Greer v. Fox Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-05484
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Steven E. Greer v. Tucker Carlson, Judge Aaron ordered limited discovery disclosures and allowed two additional interrogatories.
Steven E. Greer and Tucker Carlson were directly affected: Carlson had to make specified discovery disclosures and answer two interrogatories, while Greer received some additional discovery and a process for addressing the briefing schedule.
What happened
In Steven E. Greer v. Tucker Carlson, the pro se plaintiff challenged redactions and other responses to discovery requests concerning Tucker Carlson’s possible domicile.
The court required Carlson to identify the nature of specified expenditures, reveal certain business names, submit club statements for private court review, and answer two modified interrogatories. It rejected or limited other requested discovery and found Carlson’s responses about his licenses and Maine property adequate.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron also directed the parties to propose a schedule for briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered redacted versions of the plaintiff’s letters for possible public filing.
The detailed version
- Greer v. Fox Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-05484
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 29, 2020
Background
Pro se plaintiff Steven E. Greer sent three letters about discovery produced by defendant Tucker Carlson. Greer objected to redactions in Carlson’s credit-card statements, asserted that Carlson had not produced other driver’s licenses or fishing licenses, questioned documents concerning club memberships, challenged Carlson’s explanation of why Maine was not his domicile, requested six additional interrogatories, and sought more time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court had previously permitted limited jurisdictional discovery concerning Carlson and Jennifer Strasburg. It had allowed Greer to serve each of them 15 interrogatories and 15 document requests, then resolved disputes about those requests. The earlier order allowed Carlson to redact personally identifiable information and other non-relevant personal or sensitive information from credit-card statements, which were limited to spending in Florida and Maine.
Rulings on Discovery
After reviewing unredacted credit-card statements privately, the court required Carlson to provide the nature of numerous transactions that could not be understood because of redactions. The court also required Carlson to unredact the first name of the business for transactions on July 7, August 2, and September 2, 2020, and the full business name for an $86.52 transaction on August 8, 2020. The court explained that these disclosures would show the nature of the businesses but would not reveal their precise locations because the businesses had multiple locations.
The court rejected Greer’s objection concerning other driver’s licenses and fishing licenses. Carlson’s counsel had represented that Carlson possessed no driver’s license other than his Florida license and no fishing licenses. The court stated that it could rely on representations by counsel, who is an officer of the court, and noted that Carlson had also submitted a sworn declaration stating that he had no other driver’s licenses from any other state.
To protect Carlson’s privacy, the court ruled that Carlson did not have to provide Greer unredacted copies of three statements concerning Florida club memberships. Instead, Carlson had to submit unredacted versions to the court for private review to confirm that they showed Florida club memberships. The court also found Carlson’s response about why Maine was not his domicile, including his statement that the Maine property was a vacation house, fair and adequate.
Additional Interrogatories and Briefing Schedule
The court found all six proposed supplemental interrogatories untimely because the deadline for serving interrogatories had passed. Nevertheless, because the court had previously rejected some of Greer’s interrogatories, it required Carlson to answer two court-modified interrogatories. Those questions asked where Carlson intended to film live appearances on his weeknight show and, if not from Florida, how he intended to maintain a Florida domicile while appearing live daily from elsewhere. The court stated that no further supplemental interrogatories would be permitted. It rejected the other proposed questions because they were irrelevant, unnecessary, or invaded privacy.
The court did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this order. Instead, it directed the parties to meet and confer about an amended schedule for Greer’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and to submit an agreed schedule or competing proposals for the court to set one.
Disposition
Within seven days, Carlson had to provide the required transaction information, unredact the specified business names, submit the club documents for private court review, and answer the two modified interrogatories. The parties had to submit a joint letter about the remaining briefing schedule, and Carlson’s counsel had to submit redacted versions of Greer’s letters or state that no redactions were needed. The order resolved discovery and scheduling issues; it did not determine the merits of the underlying dispute or the pending motion to dismiss. Judge Stewart D. Aaron signed the order.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.