Much of what was written in the complaint is totally unnecessary, but typical of what the media oriented lawyers working for the left write. It looks like something Avenetti or Aldrich would file.
Unless he has some other source of funds Mr. Rich is unlikely to be able to afford his legal team for long, and many of his targets are likely to have limited funds to even pay a judgment if he wins his case.
So the real reason the case was filed probably isn't the case itself. It may be an attempt to gather information from Wikileaks and others, or to generate media interest.
Why would a supposedly intensely private guy who has a security clearance and wants to avoid publicity launch a lawsuit guaranteed to create a national and international media circus? And of course force him to hand over a lot of information in discovery - like Seth's and his phone records, computers, etc.
Good points all.
The suit is against some individuals and the Times. It is a tort action so it is probably done on contingency. No fee from the plaintiff but the attys get a percent if they win. This is typical in personal injury cases.
The suit is written to paint the picture of what the defendants supposedly did. Of course it is going to maximize every bad thing. This is not only common, but pretty much required. You want judges to take your case seriously. That would not happen if the plaintiff just said Ive been defamed.
The trial lawyers job is to paint a picture for the judge and the jury. The complaint filed in this case does a pretty good job of causing the reader to be outraged. And if it is proven to be true—those defendants have real problems.