The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today's Order Allowing Dominion Voting's Case Against Fox to Go Forward
The order, which denied Fox's motion for summary judgment and partly granted Dominion's motion for summary judgment as to certain elements of the claim, is here; it's 130 pages long, and I'm likely not to have the time soon to get through the whole thing and digest it, but I thought I'd pass it along. An excerpt, though, as to the falsehood of the underlying statements (emphasis in original):
While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in tum. Fox failed to meet its burden. 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. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Dominion on the element of falsity.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is emphasis like that a usual feature of a decision?
Speaking of usual, my question for lawyers is how often a defamation plaintiff succeeds even partially at summary judgement. Is that unusual enough to be noteworthy? Or is it within the range of things that are considered normal?
I thought this was a good question. Anyone have experience or knowledge about this?
The lawandcrime article on the decision quotes Jeff Kosseff saying it's “very very rare.”
Thank you.
All caps, bold and italics. Judge should get off twitter, its seeping into opinions.
Judges should get off twitter, right-wingers should ditch random capitalization . . . in a better world, we would have that and more.
But instead we have a world with dramatic judges and semiliterate Republicans.
...and illiterate Rev.'s.
That’s just how a lot of lawyers write unfortunately.
Eh, I've found judicial dignity has lead to a lot of staid and boring decisions.
Provided it doesn't effect clarity, a bit of spice is not something I'm against.
I’m commenting more on the formatting choices than the content. All caps bold italics is kind of grating and totally unnecessary.
Know your audience?
I'm a bit confused here.
In many of these examples, it's not Fox News making the statement. It's a guest or interviewee on a Fox news program (or opinion segment).
So, if you have an interviewee on your news opinion show, and that interviewee says something that may be libel, the news organization can be sued for libel? Is that how this works?
This is not so much a "smoking gun" case.
It is more a "still-firing artillery battery" case.
This case will be a centerpiece of journalism classes for many years. Those classes might be entitled "What Not To Do If You Want To Be Anything Resembling A Legitimate Journalist And/Or Avoid Staggering Liability."
Prediction: It's all over except for the damages calculations. Dominion should move to equip every juror with a high-power calculator.
Is that how this works?
You are ignoring the parts where Fox employees admit they knew the guests are lying and then invited them back on to continue slandering Dominion.
You are also ignoring that some of those segments were pre-recorded and rerun. A live/no-delay broadcast doesn't afford producers and their lawyers any time to react, so a claim could be made about agency there, especially if they had later corrected the record.
But they didn't correct the record, and kept spewing slander well after it was crystal clear what was going on, all the way up to King Rupert.
“I’m a bit confused here.”
In other news, the earth orbits the sun.
“In many of these examples, it’s not Fox News making the statement. It’s a guest or interviewee on a Fox news program (or opinion segment).”
If you concede that even one of the examples was Fox News making the statement, which you do with the word “many”, then it’s game over, get out the high-powered calculators.
A more interesting question is, can a news organization, or any organization, spread defamatory statements with impunity just by inviting “guests” on to make the statements?
If you answer yes to that question, please square that with your view on whether section 230 should be repealed so that theoretically, social media platforms no longer have protection against defamation but, because only “guests” are making the statements, they would have no liability anyway? Either “guests” can say any crazy thing and the owner of the TV station, newspaper, billboard, social media platform has no responsibility for those statements (the only view in which Fox News prevails, it seems to me) or there is a limit to what you can allow without actively and explicitly distancing yourself from what the “guests” say.
In the former case, it would seem section 230 only reiterated the same protection that law already provided to hosts of other speakers, so its repeal should have no effect.
“So, if you have an interviewee on your news opinion show, and that interviewee says something that may be libel, the news organization can be sued for libel? Is that how this works?”
No, if you watch actual news, they adhere to journalistic standards and also protect themselves from defamation. They will follow-up interviews with guests making outrageous statements by indicating that the guest just made allegations but the allegations have not been proven (or some similar verbiage). This happens routinely when covering legal/criminal cases. Surely that’s not asking too much, especially when the host knows (as the Fox News hosts texted to each other that they knew) the allegations are not only unproven, but utter bullshit.
