Setback For Dan Rather Lawsuit Against CBS

[ben_meyers]

Source: CBS News

(CBS/AP) A Manhattan judge has dismissed portions of a lawsuit Dan Rather has filed against CBS and Viacom.

Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman on Thursday allowed the lawsuit to go foward, but struck down the parts of the suit that name Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS President Leslie Moonves and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward.

Quinn said the judge's ruling eliminated Rather's core complaints of fraud and breach of good faith and fair dealing. The lawyer said it was hard to see how the ex-anchor's assertion of a conspiracy between CBS and the Bush administration "will have any traction going forward".

Rather's last months at CBS News were clouded by a disputed story on President Bush's Vietnam-era military service. Rather says his employers made him a "scapegoat" to placate the White House after questions arose about the story.

CBS News has said the suit has no merit. A lawyer for the defendants, lead outside counsel James Quinn, said: "We are very pleased with this. The rest is what we consider a garden-variety contract dispute."


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/national/main4006080.shtml

---

CBS calls it a "garden-variety contract dispute" now! What else could they say?

[DangerDave921]

1. Not surprising

I never thought there was much merit to the case from a legal standpoint. Not sure why Rather bothered to file it in the first place. Maybe to try to bolster his reputation in the public eye.

[greiner3]

4. DangerDave921;

You've got some fast fingers there. 1200 posts in 9 months. Wonder what other fun remarks you have in the archives. Be seein ya pardner!

[DangerDave921]

7. Look away, Pardner!

Whatever. If you have nothing better to do with your time than research me, then you must have quite the life!

As an attorney myself, I take an interest in legal cases. And I never thought Rather had much of a chance of prevailing in this lawsuit, at least the issues that were dismissed. Do you think those claims are meritorious? I'd be interested in your legal analysis.

[Psephos]

31. Slow night at the greiner chicken ranch? n/t

[Ignis]

38. It's a fairly ugly history.

Much of it is of the "I don't understand why YOU PEOPLE behave like ABC" or "Capital Punishment is TOO GOOD for those XYZ people" variety.

But I'm not here to engage in a No True Scotsman argument. :)

[fascisthunter]

6. DangerDave921 Says Dan Wants to Bolster His Career

really.... :eyes:

[DangerDave921]

8. Correction

I did not say "bolster his career." I said bolster his reputation, which is a different matter. He had a great career. But Rather's reputaiton suffered a setback after the memo-gate incident and his being pushed out. Fair to say?

Also, the CBS review done afterward indicated that the documents could not be authenticated. That's kind of a big no-no in journalism. Also, Rather apologized on air for the story. Why did he apologize if he knew the story and the documents to be true? Seems a man of his principles would have resigned instead of giving a false apology.

From a legal perspective, I always thought he would have one heck of a time trying to prove some sort of fraud or conspiracy. Very tough to prove those things. He still has a breach of contract action which may have some merit. I've not seen the contract.

[fascisthunter]

9. I Know Why You Said What You Did

but thanks for trying

[DangerDave921]

10. Then please clarify

I am so curious as to your psychoanalysis.

I am not criticizing Rather himself, nor the veracity of any national guard story. I think Bush got a sweetheart deal with the guard. But I am critiquing Rather's lawsuit. That's another matter entirely. And the lawsuit had no legal merit. As the court has now stated.

Again, if you have an alternative view of the lawsuit, let's discuss it. I'd like to hear the opposing view. But if you'd rather make snarky comments, feel free.

[fascisthunter]

13. What Was That? I Couldn't Hear You (nt)

[DangerDave921]

15. Thought so

Such a wonderful personality trait to deal in innuendo and insinuation, while at the same time being afraid to actually discuss an issue.

[fascisthunter]

21. Lol

:boring:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Aww, is somebody cranky?

Here, have a wombat:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/12/wombat_wideweb__470x276,0.jpg

[fascisthunter]

20. What Was That? I Couldn't Hear You Either....

actually to your dismay, I am laughing...


This one is for you:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Indeed.

[fascisthunter]

23. Hey... look at... you posted the same thing twice in one day

wow... you are clever yibbeeyahoo

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. ,

[Ian David]

27. You need to research this more thoroughly. n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. ...

[seriousstan]

12. It's not nice to call fellow DU's freep trolls.

[fascisthunter]

14. Yeah... never out them

they usually out themselves

[fasttense]

19. Well, the Judge seems to think his breech of contract

claims have merit. You got to research the spin of these articles.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. LOL Dan Rather doesn't need to do a thing to bolster his reputation

As if.

:rofl:

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Just media spin. They are "sheltered" as CBS employees, but CBS is going down.

Companies are not entities that act on their own. People at the companies---the three named above included---are the ones who do wrong.

Expect the press to spin this as "Dan Rather does not have any chance at all" but this will be just one more corporate lie. Check out my journal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3539083

The Scoop on CBS: Why Redstone Sold Dan Rather for 20 Pieces of Silver

for why the discovery phase of this lawsuit is going to be murder on CBS.

The Don Seigelman stories show you just how worried CBS is about Dan Rather's lawsuit. Their attorneys have obviously told them that they have to let 60 Minutes do so anti-Bush Administration pieces in order to show that they are not W.'s lap dogs before they go to trial.

