Discovery already occurred. Depositions already occurred. Lots of bad stuff for Fox already came out. Emails/Texts from Tucker got released as part of the court documents. Murdoch himself sat for a deposition.
The trial would not have been about "Did Fox defame Dominion" because the judge issued a summary judgement on that. That means the facts were already proven and a jury would not need to establish the defamation. There was only going to be one issue at trial.
In the court documents. Dominion argued that Fox made
(1) false statements;
(2) of and concerning Dominion;
(3) that were published;
(4) that were defamatory per se; and
(5) did so with actual malice.
The judge said the facts of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were true. The only issue before a jury would #5. To prove "actual malice" Dominion would have to prove Fox "either knew that the statement was false at the time, or else demonstrated “reckless disregard” as to if it was false."
Fox was saying one thing in private and a different thing on air.
The judge determined that Dominion had proven this. He issued what is known as a summary judgement. As a point of law, the judge said Fox had defamed Dominion on its shows and that issued was settled and need not go to a jury. There was only one issue left for the trial.
First, what did the judge base it summary judgement on?
This lawsuit started in March 2021. Since then Dominion was able to get discovery (as was Fox). Dominion got texts and emails from Fox executives and hosts. Last month we saw what Hannity, Tucker, Laura and others were saying in private about the claims about Dominion. This was in court documents filed last month. Dominion also got to depose several people under oath including Rupert Murdoch. You can read a ton about the inner discussions Fox was having in the judge's ruling. Skip the law stuff and just look for the quotes.
https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820
The only issue at trial was going do be: did Fox act with malice. "Actual Malice" means saying false defamatory stuff while knowing it's false or being so reckless you don't even look into if it's false.
Malice only applies in the case of public figures. If you sued me for defamation, all you would have to show is I defamed you. But there's more protection for someone who says something about public figure. In that case, you have show to actual malice. It's a higher standard of proof.
Discovery already occurred. Depositions already occurred. Lots of bad stuff for Fox already came out. Emails/Texts from Tucker got released as part of the court documents. Murdoch himself sat for a deposition.
The trial would not have been about "Did Fox defame Dominion" because the judge issued a summary judgement on that. That means the facts were already proven and a jury would not need to establish the defamation. There was only going to be one issue at trial.
https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820
In the court documents. Dominion argued that Fox made
(1) false statements; (2) of and concerning Dominion; (3) that were published; (4) that were defamatory per se; and (5) did so with actual malice.
The judge said the facts of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were true. The only issue before a jury would #5. To prove "actual malice" Dominion would have to prove Fox "either knew that the statement was false at the time, or else demonstrated “reckless disregard” as to if it was false."
Can you explain this part to me again, please, fren, and type slower 🙂 am not a lawfag, this part is very confusing to me.
Fox was saying one thing in private and a different thing on air.
The judge determined that Dominion had proven this. He issued what is known as a summary judgement. As a point of law, the judge said Fox had defamed Dominion on its shows and that issued was settled and need not go to a jury. There was only one issue left for the trial.
First, what did the judge base it summary judgement on?
This lawsuit started in March 2021. Since then Dominion was able to get discovery (as was Fox). Dominion got texts and emails from Fox executives and hosts. Last month we saw what Hannity, Tucker, Laura and others were saying in private about the claims about Dominion. This was in court documents filed last month. Dominion also got to depose several people under oath including Rupert Murdoch. You can read a ton about the inner discussions Fox was having in the judge's ruling. Skip the law stuff and just look for the quotes. https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820
The only issue at trial was going do be: did Fox act with malice. "Actual Malice" means saying false defamatory stuff while knowing it's false or being so reckless you don't even look into if it's false.
Malice only applies in the case of public figures. If you sued me for defamation, all you would have to show is I defamed you. But there's more protection for someone who says something about public figure. In that case, you have show to actual malice. It's a higher standard of proof.
Thank you for your time explaining that to me. 🙂