to long term mental health.
It’s OK. Stop pretending and love yourself for who you are. Some of us can see through the anger, and won’t make fun of you because of who you are versus what your right-wing teachings want you to be.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
PaulT brought up transgender people first in this comment section.
As I’ve said before, the reason woke gender ideology is so emblematic is that, unlike critical race theory or racial distribution of crime or Communism, it doesn’t take any study or research to understand that people can only ever be the sex of their bodies. That people insist otherwise is such a clear demonstration of the victory of self-delusion over looking at reality with eyes open that it impugns any other beliefs those people may hold, just as I would be immediately disinclined to believe anything at all a forced-birther days.
Re: Re: Re:5
Here, have a mirror — you badly need one, and I have some to spare.
Re: Re: Re:5
You mean it takes pure malicious wilful ignorance to cling to the false belief that “people can only ever be the sex of their bodies.”
People who are intelligent enough to do study and research, on the other hand, know the truth is the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:5
people can only ever be the sex of their bodies
I think you misinterpreted my screed, perhaps intentionally. I never intended you to question your sex, but rather your fascination and what drives it, which may be attraction.
that it impugns any other beliefs those people may hold
Again, such a harsh assessment of something that ordinarily wouldn’t affect you in the least. But here you are, where the entirety of the person is at stake over a singular characteristic that one would assume is non-controversial. If the person is a Nazi-loving animal killer is less significant compared to claiming to be something other than male or female? Oh come on…are you serious?
Do you re-read what you write? Because I did, and all it does is reinforce what I wrote previously.
No one would hate you for your attraction to or obsession with trans people, for whatever reason, apart from those trying to espouse the same myopic view, potentially over the same inner conflict.
You need to get in touch with your real feelings, and explore this infatuation with this aspect of how other people choose to exist, which has absolutely no bearing on your life whatsoever (or does it…).
Re: Re: Re:5
Your anal virginity is coming to an end soon, Hyman.
Re: Re: Re:3
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
No one says that, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. It is also completely off-topic.
Are you saying that all criminals—including petty thieves—should get life-sentences without a possibility of parole or early release? Because otherwise, I think we both agree that many criminals should be let out of prisons eventually. No one is saying that all criminals should be let out of prisons, either, so this is either false or not a point where we disagree.
Re: The Fuchsvölkisch
Fox viewers aren’t unwitting, naive pigeons coldly manipulated by sociopathic propagandists.
Fox viewers are eager and willing enablers and participants in their own manipulation.
From Rupert Murdoch, to the talking heads, to their viewers, Fox is a culture. A völkisch.
Fox’s 24-hour content are the load-bearing bricks that form the architecture of the rightwing worldview.
The perfect description that captures the essence of Fox News comes from YouTube music reviewer Todd in the Shadows. It’s television for people who like having their thoughts repeated back at them.
Re: Re:
Remember that FOX uniquely operates an idiological purity test to ensure nobody honest is on the payroll.
Re:
“We lied for the profits” is actually deflection and damage control. In the early days of establishing the operation, Murdock and Ailes would sometimes admit (in the {ahem} right company) that they were creating “Fox News” to be a propaganda organ camouflaged as a news organization.
Sure, they also planned to make truckloads of cash out of the operation — a popular TV channel is, after all, practically a license to print money — but the “editorial slant” was always the driving cause, from the beginning.
“We just wanted to make lots of money” is their fallback position — unflattering and true as far as it goes, but nonetheless a decoy intended to draw attention away from the greater crime.
Let. Murdoch. Cook.
Re:
Preferably in Hell.
Re: Re:
But only of natural causes, after a rich and full life of being sued into poverty for his misdeeds.
Eh, I’m an atheist. But hey, I’m willing to give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt.
Re: Re: Re:
One of the great riddles of life – are the likes of Murdoch and Kissinger still around because there’s truly no karma and they are getting away with what they did? Or, is someone on another plane of existence really cooking up something extra to treat them with when they pass?
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s because they’re wealthy and can thus afford to buy things that us normal people can—you know, things like bodyguards and politicians and actual healthcare.
Re: Re: Re:3
I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s OK stewardess I can speak jive..
But, yeah, that’s the challenge I think. Not every rich person lives a long life, but some of the evil ones do. What, then, about karma, if you don’t believe that there’s an eternity to burn in? I certainly hope that something happens to balance the books, but I also don’t have faith that the universe is just.
Re: Re: Re:5 Karma
I think that after you die you get to look at your life objectively for eternity.
That’s heaven and hell and how you create them as you live your life all in one neat idea.
Re: Re: Re:5
Karma is a weird Buddhist concept.
And reality proves that it kinda doesn’t work as intended everyday. New information pending, of course.