And a reminder, Fox hosts said things like:
“”Sidney, we talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.” (Good luck convincing a jury that when Maria said “I know that there were voting irregularities”, she wasn’t endorsing Sidney “nut job” Powell’s theory, seeing as how that statement was sandwiched in between “Dominion software” and “tell me about that.”)
“Investigations continue in multiple key states where hundreds, now, of sworn affidavits are being filed, lawsuits are being filed, alleging serious election misconduct,” That’s good, that’s what a journalist should do. But, then, the host continued:
“And let’s not forget the software error — we’re going to be focused on this a lot — wrongfully awarded Joe Biden thousands of ballots that were cast for President Trump, until the problem was amazingly fixed. And according to a report, that very same software — it’s called Dominion Voting Systems — that was used in 28 states.”
Not “the alleged software error” that “is alleged to have wrongfully awarded”, but a statement of fact “the software error” that “wrongfully awarded”. And, by the way, its Dominion Voting Systems. It’s just not hard to avoid liability by telling your viewers these are unfounded allegations. Even “explosive if true!” But not, what the host did, which is make statements of fact.
I'm pretty sure this is a reference to Antrim County, MI. Which was not a software error, but user error. And as such the error was obvious, and quickly caught and fixed.
It's like (if ballots were counted by hand) accidentally flipping the totals for the two candidates when writing it down. And then someone said, "Hey, does this result really make sense?" And then the other person said, "Whoops, no, you're right. We flipped 'em. We'll fix that." And then other people complaining that Bic was at fault because the person who wrote the totals in the wrong columns used a ballpoint pen.
Well...
If a Clerk doesn't update the software, and that results in a large number of votes being switched, I would call that both a software error and a user error. The software was at fault...it required an update.
It's more akin to a paper ballot being used that has an error on it, and the clerk was supposed to switch out the erroneous ballots for new ballots. There's both an error in the ballots and the user.
"If a Clerk doesn’t update the software, and that results in a large number of votes being switched, I would call that both a software error and a user error. The software was at fault…it required an update."
Good story, only that's not what happened.
The clerk misused the software. It had nothing to do with updating the software or failing to update the software. The software did precisely what it was supposed to do. It was entirely the clerk's fault.
1. If your initial response is an insult to an honest question, it doesn't speak well of you, nor your opinion.
2. "If you concede that even one of the examples was Fox News making the statement, which you do with the word “many"
No, there's no "concession". I simply didn't exhaustively examine each and every statement.
3. Section 230 is not relevant to this discussion.
4. You have nothing to add.
1. If your initial response is an insult to an honest question, it doesn’t speak well of you, nor your opinion.
It doesn't at all read like an honest question. And you have a reputation.
Nonetheless, I answered the question. (See Snorkle's response indicating he didn't really think it was an honest question either.)
it doesn’t speak well of you, nor your opinion
Your estimation of my character has nothing to do with the quality of my opinion on this legal issue. It just means you are highly motivated not to admit I am right. Which you demonstrate here.
4. You have nothing to add.
That you do not like the answer to your question or the person who provides it is irrelevant to whether anything was added. I answered both the question with the "many of these examples" and, making the assumption against the evidence that there was an honest question lurking in there, with respect to a specific situation it appears you meant to ask about.
It's complicated, and I don't claim to have a comprehensive understanding of it, but the short answer is yes. And not only can the news org be sued, they can be sued *successfully* depending on the circumstances.
In today's ruling, the judge lays out the legal landscape in section V. subsection G, starting on page 69.
See: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/summary-judgment-opinion-in-fox-dominion-case/f54475e2da851d41/full.pdf
That seems pretty subjective on the part of the judge.
If accurate reporting on what others say (even if what they say is libel) is actionable as the reporting itself is libel...then there's going to be a pretty large media problem.
You're just intentionally not understanding the legal standards and arguments. Right? Right???
Is this what passes for honesty with you?
1) Invite someone whom you know is a liar onto your show.
2) Signal to your audience that this is a trustworthy individual with important information to communicate.
3) Watch them repeat the lies to your audience.
4) Thank the guest for showing up instead of challenging them for their obvious lies.
Not only were the Fox News hosts endorsing the libelous claims message the guests were delivering, the guests were explicitly brought there to make the libelous claims.
Hence, Fox News is responsible for the libelous claims.
