Interesting that it appears, from this initial case management report, that the case will continue into August of 2025. I'm told this sort of a document is standard and is subject to change and revisions as the case progresses. In speaking with multiple attorneys on this matter, I am told that it is a novel area of law--replevin of data-- and there is a lot of research to be done.
The Gannett motion for dismissal was filed as well, in addition to the assignment of an attorney for Jonathan Owens.
It will be interesting to watch how this proceeds and how the parallel investigation into the theft of the files from the county and the associated crime of multiple individuals' possession of personal identification information, which appears to be a Felony as the information possessed unauthorized contains records on more than 5 individuals, intermixes with this civil trial.
A lot of people believe the media can do anything they want, anytime they want, to anybody they want with reckless abandon and disregard for the truth and regardless of damage their actions cause. After all, who holds them accountable?
Maybe they are right?
I believe that is too much power to give to anyone, even the media. Others agree.
Meanwhile that question simmers as this case is simply about retrieving stolen property. People still have to answer questions though, under oath, so who knows what additional information comes from this civil case and bleeds over into other cases and investigations? Remember, don't lie under oath in this case, or to investigators in another parallel investigation......
Back to the media's unfettered right to do anything they want----I don't know the answer to that question but I did follow the multiple lawsuits filed by one student against the titans of media for a combined total of nearly a billion dollars for the media's feckless, reckless, inappropriate way they collectively distorted the truth about what happened at a Washington DC rally in 2019.
The media also paid a large settlement when apparently baseless assertions about the accuracy of voting systems from one company were spouted by at least one large cable news network. They paid a large settlement for the damage they caused in that case, too.
So sometimes the media don't get everything they want. Sometimes they lose.
And I know this: most in this area have a negative perception of the PNJ and the PNJ know it. Garbage like this current situation reinforces that sentiment, demonstrated also by PNJ's diminishing subscriber base and their associated revenue losses.
