Wondering Why Donald Trump's Libel Case Fell Flatter Than His Hairdo? We've Got the Transcript!
By Andrew Longstreth
July 20, 2009
Last week, when New Jersey superior court judge Michele Fox dismissed The Donald's defamation suit against New York Times editor Timothy O'Brien--whose book, TrumpNation, cited confidential sources estimating the businessman's wealth to be between $150 million and $250 million--she ruled from the bench, rather than offering a written opinion. We, for one, were intensely curious about Judge Fox's reasoning. Had the utter ridiculousness of Trump's comb-over rendered him libel-proof? Enquiring minds can now be satisfied: We've gotten our hands on a transcript of Fox's ruling.Trump hair mockery aside, we were particularly interested in reading what Judge Fox had to say about confidential witnesses. Last week, you'll recall, we spoke to Joel Kurtzberg of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, who had argued before a New Jersey state appellate court on behalf of media companies interested in the issue of confidential witnesses in the Trump case. Kurtzberg told us that the appellate court's ruling--that O'Brien did not have to reveal his confidential witnesses--had had a major impact on the outcome of the case.
Trump had asserted in summary judgment proceedings that O'Brien and his publisher "cannot utilize the newsperson's privilege as both a sword and a shield, arguing that having asserted the privilege to avoid providing discovery, defendants cannot now utilize the privilege to obtain summary judgment as to actual malice," Judge Fox said, according to the transcript.
But she rejected that line of reasoning. She cited New Jersey Supreme Court precedent "holding that the privilege does not impinge upon the rights of a defamation plaintiff seeking money damages." She also discredited the Trump lawyers' argument that O'Brien had "adopted the position of the confidential sources," which proved actual malice. "At best, O'Brien's adoption of the sources' position of the millionaire status of Trump's net worth, if it can be characterized as such, rather than the skepticism that O'Brien claims it reflects, constitutes opinion which is not actionable," Judge Fox said.
Making appearances for Trump on the day Judge Fox read her ruling were William Cook and William Tambussi of Brown & Connery and Mark Ressler and Maria Gorecki of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Mark Melodia and Kellie Lavery of Reed Smith and Andrew Ceresney and Andrew Levine of Debevoise & Plimpton got the good news for the defendants.