So, using that standard, Christopher Steele has been interviewed by both Mother Jones and ABC news. Many of his fraudulent claims were repeated.
Does this mean, ABC and Mother Jones can now be sued for libel?
Fraud requires a deliberate falsehood, you don't get to label any claim you don't like a "fraud" (even if it is wrong).
ABC, Mother Jones, and probably even Christopher Steel believed the claims that were communicated.
Why isn't Dominion a "public figure" with the NYT v. Sullivan standard applying? If corporations are people, then what's the difference between Dominion and Sullivan (other than he's probably dead now).
If I were to non-maliciously and non-recklessly accuse human beings, e.g. the senior citizens who still hand count paper ballots in many jurisdictions, of fraud or error, that would be protected. So what's the difference between me accusing Carla the Town Clerk and me accusing Dominion?
Dominion has a heck of a better chance of being able to respond than a widow pushing 80 who is living on social security....
Try reading the opinion. Hint: ctrl-F to find discussion of the "actual malice" standard as applied to Dominion. Bigger hint: Dominion is the exact opposite of your imaginary town clerk in this opinion.
"If I were to non-maliciously and non-recklessly..."
Are you aware of the allegations and evidence in the Dominion v. Fox News case? it's pretty clear the statements were reckless. Looks malicious. The jury will decide. I know which side I'd pick to argue.
I know which side I'd hope to have with a contingent fee. A fee capped at one or two percent above a few million dollars of recovery would be attractive.
How much would it take to deter the Murdochs and their employees from repetitive misconduct? That should be the most important question for a jury.
Amen to negotiating a contingency fee on this one.
And that is exactly what the jury should ponder.
Who said they weren't? Why do you think the court didn't apply the actual malice standard? Is it because janitors generally don't bother to read judicial opinions before commenting on them?
Why are you talking about "non-maliciously and non-recklessly" when the evidence is that Fox was both malicious and reckless?
And why do you think that making defamatory statements about Carla the Town Clerk would be protected?
IANAL, so looking for help in interpreting today's ruling.
My reading is that Dominion asked the court to rule for summary judgement asserting that they had proven the following:
1) The alleged false statements are actually false
2) The fact that many of them were made by guests does not absolve Fox from responsibility as their "publisher"
3) Fox acted with actual malice
4) It meets the legal definition of "defamation per se"
5) Some affirmative defenses are already disproven so may not be raised at trial.
Today the court ruled:
1) Granted
2) Granted
3) Denied
4) Granted
5) Partially granted? "FOX CANNOT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF CERTAIN DEFENSES LIKE THE NEUTRAL REPORT AND FAIR REPORT PRIVILEGES OR THE PRIVILEGE FOR OPINION."
Do I have this right? And as for the last one, does that effectively prevent Fox's attorney's from presenting any sort of defense in front of the jury? Are there other affirmative defenses that could be raised?
Trying to understand the ruling, not make political points here.
The Court will allow this civil action to go to a jury trial. The jury questions will relate to : ( i) publication as to FC; ( ii) actual malice as to FNN and/ or FC ; and ( iii) whether Dominion incurred any damages . IT IS SO ORDERED
So, the parent company (FC) may claim that they were not the "publisher" of the false material, but Fox News (FNN) may not.
Either defendant can contest the "actual malice" standard.
And of course, damages are up to the jury, including punitive damages.
Seems to me that the judge may have done Dominion a favor by allowing the "actual malice" question to be adjudicated since all that material may factor into the jury's (at this point hypothetical) damage amount.
"Do I have this right?"
Your numbered paragraphs appear to me to be a pretty good summary of the findings on Dominion's motion (Fox News and Fox Corp. also filed motions for summary judgment).
"And as for the last one, does that effectively prevent Fox’s attorney’s from presenting any sort of defense in front of the jury?"
No. It prevents them from raising those affirmative defenses, but not "any sort of defense".
They can still present various defenses, most relevantly and glaringly being whether Fox News had "actual malice" (a legal term not requiring the speaker hate the person allegedly defamed, as I'm sure you know, but just in case and for others). The court not only denied Dominion's motion for summary judgment on that issue, it also denied summary judgment to Fox on that issue. The court explicitly found that, on the current record, a reasonable jury could find for either party on that issue. Thus, Fox attorneys can present a defense that Fox did not act with actual malice in publishing the false statements.
