Attorneys for Fox Corp. and Dominion Voting Systems presented their cases before a Delaware judge this week in Dominion’s $1.6 billion libel lawsuit, pushing for a ruling without attending a jury trial next month.
Each Fox and Dominion presented their arguments before Judge Eric Davis within the Delaware Supreme Court on Tuesday as a part of an application for summary judgment, meaning they’re searching for a ruling based on their arguments and evidence without going to trial.
Nonetheless, Fox and Dominion didn’t close their disputes on Tuesday and will meet in court on Wednesday morning. Davis, still considering their arguments, said he was unsure whether he could rule on certain cases ahead of trial.
In recent weeks, a body of evidence gathered by each side – hundreds of pages stuffed with testimonial excerpts, text messages and emails – has been released in a push by each side to conclude a verdict.
Dominion brought defamation lawsuit v. Fox Corp. and its right-wing cable networks Fox News and Fox Business, arguing that the channels and their hosts pushed false claims that their voting machines were rigged in the course of the 2020 election during which Joe Biden triumphed over Donald Trump.
Dominion attorneys on Tuesday recorded nearly two dozen cases where they consider hosts at Fox News and Fox Business are broadcasting repeated claims of election fraud – and have consistently had visitors like Trump’s lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell push these claims – yes as in the event that they were real. To back this up, they used piles of text messages and emails during which hosts like Tucker Carlson convey their concerns in regards to the guest and voter fraud claims.
Davis on Tuesday urged Dominion lawyers to point to statements made on the air to prove his libel case, not what was said in internal communications.
The attorneys focused on broadcasts hosted by Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo, in addition to a few of Carlson, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro, where claims of problems with Dominion software algorithms, bribery and cyber security were repeated on the air after it was proven that they’re fake.
Dobbs’ tweets from the time were also cited as a part of the evidence. “There seems to be a problem with Dobbs,” Davis, the judge presiding over the case, later told Fox’s lawyer.
Dominion attorney Justin Nelson said on Tuesday he had collected such examples that the voting machine company had to prove that there was a minimum of one person on each broadcast “who knew the allegations were false or who recklessly disregarded the reality.” .
Dominion’s lawyers also pointed to Fox’s so-called “brain room”, where fact-checking is completed on its shows. Dominion says it has been ignored by Fox’s management and hosts.
Dominion sought to have the judge rule in his favor by constructing a case that Fox News and its parent company’s management had acted maliciously, parroting false election claims and continuously introducing guests like Powell and Giuliani.
Fox’s attorneys countered that Fox News hosts had reported newsworthy allegations of election fraud – which stemmed from Trump – and whether or not they believed the claims or whether what their guests said didn’t indicate they’d acted maliciously. (Trump’s false claims of election fraud are at the middle quite a few criminal investigations.)
In a court slide on Tuesday, Fox showed that the idea of his case was “whether the press is reporting the allegations accurately, not whether the underlying allegations are true or false.” Fox’s attorney, Erin Murphy, also based the media company’s case on the premise that “any reasonable viewer” of the news would give you the option to recognize the allegations or facts on Fox’s networks.
Davis, the judge, asked various questions during Murphy’s coverage of the Fox case, questioning their definition of “reasonable spectator” and whether “fact-checkers don’t matter” in relation to Fox’s “brain room”.
Murphy, who said a “sensible viewer” is someone who knows the difference between news and opinion, identified when Carlson introduced MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a Trump ally who promoted election-related conspiracy theories. Any “reasonable viewer could be surprised at what he’s talking about.”
Murphy also said on Tuesday that one other key element was proving that Fox News was making these claims, and not Fox Corp.’s parent company, which is being sued together with its networks.
The hearing followed the discharge of leaked documents in recent weeks that showed emails, text messages and testimonies from top Fox hosts and executives that show they were skeptical of claims made on the air.
Chairman Rupert Murdoch said some presenters had parroted false claims of fraud within the months following the election. Evidence also suggests that Murdoch was involved with Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on the time.
Dominion argued that Fox and its TV channels and talents falsely claimed that their voting machines had rigged the 2020 election results. Fox has consistently denied claims that he knowingly made false claims and has argued that he’s protected by the First Amendment.
First Amendment watchdogs and experts are watching this case closely.
To win a defamation lawsuit, a plaintiff must show that the defendant person or company made false statements that caused damage, and that they acted with “actual malice”, meaning that the person saying knew or must have known what he was saying was unfaithful .
Defamation lawsuits normally focus on one lie, but on this case, Dominion presents a long list of examples of Fox TV hosts making false claims, even after they have been proven unfaithful. Media firms are sometimes extensively protected by the First Amendment.
These cases are sometimes settled out of court or quickly dismissed by a court judge, but none have had such discussions as previously reported by CNBC.