Re: Re: Re:6
“Karma is a weird Buddhist concept.”
Honestly, though I don’t think any of us have got it right, that makes more sense than the Christian dogma I grew up with. I certainly thing that if you believe a higher power exists, it makes more sense for them to smack you down for bad moves than let you confess and get away with it.
Re: Re: Re:2
They’re given every chance to change and become better. That way, when they’re brought before the great judge, the excuse of “we weren’t given time” will fall on deaf ears.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not religious but…if you were a deity would you be in a hurry to welcome the likes of Murdoch to your neck of the woods?
Re: Re: Re:3
Ninth Circle of Hell.
I’m really baffled by what the play was supposed to be here.
Like, who thought Dominion wouldn’t figure out Rupert Murdoch was the executive chair of Fox News?
Fox News can certainly afford competent counsel. I’d assume this was something Murdoch ordered himself, against the advice of counsel, except that he hasn’t exactly been shy about admitting incriminating things in depositions.
Re: Ubermensch goals
I think Rupert Murdoch’s mens rea is not a question of a cagey legal strategy but something more in a demonstration of the will to power.
Murdoch, and by extension Fox, lied and defamed to show they are impervious to the laws, customs and morality of mere mortals and yearned to get away with it.
Re: Re:
Murdoch got slagged twice in Britain.
Now he’s getting slagged in the Us.
Sadly, the damage is already done.
Re: Re:
If that were true, then why did they fire Lou Dobbs?
Re: Re: Re:
Same reason a Fox (pun unintended) will gnaw it’s own leg off.
Re:
I’d assume it’s the wealth of behind the scenes recording available that are swinging the facts here. Murdoch being a toxic influence driving editorial isn’t new – as terrible as it it, Superman 4 in 1987 was already parodying that – and he’s not been too shy about admitting it. But, the recording that have come out here might be changing how they’re dealt with. News Of The World was killed in the UK partly because they had to admit to the hacking (though, they had to admit to interfering with ongoing police investigations for a missing child there), maybe this backs them into another corner where they can’t pretend to have been journalists?
My only fear is what comes next. I don’t think there’s anyone on speaking terms with reality in the same space as Fox, and their fans have been trained to reject those to the “left”.
Re: Re:
They already are hurling death threats.
They already are harassing us online.
They’ve already used violence.
While you shudder at the next step, I see it as an inevitability.
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, all true. I hope for the best, but I also fear that a certain tendency to turn to violence, with weapons already procured, might be in the future.
I hope for the best, but yeah there’s probably going to be people who don’t like their fictions being taken away.
Re: Re: Re:2
lol tough shit for them. They’re only around because those of us who aren’t dumb enough to believe in an imaginary sky friend permitted their lunacy. Now they’ve proven that tolerance is wasted on them. We can start by shifting all their supposed holy tomes into the fiction section and laugh at them as they try in vain to argue back.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t.
All I will say is, learn self-defense and always be ready to defend yourself.
We’re dealing with a potential violent movement 74 million strong.
Re: Re: Re:3
We’re dealing with a potential violent movement 74 million strong.
I’d agreee with the first half of the sentence, but 74 million strong? Most of those voters can’t be bothered to do anything other than alienate themselves from family & friends, and show everyone what gullible fools they are. They tried to take the Capitol, and 4 of them died as a result – 2 due to cardiovascular disease (imagine that…), 1 got trampled, and the other got herself shot.
These are not intelligent people, despite their confident attitude. They’ve got the guns, but not the smarts. And the big end of their supporters are overweight geriatric simpletons who don’t have enough spare change for gas to get more than 5 miles away from their trailer park.
Re: Re: Re:4
True.
But that 74 million strong also include a chunk of the US Armed Forces as well.
The Second Civil War will not be pretty.
Re: Re: Re:5
“The Second Civil War will not be pretty.”
I think those that are jonesing for war have no idea wtf,
no, these people just want to LARP the civil war as it appears in their dreams.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m not jonesing for war.
If anything, I’d prefer that the US does not erupt inti civil war. It’s bad for everyone.
But I expect the worst to happen. Not because I desire for it.
Re: Re: Re:5
And despite that and all the other tacticool nuts with all of their vests, velcro, funny helmets, and big talk they were unable to assume control of a poorly guarded building full of unarmed suits.
I’d doubt the chunk of armed forces who are actually cognizant of how fucked they would be if caught would consider risking their careers now that they’ve seen exactly how it worked out for the fools who thought 1/6 was a good idea. Only the die-hard unfixable stupids are left at this point, and you can spot them by their incessant grandstanding a mile away.
It won’t be pretty once those red-hats figure out how many of their states are actually welfare states with no blue state subsidies anymore.