"Are there other affirmative defenses that could be raised?"
I'm not sure. Assuming Dominion sought summary judgment on every affirmative defense Fox raised (and the court ruled for Dominion on every one that was raised), then no, unless Fox comes up with a new one that they haven't already raised. And that might not even be permitted at this point, as they'd almost certainly have to amend their answer to the complaint to add affirmative defenses and it's pretty late in the day for that.
And, in case you aren't aware of what an affirmative defense is, it's just a defense a defendant can raise and then has the burden of proving it.
Self-defense is a famous one.
Say Alice shot and killed Bob.
To convict Alice on second degree murder, the prosecution has the burden to prove that Alice shot Bob, intended to shoot him and intended to cause his death or serious bodily harm (pretty much a slam dunk if you intentionally shoot someone). Alice can then raise the affirmative defense of self-defense. She will have the burden of proving that Bob was attacking her (say) and she had an honest and reasonable belief that Bob's use of force against her was unlawful and that shooting Bob was necessary to protect herself.
Even if, for some reason, the court ruled Alice couldn't raise the issue of self-defense, she could still present various defenses including that she wasn't the person who shot Bob, that she was target shooting and only hit Bob by accident (so lacked intent to hurt him, which could negate an element of second degree murder, etc.
Shorter: Fox news can still raise defenses. Their defense will most likely be focused on whether there was actual malice.
The PDF file is configured so text can not be copied without a password. It reminds me of an old discovery trick I read about where one party gave the other party documents in a color that could not be reproduced by standard photocopiers.
Retyping by hand, from page 79, "Fox News and Fox Business hold themselves to the public as news organizations and recognize viewers rely on them for reliable, accurate facts."
Interesting. I have a Times subscription, so I have no trouble with cut and paste. I'm guessing that they make a lot more money off of Wordle.
Upon Defendant Fox News Network , LLC's Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED
Upon Defendant Fox Corporation's Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED
Upon Dominion's Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
I can copy; might be an issue with your PDF reader, not the source PDF file. From page 4 (copied, emphasis added):
That (5) bullet point is why Dr. Ed 2's comment above is demonstrably clueless, per usual.
I hope Fox News, its fans, and right-wing cheerleaders (including the Volokh Conspiracy, which doesn't seem to have much to say about the "Defamation Case Of The Century," for reasons that seem obvious and delightful) enjoyed themselves while Hannity, Powell, Carlson, Giuliani, Bartiromo, Ellis, Ingraham, Hegseth and the others were spewing un-American lies, because the reckoning approaches (this month) and seems likely to be intense.
This wouldn't be the first half-billion dollar hangover in history, but it seems likely to sting Rupert Murdoch and the entire right-wing bullshit industry severely . . . and couldn't happen, with respect to Murdoch, to a more deserving guy.
Murdoch should settle (and fire Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Hegseth, Bartiromo, Scott, and a few others). I hope he doesn't.
Murdoch should settle (and fire Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Hegseth, Bartiromo, Scott, and a few others).
I suspect that he won't even though he realizes he will lose. What he is hoping for is that the eventual award will ultimately be much less than what a settlement would cost.
It isn't clear to me what motivation he would have to fire his top money-makers at this point.
"the Volokh Conspiracy, which doesn’t seem to have much to say about the “Defamation Case Of The Century,” for reasons that seem obvious and delightful)"
The reasons do seem obvious and delightful. Finally a post, but not a word of substantive commentary on the most important defamation case going. I've learned not to expect better.
When Apple was awarded a $ 1 billion judgment against Samsung in a long-running patent dispute (later knocked down to around half of that) the Chairman of Samsung shrugged it off as "the cost of doing business."
I expect Rupert Murdoch to do the same.
Perhaps, but that's where the punitive damages come in. Punitive damages only work if they hurt. I think there's a fair chance the jury makes them hurt.
I remember when Ira Glass was tricked into publishing a story about Apple in China that turned out to be fake. He devoted an entire hour show to explain what was wrong, how they got it wrong, and what they would do to stop it from happening again.
In contrast, Fox News will go balls-to-the-wall and spare no attorney expense to go to court to defend their right to lie.
And that my friends is the difference between liberal and conservative media.
"And that my friends is the difference between liberal and conservative media."
