Giants' Pierre-Paul gets big victory in court, paving way for trial in ESPN, Schefter lawsuit

A U.S. District court judge on Thursday denied a motion from ESPN and reporter Adam Schefter to dismiss Jason Pierre-Paul’s invasion of privacy lawsuit, paving the way for a potential trial.

As outlined by Sports Illustrated legal analyst Michael McCann, the ruling by Judge Marcia Cooke was a bench ruling, meaning it was read aloud in court; Cooke will explain her decision in a subsequent written order.
 

 

Adam Schefter tweet (screen grab)

Pierre-Paul’s lawsuit stems from a Schefter tweet on July 8, 2015 that showed a copy of Pierre-Paul’s medical chart and that he had undergone a finger amputation in the wake of his July 4 fireworks accident.

Before Schefter’s tweet, it was known that Pierre-Paul had been in some sort of accident, but the extent was unclear.

The reaction to his post was mostly condemnation, as fans went after Schefter for doing something “unethical” and telling him he should be ashamed. Many also mentioned HIPAA laws, which ensure protection of individuals’ medical information.

But it is medical professionals who must adhere to HIPAA; as a journalist, Schefter is not bound to that law. Pierre-Paul did come to a settlement with Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Fla., and two workers believed to be tied to the leak of the New York Giant’s records were fired.

McCann believes that the lawsuit will not go to trial; rather, he expects ESPN to offer Pierre-Paul a substantial amount of money – he estimates it will be in the seven-figure range – as a settlement.

While Thursday’s decision was not a literal win for Pierre-Paul and his legal team, it is, McCann notes, a metaphorical one: Pierre-Paul’s lawyers know that ESPN has the financial resources to pay a sizeable amount of money, and both the network and Schefter would likely prefer to avoid the discovery process that would happen before the trial began.

It is during that phase that Pierre-Paul’s team could demand that Schefter, under oath, reveal how he got the medical chart. As a journalist, Schefter would want to avoid such questions, since he likely promised his source/sources that he would protect their identity in exchange for the information.

But, McCann writes, ESPN may want to go to trial, believing that its legal arguments are sound, and knowing that there is a history of courts ruling on the side of the press thanks to the First Amendment.