A judge in the state plans to assign a special master to adjudicate Fox’s case

Defamation of the Murdoch Family on Fox News During a 2020 Election: Fox Corporate Communication vs. Dominion

Fox attorneys wanted to keep any potential liability against the cable network separate from the parent company. They also resisted requests from Dominion during the early stages of the lawsuit for information about the Murdoch family because, as Fox argued, “they were only affiliated with Fox Corporation,” Dominion attorney Justin Nelson said on Tuesday.

During the Tuesday hearing, in which the court set rules for a landmark defamation trial, the statement was one of many eye-opening exchanges between Davis and attorneys.

There have been misrepresentations to the court. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis expressed his displeasure at the hearing, calling it a very serious case.

Voting machine software company Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox News, and its parent Fox Corp, on claims the network repeatedly aired baseless statements about voter fraud during the wake of the 2020 presidential election. The lies were pushed by Trump, his inner circle and his supporters, and the lie about the voting software being switched was one of them. It was done often on Fox News.

Nelson’s comments seemed to have caused Davis to question Fox attorneys’ credibility and possibly excoriate them. He said that he doesn’t know why it is so difficult, mentioning the apparent confusion over the identities of Fox News’ officers.

In response, one Fox attorney called Murdoch’s position with the network “honorific,” and said the role had been disclosed during a previous deposition. But Davis was not pacified. An officer at a company can’t escape their responsibility if they say they don’t have any tasks.

Even though some of the cable network’s hosts were not the ones who made the defamation statements, they could still be held responsible for the billion dollar claim.

It is “irrelevant” whether the person making a false claim was a Fox employee or a Fox guest, Davis said, arguing that the key question is whether Fox, as a company, published the information maliciously.

These extraordinary moves, on the brink of the trial starting next week, are the latest blows to Fox News as it tries to fend off the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion filed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.

Later during Tuesday’s hearing, Dominion attorneys also pushed back against a previous decision from the court that barred them from introducing information at trial about the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, or about details of threats made against Dominion employees.

In response, Dominion attorney Megan Meier argued that it was Fox broadcasts that directly motivated individuals to make threats against employees at the voting machine company.

She claimed that Fox yelled fire in a crowded theater, but didn’t want to hear about the trampling of people that followed.

Davis in response again suggested a question that Dominion could ask in its place. He said that there was a possibility that Fox executives could be questioned about why they withdrew support from Trump. The judge said if their answer came up on January 6, they could pursue the topic.

Davis said he must strike a balance between giving attorneys room to argue and making sure the jury could only decide on the merits of the case.

The special master will look into what sanctions might be appropriate against Fox, including potentially instructing jurors in the case that Fox inappropriately blocked Dominion from obtaining key evidence.

Murdoch’s role in Fox’s financial statements was properly disclosed. Fox attorney Dan Webb said Wednesday that “nobody intentionally withheld information” from Dominion.