Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas’ Privileged Docs – Opinion

Project Veritas filed a lawsuit to defame the New York Times. A judge has directed the paper’s publication of documents the New York Times claimed they received from the FBI and Department of Justice. The documents were allegedly seized by federal law enforcement officers in pre-dawn raids of the residences of Project Veritas journalists last week. These documents were published in the New York Times despite Project Veritas already being involved in a defamation suit.

Harmeet, an internationally-respected constitutional rights lawyer who represents Project Veritas in court, just tweeted this news:

!!! Judge in Project Veritas/NYT Case Orders @nytimes to defend its online publication of the privileged legal memos of our client, which occurred AFTER the FBI seized James O’Keefe’s phones and which contain extensive privileged communications with dozens of attorneys: pic.twitter.com/6ZKdH2BsLv

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) November 18, 2021

The New York Times has now until Tuesday November 23rd to give cause as to why it published the privileged documents.  As the judge attempts to decide the ruling on the motion to require the New York Times to delete all links and articles containing privileged information from Project Veritas communications to attorneys and to prevent the New York Times ever again soliciting or obtaining privileged information, the Judge has asked for cause.

This one is a big deal for the New York Times. The Times has been involved in extremely risky litigation against Project Veritas.  With Project Veritas’ legal record, they would have to at least recognize that they have a chance of facing some pretty steep penalties for their statements.  They decided that it would be appropriate, in spite of this danger and the fact they were currently subject to the demands of the lawsuit for defamation, to take illegally obtained privileged information, but also to publish the documents. To know those risks, and to know that the action you’re taking is illegal, shows a stunning level of incompetence, or a flat-out effort to create further damages.  It is not smart to hand your opponent an exhibit of intent in a case that involves intent such as defamation.

We will keep you posted on how it turns out.