Greenlit: A Playing on the Internet update

This is the cutting edge of media law right here folks and Slabbed correctly predicted what Magistrate Wilkinson would do in the circumstances.

Full docket text for document 47:
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION of The Times-Picayune to Quash, Record Doc. No. 42. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED IN PART insofar as it requests that the subpoena be quashed in its entirety such that no production of any kind might be required. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that the motion is GRANTED IN PART, but only in that the subpoena is modified as follows. As issued, the subpoena required production of the requested information by The Times-Picayune directly to defense counsel at his office on February 3, 2014. Record Doc. No. 41. The “Place for Production” and “Date for Production” provisions of the subpoena are hereby modified to require instead that The Times-Picayune must produce, no later than February 19, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., all information responsive to the subpoena directly to me in my chambers for my in camera review. If I determine based upon my in camera review that aircheck and jammer1954 are citizens without connection to the prosecution, their First Amendment right to anonymous speech will outweigh the Due Process rights of the defendant and no further disclosure, production or inspection of the information will be permitted. Otherwise, whether and, if so, how and when the responsive information may be made available to the parties for inspection will be established by further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 2/14/14. (tbl)

How did Slabbed know what the Magistrate would do? (WWMD?) Before I get to that here is the order and reasons for those that want to see a Magistrate Judge being consistent in how he applies the law.

Click to obtain the full 13 page order and reasons.
Click to obtain the full 13 page order and reasons.

USA v Jackson Doc 47

I guess I gave away the answer above.  Slabbed has followed Magistrate Wilkinson since the Katrina insurance litigation because we did several posts on the problems we saw with the discovery process, especially the inconsistencies on display across the geographic area impacted by the 2005 Hurricane season, which stretched from Mobile Alabama to Lake Charles Louisiana encompassing five different Federal Judicial Districts.  My own opinion was Wilkinson was one of the best Magistrates when it came to controlling the discovery process while letting the lawyers do their thing.  To me the key is consistency regardless because a litigant’s legal team should (after doing requisite due diligence or via personal experience) have a good idea how their discovery requests will be treated depending on the Magistrate drawn.

Finally, if you are a lawyer and have not read Making Your Case: the Art of Persuading Judges by Nino Scalia and Bryan Garner you should immediately purchase and read it.  I’m not much on Scalia’s political ideology but he writes a good how to book.

Other coverage of this matter can be found via Gordon Russell.

5 thoughts on “Greenlit: A Playing on the Internet update”

  1. Hey! Doug! When you stop blowing smoke up Wilkinson’s ass, why don’t you tell the rest of us about his “erudite” discovery opinions in the KATRINA litigation. Just what did he do that was so “GREAT” when contrasted with decisions by anyone else, in any other cases? And also tell us about why he was REMOVED from criminal cases for a period of time, and just what it was he was alleged to have done to benefit his brother. And by the way, is THAT conduct still under investigation? If it’s NOT, then it SHOULD be. Thanks. Ashton O’Dwyer.

    1. Put yourself in the shoes of the federal judges on Camp St. Maybe what Letten and company had to say about you impacted how you were treated Ashton. I can’t imagine there is a worse feeling for someone with the power possessed by an Article 3 Judge than than being duped.

      I do not see Judge Lemmon overruling the reasoned decision of Magistrate Wilkinson here but stranger things have happened.

      1. we will again suggest that magistrate wilkinson should have been recused and still should be recused from this matter. some of the very same us attorneys and fbi personnel who investigated and prosecuted his convicted bother tom wilkinson, may be the same people that are the subject(s) of the disclosure requested.

        an ‘in camera’ review is the correct result but the procedure used to accomplish the same in this instance is unlawful. the jackson team has moved to exploit the bias that magistrate wilkinson may have against the government’s previously letten led us attorney’s office and their collaborating fbi agents by way of a manipulative ex parte subpoena – such conduct gives evidence to our argument.

        if requested, we are hopeful that judge lemmon will reverse magistrate wilkinson’s conflicted opinion – quash the subpoena and have magistrate wilkinson recused from this and any other matters of a similar nature.

        now we urge that the correct procedure for team jackson is to file a ‘john/jane doe’ civil lawsuit that would allow for an unbiased court to make a lawful disclosure determination. protocol that would allow the individual(s) notified by the host server of the said action, to go into court with a motion to quash in order to protect their constitutional right to free speech, association and anonymity. we believe it is this procedure that defines due process – not an ex parte subpoena.

  2. Wilkinson was/is very by the book. He did not allow insurance companies to play games with discovery and if they did, he hammered them.

    I would think his brother’s issues would make him all the more careful when dealing with issues like the revealing of commentator identities.

Comments are closed.