It also won’t be pretty when the smart folks head for higher ground. That’s already happening with respect to doctors in states banning abortion, which amuses me to no end. They can certainly be nonchalant about the situation now, but when it comes time to deliver all those babies the women were forced to have, that indifference will give the ‘pro-life, pro-god’ people something else to blame on Democrats.
And don’t get me started on Big Tech. They hate it right to the point where they can’t use it. Then they want it, and keeping it from them is ‘suppression.’
It won’t be pretty, but the biggest mouths calling for it are going to be the biggest whiners once they get the shit sub they’re asking for.
Re: Re: Re:3
Too many of them claim to be rugged individualists to unite behind any competent leader. The fighting between factions would likely stop any revolution getting very far.
Re: Re: Re:4
I hope you are right.
Unfortunately, I will not take any chances.
Re:
It’s a distraction. The real issue is that Fox’s actual raison d’être has from the beginning specifically been to push right-wing propaganda for political purposes (the money is gravy).
Not everyone will be fully taken in by the “but my profits” act, so they need a clown show too, to distract everyone from any more fundamental issues.
Re: Re:
That was Ailes. Murdoch’s priorities are the reverse: money first, right-wing propaganda a distant second.
Re: Re: Re:
Respectfully disagree. His history shows that Murdock cares very much both about money and about propagandizing a right-wing perspective.
And also that he isn’t much concerned about ethical considerations in the pursuit of either.
Fines and Penalties means “Legal, for a Cost.”
I try that, and I get Jail Time. Corporation does it, and it’s “Pay more money.”
Still nothing from the resident legal geniuses...
It’s funny, but the regular TD geniuses with all of their ‘degrees’ and experience in all things legal are not here to explain what happened with discovery in this case.
I seem to remember being told how discovery would be the end of Dominion. Boy, if only the ‘legal scholar’ who predicted that would show up and explain how the judge got it wrong, maybe I could get some sleep at night!
As of right now, I need him to explain how OAN and Newsmax aren’t on my favorite satellite providers anymore, and now this! It’s almost as if he doesn’t know what in the hell he’s talking about, and it keeps getting worse.
(Yeah, I’m looking at you, Chozen, you dumbass son of a bitch you!)
Why wouldn't they?
While it seems like a terrible move in their shoes I’d probably be tempted to do the same.
Oh noes, they got an extra financial wrist slap for withholding damning information, it’s a good thing none of the parties involved have money to burn and the ability to turn right around and use their platforms to turn the rulings against them into massive fundraising opportunities.
Financial penalties are only punishments and deterrents for those that struggle to pay them, for those who don’t face that issue they’re just a cost of doing business and depending on circumstances(like say an audience aching to fuel their persecution complex/fetish…) an opportunity to be exploited.
Re:
Again, if that were true, why did they fire Lou Dobbs?
Murdoch does not seem at all happy about how much this is going to cost him. Even billionaires generally don’t like losing billions.
And Murdoch didn’t want to prop up Trump in the first damn place; he’s spent the past year desperately trying to convince his audience to back DeSantis instead. That’s probably going to turn out to be a massive waste of money too, but at least I understand the thinking.
Sanctions
It takes a hell of a lot to piss off a judge enough to issue sanctions. As we’ve seen from so many stories on Techdirt, shitty lawyers get away with a lot before being sanctioned. I really hope Fox keeps it up and someone ends up with some jail time.
Re: Sanctions?
Agreed. But don’t the judge’s sanctions seem pretty weak in relation to what happened? How would these sanctions deter Fox’s or other unethical attorneys from doing the same thing? Judge didn’t (couldn’t?) include monetary sanctions against Fox or refer their attorneys to the State Bar(s) for ethics violations etc.
Incredibly, an attorney from Lewis Brisbois recently forged my signature on a court of appeal filing! Seriously. So, I’m looking at filing a motion for sanctions, filing a police report, and filing a complaint with the State Bar. Hopefully that’ll stop them from doing anything like that again. But I doubt it if they also get weak or no sanctions.
republican response
Cue the gop to investigate how Dominion got those damaging recordings that Fox had chosen not to turn over.
Re:
If only they included a pic of Fox’ penis.
Perhaps using Trumps Rolodex of lawyers not yet sanctioned was a bad idea.
It’d be more surprising if FOX wasnt intentionally trying to dupe the court.
It’s a great spot to find new information. Your post is very knowledgeable and useful. Thanks for sharing.
https://www.hornandhornesqs.com/
I am very thankful to you as your article has given me lots of ideas. I enjoyed a lot by reading this post. Thanks for sharing your blog.
https://www.hamptonturfandtree.com/