I am worried.  The New York Times may be able to short-circuit Sarah Palin's lawsuit.  Its response to a court order to provide testimony looks to my layman's eyes like a plausible escape via the "actual malice" requirement that the author knew or should have known that the assertion was untrue.    The New York Times Company responded to Palin's defamation lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, which is fairly routine in lawsuits.  But I am not sure they expected the unusual response from U.S. District Court judge Jed S. Rakoff, who required the company to identify the editor or editors who wrote the editorial and submit them to pretrial testimony under oath next week. The order states that the author or authors must appear when the court: ... will convene an evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, August 16 at 2:00 PM EST. At the hearing, defense counsel must produce the author(s) of the editorial, who (or each of whom, if...(Read Full Post)