Yep.
Dan Rather caught propogating someone else's false story. Fired.
Hannity, same offense, secure in his job.
Brian Williams caught fabricating parts of his own biography. Fired from NBC Nightly News.
Tucker Carlson caught in multiple lies, secure in his job.
Chris Stirewalt correctly calls Arizona 2020 race for Biden. Fired for telling the truth.
The Republican party, its media, and its most loyal voters appear to be going all in for a selective nihilism. For example, Paul Ryan and his love of Ayn Rand....and he's one of the more sane ones who actually quit rather than be part of this shit storm. (Granted, because he was hoping this period would pass in time for him to later be President, as he did nothing to stand up to the crazy after having fed it. But it at least got to a point even he couldn't stomach.)
There is no need to cast this in "liberal vs. conservative" terms.
Your so-called "liberals" are ordinarily quite comfortable with dishonesty, in my experience. In fact, I would say dishonesty is as much of a US "liberal" characteristic as stupidity is a US conservative characteristic.
Neither political persuasion actually requires an ideologically aligned media outlet to act without integrity. All that requires is a lack of integrity.
Excluding things that conservatives insist on that liberals won't agree are true, what are you talking about?
That Bill Clinton lied about an affair, and voters largely didn't care much? "Clinton lied, Hillary cried; Bush lied, people died" seems a reasonable take on its significance.
That awkward statements are twisted into the lie of the year? "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance" was stupid, because insurance companies were free to stop offering any such plan, but the Affordable Care Act did not compel any insurance company to stop offering any of the grandfathered plans - they cancelled them because they wanted subsidy money for compliant plans, and didn't want to spend the money promoting both kinds of plans.
Contrast your examples with every Republican administration in my lifetime having had convicted and/or pardoned high ranking officials.
That requires wordplay to be true. Even a minor change to a plan meant it was no longer grandfathered, and the ACA then forbid it from being offered.
Plans lose grandfathered status if they make any of the following changes:
1. Eliminate of all or substantially all benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition.
2. Increase a percentage cost-sharing requirement (such as coinsurance).
3. Increase a fixed-amount copayment by more than medical inflation plus 15%, or more than $5, whichever is greater.
4. Increase a fixed-amount cost-sharing requirement (other than a copayment) by more than medical inflation plus 15%
5. Lower the employer contribution rate by more than 5% for any group of covered persons.
6. Impose or reduce annual an annual dollar limit.
In other words, changes to the plan to make it better are fine. Changes to the plan to make it worse, other than as specified in 3, 4, and 5, result in the loss of grandfathered status. Items 2, 3, and 4 mean that the insurance company can raise out of pocket expenses to reflect inflation in medical costs without losing grandfathered status.
Let's talk about damages. The opinion says that under NY law, which applies here, there is defamation per se for a corporation, which means that damages are "presumed" and thus the jury can award at least nominal damages.
How exactly does that work? Does the corporation have to prove some kind of economic loss? I assume that unlike an individual, a corporation cannot claim damages for emotions, since it has none.
If they do show some loss of a contract, do they have to make a causative link between the defamation and the loss?
Or can the jury just award whatever it feels likes?
To put it differently, what, if anything does Dominion have to do to get more than $ 1? Because it would be supremely ironic if the jury awarded that.
"How exactly does that work? Does the corporation have to prove some kind of economic loss?"
Um, of course. In this case, Dominion is arguing damage to its reputation and lost business. Fox News is arguing that Dominion actually did better than before the defamation and better than they had expected. Everyone should want Fox News to defame them, says Fox News.
But it'll be up to the jury and hard to believe they'll find Fox News published the defamatory statements that were made about Dominion but conclude their reputation didn't suffer, even if they can't show specific lost contracts or lost revenue. At least a third of the country still believes the stupid conspiracy theories about Dominion and it's not at all unreasonable to think heavily Republican jurisdictions have or will choose vendors other than Dominion for their voting systems because a large portion of their voters will demand it.
And then there are punitive damages, where the real money will likely be.
"and it’s not at all unreasonable to think heavily Republican jurisdictions have or will choose vendors other than Dominion for their voting systems because a large portion of their voters will demand it."
In most tort cases, that kind of damages argument would be viewed as too speculative. Are defamation cases by businesses different?
