Bad publicity emerged from the Splinter report, as well as other details of Miller’s horrific dispute with Delgado, allowed him to fall as a paid CNN analyst shortly after the allegations surfaced. A few weeks later, Miller filed a $ 100 million lawsuit against Splinter’s parent company, Gizmodo Media, and the story’s reporter, Katherine Krueger.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of Miami ruled out the suit nearly a year ago, arguing that New York law was applicable and that the media outlet’s report was a legal privilege as an honest and accurate summary of a lawsuit.
Miller appealed, however, arguing that the “honest report privilege” was not applicable because the cited court was seized at the time Splinter published it.
But whether the document was ever closed seems to be in some dispute during the 40-minute appeals court arguments Friday.
While Vogt testified that a court clerk had testified that the document was “closed and unavailable to the public from the moment it was filed,” Gizmodo attorney Elizabeth McNamara suggested it was available for at least three days before Miller’s attorneys issued a message. acted as confidential.
In any case, McNamara said, the key legal question in the case was the narrow question of whether the court filing was automatically closed. Since it was not, Gizmodo had legal protection for publishing the allegations in it, she claimed.
McNamara said courts found that “all kinds of confidential documents” are provided by the New York Privilege Report. “There is no basis for extending New York law that the plaintiff is asking this court to … [he] asks this court to change the law, ”she told the judges.
But Vogt argued that the purpose of legal protection for reporting on court proceedings is usually not applicable in situations where confidential court records are.
“Those documents would not be able to be published under the protection of the privilege report,” the lawyer said. “We have filed a separate lawsuit, but also that the filing of a lawsuit falls into the category of documents that public policy the state of New York, the state of Florida and under the federal constitution have all said that the type of documents is public. must not have access. “
Vogt portrayed Altonaga’s decision, a George W. Bush appointment, as an attack on the Florida court’s ability to review its own records.
“The district court ruling here allows the New York Legislature to rule that services in the state of Florida cannot be effectively shut down,” Vogt said.
Not one of the three judges assigned to the appeal gave a clear view of the case, but Judge Adalberto Jordan seemed most skeptical about Miller’s offer to reopen the case.
“Your argument is not really an argument for public policy, it is a factual argument,” said Jordan, an Obama nominee.
When Vogt at one point said there was “no public interest” in the information in sealed court documents, Jordan intervened.
“I think that could be a bit of an overestimation,” the judge said.
Vogt agreed, but said Miller’s case was “a situation in which the public’s right to know is overridden by the importance of individuals in protecting their reputation and not being exposed to things that are made public. “
No verdict was handed down Friday, but the other two judges – Trump appointed Barbara Lagoa and Andrew Brasher – seemed friendlier to Miller’s case.
At one point, Brasher suggested that it might be appropriate for the federal appellate court to formally submit the New York case to the New York Supreme Court for resolution. That could open the door to restoring Miller’s suit, but would almost certainly eliminate the legal dispute for years.
