no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionLast revision | |||
— | axamonitor_redaction [2016/12/29 19:16] – [No Retraction] updates financials Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP rightalign> | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ====== Why We Refused to Remove Redacted Axanar Financial Info ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | //**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
+ | **AxaMonitor editor**</ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Amid calls by an Axanar surrogate for sanctions against [[Loeb & Loeb]] attorneys for inadvertently disclosing confidential financial information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | "It has been brought to our attention that your website and/or blog has, as of this morning, published material that was filed under seal pursuant to court order in this case," [[Jonathan Zavin]], lead attorney for plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]], wrote me.((Jonathan Zavin email to AxaMonitor editor Carlos Pedraza, 11/17/16.)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The studios are suing producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company, Axanar Productions Inc., for infringing their copyrights by producing a feature film, //Axanar//, with $1.5 million Peters raised from thousands of Star Trek fans. | ||
+ | ===== Confidential Financial Information ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In its story November 17, 2016, about the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | On his Fan Film Factor blog, Axanar surrogate Jonathan Lane criticized Loeb for the apparently inadvertent disclosure of Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | // | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The damage to Alec Peters’ professional reputation is now irreparable.((Jonathan Lane comment, [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **AxaMonitor** published information about Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Violating Court Order ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | That protective order required any party inadvertently releasing confidential information to take "all reasonable measures promptly to ensure that no further or greater unauthorized disclosure of Confidential Information is made by anyone." | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round info 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Removing Confidential Information ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | To that end, Zavin warned me about the information I published: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > This material was sealed and redacted pursuant to court order, and any publication of such material may be in violation of the court order. We hereby request that it be removed from your website and/or blog as soon as possible, and that you inform anyone to whom you’ve given this redacted material, that they should not publish or further distribute this material.((Jonathan Zavin email to AxaMonitor editor Carlos Pedraza, 11/17/16.)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | I conferred with counsel, considered Lane's assertions about damage to Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== No Retraction ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | I determined that **AxaMonitor** will not remove the information gleaned from the redacted documents, explaining in an email to Zavin: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > I have decided it would be inappropriate for me as a journalist, covering a story in which there is a public benefit in reporting this information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | === No Jurisdiction === | ||
+ | |||
+ | The protective order applies only to the parties in the case; the court must have jurisdiction over me for the order to apply to my reporting. As I am not a party to this case, I do not believe I am bound by the strictures of the order. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Constitutional Protection === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, **AxaMonitor** is not liable for " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round important 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | \\ \\ | ||
+ | The amended exhibits accompanying the December 29 filing were meant to replace the original documents, with the financial information simply removed. The inadvertently filed pages, the defense claimed, "are not relevant to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment." | ||
+ | \\ \\ | ||
+ | The plaintiffs, naturally, want the jury to see how Peters raised and spent $1.4 million, collected from Star Trek fans, on a film he never produced.</ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Defense Released Same Information in Error === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Most importantly, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane's outrage over Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As I explained to Zavin: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > As you know, Paragraph 5 of the protective order does not confer confidential status to information in the public domain; the defense' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Specifically, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense submitted that document the same day as the plaintiffs in support of defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | I believe the public is entitled to know how Alec Peters spent money he raised in public using Star Trek's intellectual property. {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |