‘Falls short of demonstrating good cause’: Federal judge hands Elon Musk and X a discovery win in ‘thermonuclear’ lawsuit against Media Matters

2 weeks ago 20

A Tesla Model 3 is seen in Fremont, Calif., on Monday, February 12, 2018. (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP; Musk inset image, Law&Crime File)

A Tesla Model 3 is seen in Fremont, Calif., on Monday, February 12, 2018. (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP; Musk inset image, Law&Crime File)

A conservative federal judge in Texas known for repeatedly ruling that Obamacare was unconstitutional granted Elon Musk a discovery win in the X owner’s self-described “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters, the liberal group that accused the social media company of placing major brands’ ads “next to content that touts Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.”

Before Musk filed the federal lawsuit, he promised that it would be “thermonuclear” in strength. Musk claimed that Media Matters’ “blatant smear campaign” against X “falsely portrayed” it as a haven for hate and haters to defame the company and harm it financially following Musk’s forced purchase.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, rebuffed Media Matters’ attempt to keep the lawsuit from moving to the discovery phase, writing that the defendant “falls short of demonstrating good cause” to stay discovery pending a ruling on their motion to toss out the case on various grounds.

O’Connor said Media Matters’ claims of having several strong arguments in favor of dismissal weren’t enough for him to “deviate from” the “usual practice” in the Fifth Circuit.

Media Matters has argued that it makes no sense (other than judge-shopping) for the case venue to be in Texas, considering that the allegedly offending Media Matters statements were composed in Maryland and “published” in Washington, D.C., while X is in California. The defendant concluded that Texas jurisdiction “is unavailable” to Musk, “full stop.” The defendant has also asserted that Musk failed to state claim.

While O’Connor said that the “disagreement about whether or not a substantial part of the relevant activities occurred in the Northern District warrants careful review,” the judge said a “cursory review” of Media Matters’ motion to throw out the lawsuit “does not obviously reveal that venue is improper.”

In March, a federal judge in California who happens to be the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer threw out a different Musk lawsuit, one that alleged the Center for Countering Digital Hate caused advertisers to flee by reporting that under Musk’s watch X was “overwhelmed with harmful content” after Musk “reinstated tens of thousands of accounts, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories.”

In that dismissal, which Musk is appealing, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer concluded that the lawsuit was “about punishing” free speech that X’s owner didn’t like.

Breyer then opined that the case against Media Matters in Texas was another example of Musk using the courts to punish his opponents.

“If there is any question about the ‘punishing’ part, X Corp. filed a similar suit, not before this Court, in November of 2023 against Media Matters, another non-profit media watchdog, for ‘reporting on ads from major brands appearing next to neo-Nazi content.’ Prior to doing so, Musk threatened a ‘thermonuclear lawsuit’ against Media Matters,” a footnote said. “Musk’s post also claimed, remarkably, that the lawsuit was furthering X Corp.’s efforts ‘to protect[] free speech.'”

But in the view of Judge O’Connor, the foregoing is an issue for another day.

“What is clear is that even slight differences in factual circumstances may move the needle on the venue determination in a given case,” he said. “A cursory review of the venue arguments here reveals the need to fully evaluate whether any meaningful differences exist. But at this juncture, a stay of discovery is not warranted on this basis.”

In the meantime, nothing stands in the way of discovery moving forward, he ruled.

“Therefore, given this general interest in efficiently managing its docket—an interest that is rarely served by staying discovery pending the outcome of an arguably meritorious dispositive motion—and the absence of good cause, the Court exercises its discretion to DENY Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Stay Discovery,” O’Connor said.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Read Entire Article