In most tort cases, that kind of damages argument would be viewed as too speculative.
Not my area of practice, but in law school speculative loss of business was literally an example used for defamation damages.
"but in law school speculative loss of business was literally an example used for defamation damages."
Not doubting you, but is there any authority for that?
Damages in defamation cases are different than those in regular tort cases (or can be).
Franklin Prescriptions v. NY Times, 424 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2005) explains:
Later in the same opinion:
And it appears Delaware presumes reputation damages for libel and for certain categories of slander, particularly including slander of a business. So, pretty clear, it'll be presumed that there is damage to reputation, though the amount will be determined by the jury (if liability is found). I'm not sure what counts as proof, but you don't have to show actual lost contracts or direct business harm for the reasons the court mentions: it's unfair to people defamed as the damage is hard to quantify and prove.
That's probably one reason Delaware is considered to be friendly to businesses/corporations. There's a reason most businesses incorporate in Delaware.
NOVA, random question for you. Is NOVA Northern Virginia or Villanova?
Northern Virginia.
I've been reading that wrong the whole time. Sorry about that.
No apology needed. Although, the law school I attended is ranked significantly higher than Villanova. LOL.
In most tort cases, that kind of damages argument would be viewed as too speculative.
And what if Dominion could show actual loss of contracts as a result of all this horseshit?
That would make it unspeculative, wouldn't it, though there might be some guesswork involved in determining the actual amount.
But here is a question. Are the actual damages the loss of profits, or the possibly much greater loss of value of the company itself? ISTM that the latter, not the former, is the real damage to Dominion's owners.
And what if Dominion could show actual loss of contracts as a result of all this horseshit?
Sure that's an easy case. Can they show that -- with both causation in fact and proximate causation, the usual tort test? I don't know.
Are the actual damages the loss of profits, or the possibly much greater loss of value of the company itself?
The value of a company is its ability to generate profits. If there was no loss of profit-making ability, how is the value harmed? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
Not to mention, that the company has lost nothing, it's the owners who lost. I would think they would have to be joined as co-plaintiffs.
The value of a company is its ability to generate profits. If there was no loss of profit-making ability, how is the value harmed? I don’t understand the distinction you are making.
Say there is a loss of profit-making ability.
The value of a company is, very roughly speaking, the present value of future profits. If that is reduced it looks like damages to me. IOW, if my company is worth, say, $10M, and your defamation reduces that to $6M, I have clearly suffered a $4M loss. No?
Besides, if you view lost profits as irrelevant, then you are saying the defamation produces no damage. So, I own a company that manufactures some product or other. You claim, publicly and loudly and falsely, that my product is defective and unsafe. Isn't it obvious that my damages relate to the loss of business as a result of that?
Now you seem to be saying that value equals profits, or more accurately, expected future profits. Which I agree with. So saying the value went down is the same as saying that expected future profits went down.
saying the value went down is the same as saying that expected future profits went down.,/i>
Yes. But the present value of expected future profits is probably vastly greater than, say, lost profits over the next year or two or three.
Here is how one court has summarized NY law on damages:
Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Mgmt. Co. v. Lodderhose, 282 F. Supp. 2d 126, 132–33 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
This isn't relevant to the facts of the case, but possibly a schadenfreude moment for those who dislike me.
I live in Delaware. For our federal jury duty, you are on for 2 months. My partner got called from April 10th to June 10th.
Delaware is also where almost all large companies are incorporated. Guess where the Dominion v Fox case is happening? You guessed it, Delaware.
The case is estimated to last 6 weeks and those estimates are usually pretty good, probably because we have so many business v business suits here. So I may end up driving to Wilmington twice a day for six weeks and, on top of that, I will probably know less than most people because if she gets seated we won't be watching the news.
Granted, there are hundreds of people in that jury pool. But my partner is unwilling to lie to get out of jury duty and for some God-unknown reason she not only gets called for jury duty all the time, she gets seated about one in three times she's called.
I just know I'm going to have to stop doing rescue work and be a chauffeur for six weeks. Let the mockery begin!
Cool humble brag, bro.
I think this is the first time that anyone has used "brag" and "jury duty" together. I'm not even sure how one would brag about jury duty, unless they were saying they were the most skilled at getting out of it.