[U: Wrongly-Decided, At Trial Court Level.] Cahill Gordon Reminds A NY State Judge That He Is... Overdue, In "Veritas" Case.

UPDATE: This trial judge's Christmas Eve opinion is manifestly wrong -- on the law. The New York state judge fails entirely to grapple with the US Supreme Court decisions, instead talking almost exclusively about attorney-client privilege being older even than a free press. But that indeed simply ignores the central question: the Supremes have already repeatedly ruled that the Times may report on, and publish these materials, and pay damages if such publishing was wrongful. On appeal, the Cahill firm will prevail, on behalf of the NYT. End updated portion.

Technically, the applicable NY Civ. Pro. rule would recite 5 PM EST, this Thursday, as the outside date -- for for his ruling to be delivered -- were it on a "run of the mill" motion.

But in "prior restraint" / free press cases (an exceedingly rare breed), the US Supreme Court has punched up the urgency -- well beyond the routine (as the Cahill firm points out), thus:

. . .We write to respectfully urge the Court to rule on the pending Order to Show Cause by this Thursday, December 23, as required by CPLR 2219(a), which provides that “[a]n order determining a motion relating to a provisional remedy shall be made within twenty days. . . after the motion is submitted for decision.” As the Order to Show Cause was fully submitted on December 3, CPLR 2219(a) requires that a decision be made by December 23. The Interim Order was entered 33 days ago, on November 18, 2021 [Dkt. 170], and, even as modified [Dkt. 197], the Order restricts The Times’s newsgathering and publishing activities in ways that irreparably harm The Times and the public.

As the United States Supreme Court and New York courts have repeatedly held, this “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion); see also New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 715 (1971) (Black, J., concurring) (“[E]very moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment.”); Time Square Books, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 223 A.D.2d 270, 278 (4th Dep’t 1996) (“Infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression, ‘for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury’” (quoting Elrod)). For the reasons set forth in our prior submissions, and given the significant constitutional freedoms at stake, The Times respectfully requests that the Court promptly lift the Interim Order and deny the Order to Show Cause.

We thank the Court for its consideration. . . .

Now you know. The able lawyers at the Cahill firm are correct, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Onward, grinning -- as a festive family gathering assembles here on "neutral" ground -- in the desert. . . .

नमस्ते