Covington Kid, Defamation Lawsuits...

[Spear Dane]

I hope NBC 'discovers' they effed up in a stellar manner and are headed for a big payout.

Judge allows case to move forward and discovery to begin against NBC...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/21/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-teen-nbcuniversal/

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann

 

[Ingomike]

CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann

Hope We get to hear the amount of the settlement...

 

[HoughMade]

Hope We get to hear the amount of the settlement...

At the very least, we will hear some informed speculation. My purely speculative guess is under $250,000, which is actually pretty good in a case like this.

 

[Alamo]

Up to the kid what he wants, but I would have preferred to see CNN required to walk back their BS on their newscast for a week.

 

[HoughMade]

Up to the kid what he wants, but I would have preferred to see CNN required to walk back their BS on their newscast for a week.

No court can force CNN to do that, but, of course, CNN could have agreed to do that in the course of a settlement.

Now, apologies and such are little good for financing the remainder of the case or paying legal fees.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At the very least, we will hear some informed speculation. My purely speculative guess is under $250,000, which is actually pretty good in a case like this.

<$250K? I realize there has to be a limit and it has to be in proportion to the actual damages but this doesn’t seem to much on the punitive side.

 

[HoughMade]

<$250K? I realize there has to be a limit and it has to be in proportion to the actual damages but this doesn’t seem to much on the punitive side.

It's not punitive. It's compensatory and it's tough to put a number on that. It's a settlement. Why would someone agree to a settlement that was enough to punish them? Punitive damages are seldom awarded and even then, almost never collected. The lawyers would know this.

...but who knows- complete speculation on my part. It would please me greatly if it was much, much more. I just doubt it was.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's not punitive. It's compensatory and it's tough to put a number on that. It's a settlement. Why would someone agree to a settlement that was enough to punish them? Punitive damages are seldom awarded and even then, almost never collected. The lawyers would know this.

...but who knows- complete speculation on my part. It would please me greatly if it was much, much more. I just doubt it was.

That all makes sense and I guess I was confusing what might be arrived at in a jury settlement and a mutually agreed, voluntary settlement. Not that $250K is anything to sneeze at but in today’s dollars, that hardly seems worth the effort...especially if the legal fees have to come out that too.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This is probably true:

CNN didn't settle w/Sandmann b/c they were guaranteed to lose at trial. In fact, given lax U.S. defamation laws (even against non-public figures, which Sandmann was), they still could have won.

They settled b/c the discovery process would have been horrifying for them.

 

[Ingomike]

This is probably true:

That is very likely to be true. Often the people who file the suits don't want discovery either but with a minor kid there likely are not any serious skeletons in the closet so the risk is low compared to what these mega media organizations may have in their closet that can be weaponized against them in the trial of public opinion.

 

[Ingomike]

A conservative journalist, Mike Chernovich, that has been deep on this story since the beginning has tweeted that the settlement was "an 8 figure blow to CNN's brand".

 

[ATOMonkey]

Wow, that would be a lot of cheddar.

 

[HoughMade]

A conservative journalist, Mike Chernovich, that has been deep on this story since the beginning has tweeted that the settlement was "an 8 figure blow to CNN's brand".

Where did he get his info? That would be a very significant amount and indicative of wanting to avoid a trial, not just discovery.

 

[Ingomike]

Where did he get his info? That would be a very significant amount and indicative of wanting to avoid a trial, not just discovery.

You know how "journalism" as they do it today is, anonymous leak after anonymous leak, even the oldest most prestigious outlets report that way today.

The best we can guess is that it may have happened or the plaintiffs wanted this out there for other reasons. I never felt the plaintiffs were in a hurry on this, they, including the counsel really want to stick it to these outlets that defamed the boy without reasonable journalistic care. If they settled for under a million would disappoint me.

If if you were managing 30-50 suits for a plaintiff, would you settle for peanuts with the first one?

There are many more suits coming..

Sandmann attorney Todd V. McMurtry declined to comment on the settlement with CNN, but said attorneys agreed in a conference with the judge to “proceed with haste” in bringing in as many as 12 additional media outlets as defendants.

“The case against NBC and the Washington Post continues, and there are a number of additional defendants that we will be suing over the next 30 to 60 days,” said Mr. McMurtry, adding, “The defendants are those that republished Nathan Phillips’s false statements.”

 

[HoughMade]

...Sandmann attorney Todd V. McMurtry declined to comment on the settlement with CNN, but said attorneys agreed in a conference with the judge to “proceed with haste” in bringing in as many as 12 additional media outlets as defendants.

“The case against NBC and the Washington Post continues, and there are a number of additional defendants that we will be suing over the next 30 to 60 days,” said Mr. McMurtry, adding, “The defendants are those that republished Nathan Phillips’s false statements.”

See my comment above re: using this settlement to finance the rest of the lawsuit.

 

[Ingomike]

See my comment above re: using this settlement to finance the rest of the lawsuit.

Got it. Any idea what this type of case costs to litigate for the plaintiffs?

 

[HoughMade]

Got it. Any idea what this type of case costs to litigate for the plaintiffs?

2 categories- costs and fees. Costs are what must be spent out-of-pocket to prosecute the case. Fees are what the lawyer is paid for his services. The attorney fees pay the income of the lawyers involved and pay the general overhead in the law office.

I am going to assume that the lawyers are taking this on contingency meaning that any attorney fees come out of the recovery if any.

Usually, this also applies to the costs of litigation- think copying costs (which will be considerable), travel, depositions, specialized tech, other discovery, experts, etc. Before we talk about fees, I would speculate that the out-of-pocket costs for the lawyers could run $5k-$15k a month (some more, some less). The firm would be reimbursed these costs out of the recovery.

I have heard of lawyers requiring their clients pay costs up front or with a monthly bill. I highly doubt that this is happening here as on the plaintiff side, billing your client for costs is pretty unusual and starts to look pretty slimy.

When a case is taken on contingency, the lawyers may work for years with no income from the case and all-the-while incurring costs. That's the price of doing business...but not for me as I work hourly with, often, retainers and monthly billing.

 

[mmpsteve]

2 categories- costs and fees. Costs are what must be spent out-of-pocket to prosecute the case. Fees are what the lawyer is paid for his services. The attorney fees pay the income of the lawyers involved and pay the general overhead in the law office.

I am going to assume that the lawyers are taking this on contingency meaning that any attorney fees come out of the recovery if any.

Usually, this also applies to the costs of litigation- think copying costs (which will be considerable), travel, depositions, specialized tech, other discovery, experts, etc. Before we talk about fees, I would speculate that the out-of-pocket costs for the lawyers could run $5k-$15k a month (some more, some less). The firm would be reimbursed these costs out of the recovery.

I have heard of lawyers requiring their clients pay costs up front or with a monthly bill. I highly doubt that this is happening here as on the plaintiff side, billing your client for costs is pretty unusual and starts to look pretty slimy.

When a case is taken on contingency, the lawyers may work for years with no income from the case and all-the-while incurring costs. That's the price of doing business...but not for me as I work hourly with, often, retainers and monthly billing.

I'm in the wrong darn business. If I want more money, I have to actually print it.

.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm in the wrong darn business. If I want more money, I have to actually print it.

.

Hourly attorneys like me do OK (no complaints...at least not anymore), but it's plaintiff's lawyers who work on contingency who are driving the Bentleys.