Legal questions regarding Donald Trump's threat to sue the NY Times

[PJMcK]

In another thread, I posted the following but realized it was buried and might not be seen by any DU attorneys. Kindly consider these questions.
================

Here are a few legal questions for any DU attorneys:

1. Does the emailed message from Mr. Kasowitz to Mr. Bacquet represent a legal service of notice? For proper service, doesn't the recipient (or their designated representative) have to sign acknowledgment of service? Or is this just a semi-formal letter that doesn't carry much more than the threat of possible future actions?

2. As several posters have noted, if there's a libel lawsuit, there will be a discovery phase. Would this include sworn testimony? What would be the limitations of the discovery process?

3. How long would such a proceeding be likely to take? In what jurisdiction would this take place? Would a court case be heard before a judge alone or would a jury be impaneled?

4. How likely are Mr. Trump's lawyers to actually follow through with their threatened litigation? How likely is it that Mr. Trump could prevail?

Thanks, in advance, for your insights.

Additionally, DUer Massacure added this inquiry:

Obviously it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but what kind of odds are there that any potential lawsuit would fall under an anti-SLAPP statute (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)? If the lawsuit does get ruled as a SLAPP, what implications does that have?

[geek tragedy]

1. 1. This wasn't service of process. It's just a whiny rant in a letter.

2. Trump's entire sexual history would be in-bounds, so he'd have to have his emails and social media accounts (including Twitter messages) searched. There would be depositions, etc etc.

3. Hard to say where he'd sue, most likely he'd forum shop for a state with the worst protections of free speech. Would take months if not years.

4. Zero and zero.

[PJMcK]

3. Thanks for your answers

You pretty much said what I expected, geek tragedy. Enjoy your day.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Someone seriously thinks this will result in a lawsuit, instead of just being...

in the "hope we get something from a threatening letter" category?

[spanone]

4. this is how he would handle the press from the white house

thank GOD we'll never have a chance to find out

[awake]

5. The key word is "threat"

[Brickbat]

6. Newspapers routinely get letters like these from lawyers. The vast majority of threats go

absolutely nowhere.

[awake]

7. Can the NYT sue Trump for lible

And force discovery?

[beachbum bob]

8. You can sue anybody for anything....

Trump has used as billing tool and works well against individuals and small business

[jberryhill]

9. A couple of expansions on geek tragedy's answers

1. It's a letter, like any other letter. It could be offering you vast sums of money from a Nigerian prince. People believe strange things about cease and desist letters, I don't know why. The only "legal effect" such a letter has is that it puts you on notice that the claimant is pissed off. Later on, if you in fact are doing something wrong, it is difficult for you to claim ignorance of the claim. But that's not important here.

To file a lawsuit, you write up a complaint, file it with the court, pay $350, and then follow whatever procedure the local rules require for transmitting a copy of that complaint to the defendant.

2. Yes, but this wouldn't really get that far down that road for a number of reasons. Discovery would involve sworn testimony. That's why lawsuits like the Paula Jones one was filed. Although it was kicked out for lack of demonstrable harm, and then settled when appeal was threatened, it was the discovery process in the Paula Jones suit that turned up the Monica Lewinski situation. And, yes, discovery here would involve a probing examination of Donald Trump's relations with women generally.

3. Whether a case is decided by a judge on motions, or whether it is decided by a jury, depends on where case is at procedurally. Some actions can be decided on the facts agreed between the parties, and the dispute is purely a question of law. If there is a disputed determinative fact, then a jury needs to determine whether or not that fact(s) is more likely true than not. For example, leaving aside the heightened level of intent required when one is a public figure, let's say this comes down to "he said, she said". In that situation credibility is an issue that will be determined by a jury.

4. Who knows. Zero.

[marybourg]

10. I would add just thing:

re 1. This would be the point at which to notify your liability insurance carrier.

[PJMcK]

11. Great, informative answers

Thank you for your time, jberryhill. Have a good afternoon.