Greer v. Fox Corporation

Background

In an October 14, 2020 opinion and order, the court granted in part Greer’s request for jurisdictional discovery. It allowed limited, narrowly restricted interrogatories and document requests directed to Jennifer Strasburg and Tucker Carlson. The parties then submitted letters describing disputes about the discovery requests they had exchanged. This order resolved those disputes.

The discovery concerned jurisdictional issues involving domicile. The opinion identifies the relevant questions as whether Strasburg had abandoned an earlier domicile in the United States for a domicile in the United Kingdom, and whether Carlson had abandoned an earlier domicile in Washington, D.C., for a domicile in Florida.

Rulings concerning Strasburg

The court modified Interrogatory No. 1 to ask Strasburg for her full legal name and the city and state in the United States, or the city or county in a foreign country, where she currently owns property and lives full-time or part-time. The court removed requests for her date of birth and street addresses because they were not relevant or would intrude on privacy. The court also explained that the precise address in the foreign country was not relevant.

The court rejected Document Request No. 7, which sought documents concerning all of Strasburg’s air flights and train trips since January 1, 201[ sic ]. It found the request not proportional to the needs of the case, in part because Strasburg had already provided information about her travel to the United States. Strasburg was not required to produce documents in response to that request.

Rulings concerning Carlson

The court modified Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 4 and 14. The modified requests sought information about Carlson’s full legal name and current cities of residence; the location of his Maine property and why it was not his legal domicile; when he filmed his television show from Maine; when he sold his most recent house in the Washington, D.C., area and when title transferred; and whether his primary medical and dental teams and insurance were now in Florida. The court removed requests for his date of birth and street addresses as irrelevant or privacy-protective. It also removed questions about his first purchase of a Washington, D.C.-area home and descriptions of his studio and staff as irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.

The court rejected Carlson Interrogatory No. 6, which sought a description of his neighborhood, on relevance grounds. It rejected Interrogatory No. 8, which sought travel information, because some requested information was plainly irrelevant and the court was ordering production of documents concerning relevant travel. It also rejected Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, and 15 as irrelevant or improperly framed. Carlson was not required to respond to those interrogatories.

The court modified Document Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. The modified requests sought state-issued identification held since January 1, 2020; documents showing purchases or sales of real property since that date and title-transfer dates; gas and electric bills for Carlson’s Florida and Maine homes from January 1 through October 1, 2020; documents showing flights and train trips since January 1, 2020, to or from Washington, D.C., Florida, or Maine; automobile and home insurance documents since January 1, 2020; and credit-card statements showing spending in Florida and Maine during the specified 2020 period. The court permitted redactions of addresses, account numbers, personally identifying information, and other non-relevant personal or sensitive information where stated.

The court rejected Document Request No. 2 because it sought information from a period before 2020 and about Carlson’s grown children. It rejected Document Request No. 5 concerning Carlson’s television production studio because the request was not relevant or proportional in light of information already provided. It also rejected Document Request Nos. 10 and 11, concerning Carlson’s local friends and acquaintances and his and his wife’s doctors and dentists, as not proportional or because the requested information was already being provided through an interrogatory. Carlson was not required to produce documents in response to those requests.

Disposition and classification

This was a discovery order resolving disputes about the scope of previously authorized jurisdictional discovery. It modified specified interrogatories and document requests and rejected other specified requests; it did not decide the underlying jurisdictional issue. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, entered the order on October 31, 2020.