Too little, too late. You should have let Ed Bradley do his Lies About WMDS piece in 2004, bozos.

[DU9598]

3. He can still engage in wide discovery

He is an investigative journalist and he likely knows where secrets are hidden within CBS news.

[Sanity Claws]

5. This is CBS's own report

I have some doubts about the accuracy of this report.
The hearing officer dismissed the case against the individual defendants but not CBS itself. That's the main part of the complaint.
Second, it's own the hearing officer's ruling. His ruling is not final; it is subject to review by the district court judge on the case.
Third, did you notice that CBS only cited its own attorney for the statement that the suit will not have traction going forward?

I think I'll wait for a more objective review of the ruling before deciding how fatal a blow it is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Here is Reuters' take on it:

NY judge rejects parts of Rather suit against CBS

Edith Honan, Reuters
Published: Thursday, April 10, 2008

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York state judge threw out parts of Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit against CBS on Thursday, but preserved several key elements, including the former news anchor's breach of contract claim.

State Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman dismissed Rather's fraud claim, saying he was too late in filing it, and rejected Rather's charge that CBS executives damaged his future job prospects, saying Rather could not support the claim.

The judge let stand the portion of the suit in which Rather says the network breached his contract by not giving him enough on-air assignments after he was removed as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in March 2005, following a scandal over a report on U.S. President George W. Bush's military record.

CBS later acknowledged that documents used in the report, which aired on September 8, 2004, could not be authenticated. CBS aired the report two months before the presidential election pitting Bush against Democratic challenger John Kerry.

more: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/booksandthearts/story.html?id=dbd9992a-71e5-49ad-9fb8-4f3528df182d&k=9193

[Sanity Claws]

18. Interesting - Reuters acknowledged that a judge ruled

CBS said it was only a hearing officer. Also, Reuters says key elements of the case remained.
CBS's report was indeed very slanted, to the point of being inaccurate.

[Fredda Weinberg]

24. Only a hearing officer? That's 'your honor' to you n/t

[DangerDave921]

26. Breach of contract remains

The fraud and conspiracy theories are out the window.

[Sanity Claws]

28. He also still has tortious inducement of breach of contract

against CBS and Viacom.
The order was signed by a Judge Hearing Officer, not a Judge. I don't know NY procedure but it doesn't sound right that a Hearing Officer would be able to enter such an order. It must be subject to review by a full judge. At the federal level, when a magistrate enters an order, it is subject to review to by the Judge.
The order is linked to an article on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/dan-rathers-cbs-lawsuit-p_n_96066.html

[DangerDave921]

32. Thanks for the Link

I hadn't read the full order. I don't know NY law well enough either re: justice versus hearing office versus judge.

And you never trust attorneys for the parties, as they are paid to spin all results in a favorable fashion.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Dan is trying to save his name

He's never going to win any money. He's not pursuing the truth because the truth leads back to the White House and Rather's lawyers are only interested in going after CBS and trying to make it like Rather had the right story the first time. The truth makes Rather look bad for clinging to a bogus story.

The truth is the documents were forged. Bill Burkett either forged them or was involved in the forgery. The White House knew before the broadcast that the documents were forged but failed to alert 60 Minutes because the White House wanted to let 60 Minutes swallow the hook. Once hooked, the White House had a powerful weapon to attack Rather and CBS with. The plot worked.

Lots of people could see what really happened but nobody ever went after the White House for, through a failure to perform its duty, destroying a critic and obstructing honest reporting for the future.

[DangerDave921]

33. Be Careful

I said a lot less on this topic and got villified! :)

[Psephos]

35. I appreciated your informed viewpoint. Don't let thread boors discourage you. n/t

[DangerDave921]

36. thanks

It's entirely consistent to believe: a) Bush got special treatment; and b) Rather's lawsuit is without merit (at least the fraud, conspiracy stuff). The underlying story may be true, but the documents could not be authenticated. I don't know what Rather knew, or didn't know, or when. But it looked awfully shoddy afterward.

And I am still waiting for anyone who criticized me to offer any legal theory as to why the lawsuit is meritorious.

[InkAddict]

30. Bullying, torture, and exploitation of subordinates are legal activities

of "select" Americans. :sarcasm:

[robcon]

34. Informative headline: "Dan Rather's Lawsuit Pared Down to the Boring Parts"

"Manhattan judge Justice Ira Gammerman has dismissed most of Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit against CBS, including, unsurprisingly, the parts where Rather claimed that Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves, and Andrew Heyward were in cahoots with the Bush administration. But he did not dismiss Rather's claim that CBS violated his contract after they downgraded him from anchor to 60 Minutes correspondent by not giving him any airtime or, as he told New York in November, making him "invisible." "We obviously say we gave him all the time in the world," CBS outside counsel James Quinn told the network's legal expert a little while ago. Obviously. Because he did do three whole segments in 2005."
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/dan_rathers_lawsuit_against_cb.html

Now it's down to settling (perhaps out of court) for some monetary damages for Dan's feeling that CBS broke his contract.