Palin v. The New York Times Company
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-04853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Palin v. The New York Times Company, Judge Rakoff ordered trial-related documents added to the record without ruling on the pending motion.
The order directly affected the case record involving Sarah Palin, The New York Times Company, and James Bennet, and concerned instructions given to the jurors and materials relating to the defendants’ pending Rule 50 motion.
What happened
In Palin v. The New York Times Company, the court directed the clerk to add attached documents to the case record. The documents concerned the trial involving Sarah Palin, The New York Times Company, and James Bennet.
One document was an email reminding jurors to avoid media coverage and discussing the case only with fellow jurors during deliberations. The other contained correspondence and legal citations about the defendants’ pending request for judgment as a matter of law on the requirement that they acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the documents docketed to supplement the record. The order did not decide the pending request for judgment as a matter of law or otherwise resolve the parties’ claims.
The detailed version
- Palin v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:17-cv-04853
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 16, 2022
What the Order Did
The court directed the clerk to docket two attached documents to supplement the record in the case.
Exhibit A: Jury Instruction
Exhibit A was an email sent to the jurors on Saturday, February 12, 2022. It reminded them to follow the court’s earlier instructions to avoid media coverage of the trial, remain focused on courtroom evidence and arguments, and not discuss the case with anyone other than fellow jurors while assembled in the deliberation room.
Exhibit B: Rule 50 Motion Materials
Exhibit B contained correspondence between the court and counsel about legal authorities relevant to the defendants’ motion under Rule 50 for judgment as a matter of law. The correspondence concerned the motion’s actual-malice issue. The materials included citations supplied by both sides regarding the heightened proof requirement in a public-figure defamation case and whether the evidence could support a finding that the defendants knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity.
The court’s correspondence stated that counsel could provide relevant case citations concerning the actual-malice issue but that the court would not accept briefs or written arguments on the motion through that process.
Disposition
Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the attached documents docketed and made part of the supplemental record. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the Rule 50 motion, and it does not decide the underlying defamation dispute.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.