Nick Sandmann's Washington Post lawsuit headed towards discovery.

Twitter ^ | 28 October 2019 | Todd McMurtry

[MMaschin]

NEWSFLASH: Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman partially reversed his ruling to dismiss #nicksandmann's claims against the @washingtonpost . Nick's case may now proceed into discovery. The ruling bodes will for the NBC and CNN cases, as well.

[abb]

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

Judge to allow portion of Nick Sandmann lawsuit against Washington Post to continue
Cameron Knight, Cincinnati Enquirer Published 3:51 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2019

[TexasGator]

“The truism is “bodes well ...”! Sheesh!”

Sheesh!

The ‘truism’ is “bodes ill will ...”

[abb]

The judge’s order that discovery can continue means Sandmann’s legal team can make requests for internal Washington Post documents concerning the events like emails and communications between editors and reporters.

[Tired of Taxes]

Hope this young man wins his case.

What the media did to him was horrible.

[MMaschin]

what happened here? Did the case get remanded after Lin Wood appealed it?

After Sandmann filed suit, the Washington Post lawyers filed a Motion to Dismiss. The judge then made an order granting the Washington Post's Motion to Dismiss. When the judge made that order, he stated the legal reasons for making it. Sandmann's lawyers then filed a Motion to Reconsider (reconsider the judges order granting the Motion to Dismiss) stating the legal reasons the judge was wrong. The judge could either deny it, in which case Sandmann's lawyers would have appealed it to the 6th Circuit, or he could grant it and put the case back on track. The judge granted it, basically saying he was incorrect in dismissing it.

Judges do not like to admit they were wrong and grant Motions to Reconsider, my guess is that the judge knew the MOD would get overturned in the 6th so he granted the MTR.

[SES1066]

The ‘truism’ is “bodes ill will ...”

I got this started wrong by saying truism rather than idiom BUT ... I CHALLENGE!

"Bode" is the active here as a synonym for 'indicates' or 'augers' and as such accepts equally a negative like 'ill' or a positive like 'well'. In the referenced sentence, I believe the obvious intent was to "bode well"! [Tongue firmly extended!]

[BrexitBen]

Go get ‘em, Lin.

If the Washington Compost, CNN, and NBC are forced into bankruptcy, perhaps a legitimate, sane, non-partisan press corps will finally emerge from the ashes.

[FrdmLvr]

Thank you for that clear explanation.

[FrdmLvr]

Thank you for that clear explanation.

[1Old Pro]

The wheels of justice move slowly.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

I do not believe that this report is true.

[TexasGator]

“, I believe the obvious intent was to “bode well”’

er, a ruling against the media BODES ILL WILL for them.

[SES1066]

REF: "er, a ruling against the media BODES ILL WILL for them."

ORIGINAL: The ruling bodes will for the NBC and CNN cases, as well.

Again no editor apparent. For clarity I'd rewrite as follows;
"The ruling [also] bodes well for the [suits against] NBC and CNN." [ ] = my changes.

[T. Rustin Noone]

Hahaha

Since this has become a Game of Grammar, may I play, too?

The wheels of justice do not “move slowly”. They “GRIND slowly, but exceedingly fine.”

Just sayin’.

[boop]

"Discovery!"

YES! YES! YES!

I so badly want discovery I can taste it.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

Check that: I do believe this report is true.