Jackson New Media filed a rebuttal today to Attorney General Jim Hood’s filing this week. In General Hood’s filing, he did not object to Jackson New Media and other TV news media outlets from being granted intervenor status. General Hood, in his response, did however attempt to justify to the Court, as an “officer of the Court”, why the agreement, the Dickie Scruggs depositions and the in camera testimony should all remain hidden from public view.
In our rebuttal today, we took care of a few open items. First, we confirmed that neither side (State Farm or General Hood’s office) objected to us being granted the status of an intervenor in this case. That item would seem to go to Judge Bramlette without objection from either party. Second, we took on the argument that General Hood made by saying that Judge Bramlette doesn’t have the authority to grant the relief we seek because the case is dismissed. We reminded the Court that it specifically maintained jurisdiction in its Judgment of Dismissal.
The most fun thing we did today was rebutting the specific citations that General Hood made through his response. From our rebuttal . . .
The four cases cited by the Attorney General stand for the hornbook proposition that an existing case within the jurisdiction of a court must exist before intervention may be granted. But the plain fact is that this Court specifically retained jurisdiction over this matter, specifically to oversee the sealed settlement agreement. From the Court’s own language in the Judgment of Dismissal of this matter:
“[T]he Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement between the parties.” Judgment of Dismissal, February 7, 2008 at 2 (#107).
The decision already made by this Court to retain jurisdiction is the best possible response to the cases which caused the Attorney General’s concern. This matter is still properly within the retained jurisdiction of this Court. New Media’s request to be allowed to intervene is timely for all the reasons demonstrated in New Media’s original brief. In fact, the very cases cited by the Attorney General in his Response (#115) support the intervention sought by New Media.
The first, Non Commissioned Officers Ass’n of U. S. v. Army Times Pub. Co., 637 F.2d 372, 373 (5th Cir.), opinion modified and reinstated, 650 F.2d 83, 83 (5th Cir. 1981), is described by the Attorney General as “closely analogous, if not squarely on point.” Attorney General’s Response at 1. Well, not quite.
In that case, the hopeful intervenor waited four years before seeking leave to intervene. And there is no indication in that case that the trial court retained jurisdiction for any period of time, let alone for four years. That case – far from “squarely on point” – is not even “closely analogous” once the facts are considered. Similarly, the Attorney General identifies Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2005). There, the putative intervenor wanted to assert claims on the merits of the underlying case. The Fifth Circuit expressly noted that the rule that there be an existing suit before intervention could be allowed depended in that case on the “individual claims of the plaintiffs.” 402 F.3d at 502. Again, that is not this case. Here, the Court has retained jurisdiction, so the individual claims of the original litigants are irrelevant to the timeliness analysis. The intervention sought by New Media is not to litigate any issue on the merits, but merely to have the opportunity to argue that the settlement agreement and related court filings or transcripts should be unsealed for First Amendment and public records review.
The other two cases cited by the Attorney General, neither of which is from the Fifth Circuit, are even more helpful to New Media’s motion in this case.
The AP did a story today on General Hood’s reponse and sought comment from Jan Schaffer.
Jan Schaefer, Hood’s spokeswoman, would not comment on why she and Hood previously said the case was thrown out and there was no settlement.
We will of course provide more information on this case as it becomes available.
Magnolia Tribune
