Originally posted 2014-11-19 12:23:54. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Yes, it looks like a lot of fun, doesn’t it?Sometimes it is.  I recognize that I am very fortunate in that regard, considering how seldom it is (fun) for many of my colleagues.  Which, I’m pretty sure, is very seldom.

I always want to recall the time an older colleague and sometimes-mentor said to me, as we sat as co-counsel in the well before a jury trial in federal court, “Can you believe we get to do this for a living?”

I say I want to recall this because that trial was an unmitigated disaster.  (Frankly it was his disaster, not mine, artistically speaking.  But a flame-out all the same.)  That week in Brooklyn was not one of the fun times at all.  But at least the judge got to finish his charming book about himself.

Anyway, I did end up getting involved in something unusually fun, but at the same time deathly serious, recently.  And actually — because this blog is a law blog and deals with freedom of expression, as well as the way courts handle those things — it is also a topical thing, especially given my old “media bloggers” persona:

The filing, in which we represent investigative reporters Sharyl Attkisson, Steve Emerson, and Edwin Black, is discussed here too.  And the PLO’s brief in opposition is here.

We will be filing a reply on Monday, and will update then.

As promised, the reply brief:

UPDATE:  And here’s the order dated December 26, 2014, which speaks eloquently for itself.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

2 thoughts on “Well, yes, I do have fun (UPDATED)”
  1. Ron: One thing that jumped out right away at me is the PLO spends alot of time arguing that the intervenors are not real journalists, but rather partisans with an agenda. I don’t see how that matters. The right of access is for the public at large, not just journalists or the press. In part it is meant to hold up Article III judges to public scrutiny in doing their jobs. (That is right in the Lugosch case.) So whether your clients are bona fide journalists or not is really besides the point.

    I also don’t get the idea that documents submitted on a discovery motion are not judicial documents. If a judge has to review something to make a decision, that to me is a judicial document. A discovery order requiring a party to provide (or not provide) discovery is still an order and an exercise of Article III power. (This is different from documents merely produced in discovery that a judge never sees.)

    Good luck!

Comments are closed.