Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
federal
circuit
has
no
judges
currently
active
on
the
court
that
were
appointed
by
Republican
presidents?

Hint:
83%
of
the
active
judges
in
the
circuit
were
appointed
by
Democrats,
while
the
remaining
17%
of
seats
remain
unfilled.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

This
week,
Congress
released
a

stopgap
funding
bill
that
included
a
significant
healthcare
package. 

Provider
groups
are
reacting
favorably
to
the
package,
mainly
due
to
provisions
that
go
after
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
extend
telehealth
flexibilities
and
increase
payments
to
hospitals
and
physicians.

PBM
reform

The
legislation
proposes
changes
that
would
reign
in
pharmacy
benefit
managers’
business
practices.
Specifically,
it
would
require
PBMs
to
pass
through
100%
of
drug
rebates
and
discounts
to
employers
or
health
plans,
as
well
as
prohibit
PBMs
from
linking
their
compensation
to
a
drug’s
Medicare
list
price.
The
package
also
seeks
to
eliminate
spread
pricing
in
Medicaid
—
which
occurs
when
PBMs
keep
a
portion
of
the
amount
paid
to
them
for
drugs.

These
proposed
changes
—
which
are
slated
to
take
effect
in
2028
—
have
been
received
well
by
the

American
Pharmacists
Association.

“For
years,
APhA
has
advocated
for
these
long
overdue
reforms
to
begin
to
stop
PBMs’
harmful
business
practices
that
have
robbed
many
communities
of
the
necessary
health
care
services
they
have
come
to
rely
upon,”
APhA
CEO
Michael
Hogue,
PharmD,
said
in
a
statement.

Extended
telehealth
flexibilities

Congress
is
seeking
to
extend
Medicare
telehealth
flexibilities
through
the
end
of
2026.

This
extension
would
allow
patients
to
continue
receiving
telehealth
services
from
their
homes,
permit
the
use
of
audio-only
communication
for
certain
services,
and
enable
rural
health
clinics
and
federally
qualified
health
centers
in
providing
virtual
care.

Chip
Kahn,
CEO
of
the

Federation
of
American
Hospitals,
released
a
statement
applauding
these
measures.

“Congress’
health
package
hits
the
spot
—
it
protects
rural
health
care
and
assures
seniors
continued
telehealth
services
while
preventing
cuts
to
hospitals
serving
the
most
vulnerable.
Together,
these
provisions
will
sustain
critical
patient
care
at
the
right
time,
in
the
right
setting,”
he
stated.

Changes
to
payment
and
reimbursement

Congress’
package
would
delay
next
year’s
Medicaid
disproportionate
hospital
share
pay
cuts
until
2027.
It
would
also
temporarily
boost
the
Medicare
physician
fee
schedule
by
2.5%
for
2025,
which
would
offset
the
2.83%
payment
reduction
that
CMS
recently
finalized
for
next
year.

Stacey
Hughes,
executive
vice
president
of
the
American
Hospital
Association,
celebrated
these
provisions
in
a
statement.

“The
AHA
appreciates
the
House
and
Senate
working
together
on
this
bipartisan
healthcare
package
and
urges
Congress
to
pass
this
health
care
package
that
will
ensure
hospitals
and
health
systems
can
continue
to
care
for
their
patients
and
communities,”
she
said.

Photo:
MikeyLPT,
Getty
Images

This
week,
Congress
released
a

stopgap
funding
bill
that
included
a
significant
healthcare
package. 

Provider
groups
are
reacting
favorably
to
the
package,
mainly
due
to
provisions
that
go
after
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
extend
telehealth
flexibilities
and
increase
payments
to
hospitals
and
physicians.

PBM
reform

The
legislation
proposes
changes
that
would
reign
in
pharmacy
benefit
managers’
business
practices.
Specifically,
it
would
require
PBMs
to
pass
through
100%
of
drug
rebates
and
discounts
to
employers
or
health
plans,
as
well
as
prohibit
PBMs
from
linking
their
compensation
to
a
drug’s
Medicare
list
price.
The
package
also
seeks
to
eliminate
spread
pricing
in
Medicaid
—
which
occurs
when
PBMs
keep
a
portion
of
the
amount
paid
to
them
for
drugs.

These
proposed
changes
—
which
are
slated
to
take
effect
in
2028
—
have
been
received
well
by
the

American
Pharmacists
Association.

“For
years,
APhA
has
advocated
for
these
long
overdue
reforms
to
begin
to
stop
PBMs’
harmful
business
practices
that
have
robbed
many
communities
of
the
necessary
health
care
services
they
have
come
to
rely
upon,”
APhA
CEO
Michael
Hogue,
PharmD,
said
in
a
statement.

Extended
telehealth
flexibilities

Congress
is
seeking
to
extend
Medicare
telehealth
flexibilities
through
the
end
of
2026.

This
extension
would
allow
patients
to
continue
receiving
telehealth
services
from
their
homes,
permit
the
use
of
audio-only
communication
for
certain
services,
and
enable
rural
health
clinics
and
federally
qualified
health
centers
in
providing
virtual
care.

Chip
Kahn,
CEO
of
the

Federation
of
American
Hospitals,
released
a
statement
applauding
these
measures.

“Congress’
health
package
hits
the
spot
—
it
protects
rural
health
care
and
assures
seniors
continued
telehealth
services
while
preventing
cuts
to
hospitals
serving
the
most
vulnerable.
Together,
these
provisions
will
sustain
critical
patient
care
at
the
right
time,
in
the
right
setting,”
he
stated.

Changes
to
payment
and
reimbursement

Congress’
package
would
delay
next
year’s
Medicaid
disproportionate
hospital
share
pay
cuts
until
2027.
It
would
also
temporarily
boost
the
Medicare
physician
fee
schedule
by
2.5%
for
2025,
which
would
offset
the
2.83%
payment
reduction
that
CMS
recently
finalized
for
next
year.

Stacey
Hughes,
executive
vice
president
of
the
American
Hospital
Association,
celebrated
these
provisions
in
a
statement.

“The
AHA
appreciates
the
House
and
Senate
working
together
on
this
bipartisan
healthcare
package
and
urges
Congress
to
pass
this
health
care
package
that
will
ensure
hospitals
and
health
systems
can
continue
to
care
for
their
patients
and
communities,”
she
said.

Photo:
MikeyLPT,
Getty
Images

This
week,
Congress
released
a

stopgap
funding
bill
that
included
a
significant
healthcare
package. 

Provider
groups
are
reacting
favorably
to
the
package,
mainly
due
to
provisions
that
go
after
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
extend
telehealth
flexibilities
and
increase
payments
to
hospitals
and
physicians.

PBM
reform

The
legislation
proposes
changes
that
would
reign
in
pharmacy
benefit
managers’
business
practices.
Specifically,
it
would
require
PBMs
to
pass
through
100%
of
drug
rebates
and
discounts
to
employers
or
health
plans,
as
well
as
prohibit
PBMs
from
linking
their
compensation
to
a
drug’s
Medicare
list
price.
The
package
also
seeks
to
eliminate
spread
pricing
in
Medicaid
—
which
occurs
when
PBMs
keep
a
portion
of
the
amount
paid
to
them
for
drugs.

These
proposed
changes
—
which
are
slated
to
take
effect
in
2028
—
have
been
received
well
by
the

American
Pharmacists
Association.

“For
years,
APhA
has
advocated
for
these
long
overdue
reforms
to
begin
to
stop
PBMs’
harmful
business
practices
that
have
robbed
many
communities
of
the
necessary
health
care
services
they
have
come
to
rely
upon,”
APhA
CEO
Michael
Hogue,
PharmD,
said
in
a
statement.

Extended
telehealth
flexibilities

Congress
is
seeking
to
extend
Medicare
telehealth
flexibilities
through
the
end
of
2026.

This
extension
would
allow
patients
to
continue
receiving
telehealth
services
from
their
homes,
permit
the
use
of
audio-only
communication
for
certain
services,
and
enable
rural
health
clinics
and
federally
qualified
health
centers
in
providing
virtual
care.

