Palin goes for the jugular in defamation lawsuit against the New York Times

A nightmare is unfolding for the New York Times that could well be devastating for the collapsing credibility and mindshare of the entire progressive media.  In a court filing by defense counsel for the New York Times, the scope of the discovery being sought by Palin's legal team was revealed.  If the court allows, the story it could tell might well be all too revealing.  Kaja Whitehouse of the New York Post spotted the public disclosure.

In a motion arguing that the case be dismissed, lawyers for the New York Times complained that Palin's legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena "twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees – most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue."

The subpoenas are part of Palin's effort to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," The Times told the judge.

Palin's legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce "every internal communication it has had about her since 2011," they said.

As of an hour ago, the New York Times was clamming up when queried about the disclosure.

I am no litigator, but having seen and read about the scope of successful subpoena demands in corporate litigation, I suspect that Palin will get her access in discovery.  She is probably entitled to know what they said about her since she is alleging that they acted with malice.  Texts, IMs, emails, tweets, instagrams, and more.  I bet there are precedents.

It is pure speculation on my part, of course, but I would guess that negative sentiments about Palin could be found in searches of these records.  In fact, I hear that people treat instantaneous cyber-communications media like intimate conversations and crack mean jokes.  Or wildly speculate and hypothesize.  Or otherwise let down their hair and glory in the vigor of their shared opinions.

Maybe it is my prejudice against them speaking, and nobody at the New York Times would ever hang out online with people like that and interact spontaneously without consideration that their electronic records might be subject to discovery.  Maybe they are really careful with that in mind.[1]   

If litigation proceeds, and some of these electronic conversations about Palin come out in court, the mindset revealed therein could be extremely embarrassing, to say the least.  This raises the question of what it would take to get her to settle.  


[1] As matter of fact, I want to make it clear that those weren't my friends I was talking about in my speculation above.  It is people I have heard about from others – I forget whom. 

A nightmare is unfolding for the New York Times that could well be devastating for the collapsing credibility and mindshare of the entire progressive media.  In a court filing by defense counsel for the New York Times, the scope of the discovery being sought by Palin's legal team was revealed.  If the court allows, the story it could tell might well be all too revealing.  Kaja Whitehouse of the New York Post spotted the public disclosure.

In a motion arguing that the case be dismissed, lawyers for the New York Times complained that Palin's legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena "twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees – most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue."

The subpoenas are part of Palin's effort to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," The Times told the judge.

Palin's legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce "every internal communication it has had about her since 2011," they said.

As of an hour ago, the New York Times was clamming up when queried about the disclosure.

I am no litigator, but having seen and read about the scope of successful subpoena demands in corporate litigation, I suspect that Palin will get her access in discovery.  She is probably entitled to know what they said about her since she is alleging that they acted with malice.  Texts, IMs, emails, tweets, instagrams, and more.  I bet there are precedents.

It is pure speculation on my part, of course, but I would guess that negative sentiments about Palin could be found in searches of these records.  In fact, I hear that people treat instantaneous cyber-communications media like intimate conversations and crack mean jokes.  Or wildly speculate and hypothesize.  Or otherwise let down their hair and glory in the vigor of their shared opinions.

Maybe it is my prejudice against them speaking, and nobody at the New York Times would ever hang out online with people like that and interact spontaneously without consideration that their electronic records might be subject to discovery.  Maybe they are really careful with that in mind.[1]   

If litigation proceeds, and some of these electronic conversations about Palin come out in court, the mindset revealed therein could be extremely embarrassing, to say the least.  This raises the question of what it would take to get her to settle.  


[1] As matter of fact, I want to make it clear that those weren't my friends I was talking about in my speculation above.  It is people I have heard about from others – I forget whom. 

RECENT VIDEOS