AP: Bonds to sue over book

[klw]

In a way the suit is a great move. Realistically a suit to prevent the sale of the book based on its content would have no chance to succeed. The first amendment hurdles would never get publication prevented. I believe the Pentagon Papers case saw to that. However, if the profits can be seized, then the publisher loses any motivation to put out the book. It's a long shot but an interesting legal idea.

[Yachtzee]

This type of lawsuit has suceeded before.

Don't know if many remember the ABC News/Food Lion case, where ABC News reporters went undercover to report on terrible food handling practices going on at the Food Lion. Food Lion sued ABC for tresspassing and fraud in regard to being hired as meat workers, not about anything in regard to the report about selling off nasty meat. And they won a huge verdict. Something to think about anyway.

I don't have the ABC News/Food Lion case in front of me, but if it came out as you say, it could be argued that the cases are distinguishable. In the Food Lion case, ABC News employees themselves used deceit to get jobs at Food Lion. In this case, I don't believe the reporters used fraud or deceit to get the grand jury testimony. They likely got it from people who were present for the testimony or had access to the records. If anything, Bonds should be going after those who leaked the testimony. He'd have a better case than going after reporters. As klw mentioned, this case is probably more analagous to the Pentagon Papers case, where the New York Times and Washington Post published government documents that had been leaked to the reporters, even though the documents had been obtained or leaked illegally. Newspapers could publish the documents because they discussed a matter of public concern, the conduct of the US government in the Vietnam War. Steroid use, although not as important as the Vietnam War, is a matter of public concern at least to the degree that there have been Congressional Hearings on the matter.

It's definitely interesting that Bonds chose to file suit under an "Unfair Competition" statute rather than the traditional libel. Although California's law appears to be quite broad, usually laws like these are intended to protect businesses from competitiors who gain access to their trade secrets. I wonder if Bonds' lawyers will actually argue that Bonds' lawyers will argue that steroid use is a "trade secret."

[TeamBoone]

Don't you have to be able to prove the allegations are untrue in order to successfully sue?

[Chip R]

Don't you have to be able to prove the allegations are untrue in order to successfully sue?

He's not suing for libel.

[Chip R]

Did anyone wonder if Bonds' attorney had a straight face when he said this?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2381381

"What we're saying is, who are the real cheaters? They are the ones who are using these illegally obtained materials," Rains said."

As Dave Chappelle says, "Man, irony is wasted on some people.

[registerthis]

"What we're saying is, who are the real cheaters? They are the ones who are using these illegally obtained materials," Rains said."

I really hate attorneys sometimes.

And I work for a law firm.

[Caveat Emperor]

I don't have the ABC News/Food Lion case in front of me, but if it came out as you say, it could be argued that the cases are distinguishable. In the Food Lion case, ABC News employees themselves used deceit to get jobs at Food Lion. In this case, I don't believe the reporters used fraud or deceit to get the grand jury testimony. They likely got it from people who were present for the testimony or had access to the records. If anything, Bonds should be going after those who leaked the testimony. He'd have a better case than going after reporters. As klw mentioned, this case is probably more analagous to the Pentagon Papers case, where the New York Times and Washington Post published government documents that had been leaked to the reporters, even though the documents had been obtained or leaked illegally. Newspapers could publish the documents because they discussed a matter of public concern, the conduct of the US government in the Vietnam War. Steroid use, although not as important as the Vietnam War, is a matter of public concern at least to the degree that there have been Congressional Hearings on the matter.

I agree, I don't think the Food Lion case is applicable to this situation.

Not having read too much of the facts of the case, I wonder if the controlling decision isn't Florida Star v. B.J.F., which was a Supreme Court case that held that a newspaper cannot be held liable for publishing truthful material, lawfully obtained, even if the material is otherwise forbidden from publication. In that case, a newspaper published the name of a rape victim in violation of a law that prohibits that information from being released to the public by the police. Since there was an inadvertant disclosure, the newspaper wasn't liable for illegally obtaining the information, and since the name was truthful, there was nothing to prevent thew newspaper from publishing it.

Here, I believe the issue will turn on how the reporters who authored book gained access to the grand jury testimony and other such documents. Without looking at the statutes, I'd imagine that there are certain ways that they could've recieved the documents that would absolve them from responsibility for discovering their content. Once that's the case, as long as the information reported is truthful, then there can be no liability for the reporters.

Undoubtedly they consulted many attorneys before publishing this book, so I'm sure they understood their liability level well in advance of any lawsuit filed by Bonds and I'd be shocked if they would've published the book with knowledge that they (and their publisher) would be liable for damages at any point down the road.

[savafan]

A judge denied Bonds' lawyer's request.

[savafan]

By the way, anyone get the book yet? I have a copy on reserve at the library.

[Chip R]

A judge denied Bonds' lawyer's request.

That's a shame.