Chip
Kahn,
CEO
of
the

Federation
of
American
Hospitals,
released
a
statement
applauding
these
measures.

“Congress’
health
package
hits
the
spot
—
it
protects
rural
health
care
and
assures
seniors
continued
telehealth
services
while
preventing
cuts
to
hospitals
serving
the
most
vulnerable.
Together,
these
provisions
will
sustain
critical
patient
care
at
the
right
time,
in
the
right
setting,”
he
stated.

Changes
to
payment
and
reimbursement

Congress’
package
would
delay
next
year’s
Medicaid
disproportionate
hospital
share
pay
cuts
until
2027.
It
would
also
temporarily
boost
the
Medicare
physician
fee
schedule
by
2.5%
for
2025,
which
would
offset
the
2.83%
payment
reduction
that
CMS
recently
finalized
for
next
year.

Stacey
Hughes,
executive
vice
president
of
the
American
Hospital
Association,
celebrated
these
provisions
in
a
statement.

“The
AHA
appreciates
the
House
and
Senate
working
together
on
this
bipartisan
healthcare
package
and
urges
Congress
to
pass
this
health
care
package
that
will
ensure
hospitals
and
health
systems
can
continue
to
care
for
their
patients
and
communities,”
she
said.

Photo:
MikeyLPT,
Getty
Images

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald
Trump’s
habit
of
suing
the
media
is
picking
up
steam
of
late.
But
the
president-elect
is
no
stranger
to
trollsuits
against
people
who
make
mean
words,
or
even
quote
him
accurately.
And
now
he’s
got
that
$15
million
from
ABC
in
his

pocket
library,
he’s
hot
to
hold
down
other
journalists
and
snatch
their
lunch
money,
too.

Trump
is
currently
mired
in

litigation
against
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
along
with
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount.
Woodward
interviewed
the
then-president
for

“Rage,”
the
second
of
his
three
books
(so
far)
on
Trump’s
presidency.
In
2022,
Woodward
put
out
an
audiobook
of
the
interviews,
and
failed
to
kick
up
to
the
big
guy.
So
naturally
Trump
filed
a
$50
million
copyright
and
contract
suit
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
(where
none
of
the
parties
reside)
in
January
of
2023.

No
contract
was
attached
as
an
exhibit,
but
Trump
insisted
that
he’d
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

He
also
included
claims
under
the
Florida
Deceptive
and
Unfair
Trade
Practices
Act, relying
on
a
consumer
fraud
law
to
punish
journalists,
as
Trump
is

currently
doing
in
suits
against
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
CBS.

S&S
persuaded
Judge
Casey
Rodgers
to
stay
discovery
pending
its
motions
to
dismiss
and/or
transfer
for
lack
of
venue,
which
she
did,
eventually

transferring
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
where
all
of
the
defendants
reside.
The
court
agreed
with
S&S
that
“President
Trump,
a
nonresident
[of
the
Northern
District
of
Florida]
who
describes
himself
as
a
billionaire,
deliberately
sued
in
a
venue
with
no
connection
to
this
case.
If
he
is
able
to
litigate
his
claims
here,
600
miles
from
Mar-a-Lago,
he
is
clearly
capable
of
litigating
his
claims
in
the
District
of
Columbia
or
Southern
District
of
New
York.”

Once
transferred
to
New
York,
the
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Paul
Gardephe
in
August
of
2023,
whereupon
the
former
president
amended
his
complaint
and
the
defendants
refiled
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.

In
that

motion,
Davis
Wright
Tremaine’s
Elizabeth
McNamara
accused
Trump
of
seeking
to
inappropriately
reap
a
profit
off
of
conducting
his
official
duties:

As
Woodward
concluded
in
the
Work,
“Trump’s
view
of
the
presidency
that
comes
across
over
and
over
again
in
our
interviews”
is
that
“‘[e]verything
is
mine.’…The
presidency
is
mine.
It
is
still
mine.
The
only
view
that
matters
is
mine.”

As
if
on
a
mission
to
prove
this
“everything
is
mine”
thesis
correct,
Donald
Trump
filed
suit
“in
his
individual
capacity”
to
claim
a
copyright
interest
over
the
entirety
of
Woodward’s
Work
simply
because
it
features
words
spoken
by
“President
Trump,
45th
President
of
the
United
States
of
America.”
In
effect,
President
Trump
seeks
to
profit
from
public
service
by
demanding
nearly
$50
million.
But
the
Copyright
Act
bars
government
officials
like
President
Trump
from
asserting
any
copyright
in
an
interview
conducted
as
part
of
their
official
duties.
Further,
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
joint
authorship
or
any
other
form
of
ownership.

She
did
not
remark
on
the
screaming
irony
of
a
president
who
escaped
criminal
prosecution
by
convincing
the
Supreme
Court
that
all
his
conduct
in
office
was
immune,
then
turning
around
and
seeking
to
monetize
that
conduct
in
his
personal
capacity.

Judge
Gardephe,
a
George
Bush
appointee
who
took
senior
status
roughly
the
day
this
case
landed
in
his
lap,
has
yet
to
rule
on
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
discovery
remains
stayed
as
a
matter
of
course.
On
November
20,
Trump’s
lawyer
Robert
Garson
sent
the
court
a

peevish
letter
requesting
to
restart
the
proceedings
and
hammer
out
a
case
management
plan.

“The
issues
in
this
case,
namely
the
unlicensed
for-profit
use
of
President
Trump’s
voice
that
was
recorded
in
an
unofficial
interview,
is
both
timely
and
ripe,
for
fear
of
further
unaccounted
for
profit
being
made
from
the
President’s
voice,”
he
wrote.
“In
addition,
we
trust
that
the
Court
can
accommodate
a
discovery
process
that
will
cause
minimal
interference
with
the
President’s
impeding
obligations.”

Receiving
no
response,
Garson
followed
up
yesterday
with
a

downright
pissy
letter
demanding
that
the
court
let
him
begin
to
take
discovery
on
S&S
and
Woodward,
even
with
the
motion
to
dismiss
still
pending,
because
“further
delays
in
this
case
will
cause
significant
harm
to
not
only
to
the
President-elect,
who
is
has
been

[sic]
conclusively
chosen
by
the
American
people
to
lead
the
Nation,
but
also
the
American
people.”

And
then
…
well,
just
look
at
this
shit:

Since
President
Trump’s
decisive
victory
resulting
him

[sic]
being
due
to
become
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,
there
has
been
a
renewed
accountability
among
those
who
violated
his
rights
over
the
last
four
years.
Indeed,
in
Trump
v.
American
Broadcasting
Companies,
Inc.
(1:24-
cv-21050
District
Court,
S.D.
Florida),
where
ABC
was
represented
by
the
same
counsel
that
represents
the
Defendants
in
this
case,
the
defendants
recognized
the
error
of
their
ways
and
have
shown
their
level
of
regret
in
words
and
deed.
President
Trump
is
hopeful
that
the
Defendants
in
this
case
follow
Mr.
Stephanopoulos’
expression
of
contrition,
especially
since
the
Defendants
have
and
and

[sic]
continue
to
profit.

McNamara
does
indeed
represent
ABC
in
the
Trump
case,
although
Woodward
and
S&S
seem
less
inclined
to
express
contrition.
Nor
does
the
court.

In
an
irate
memo
endorsement,
Judge
Gardephe
ordered
the
clerk
to
terminate
Garson’s
motion,
writing,
“The
Court
is
at
work
on
the
outstanding
motion.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
seeks
to
embark
on
discovery
before
the
motion
to
dismiss
is
resolved,
that
application
is
denied.
”

gov.uscourts.nysd.603675.80.0

Looks
like
that
bid
for
a
discovery
schedule
that’s
super
deferential
to
the
president’s
time
commitments
—
while
imposing
onerous
discovery
on
Woodward
and
S&S
—
might
be
headed
for
choppy
waters.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.