Judge grants Hulk Hogan's request to inspect Gawker's computers
Image of Hulk Hogan by s_bukley / Shutterstock.com.
A judge has granted Hulk Hogan and his legal team access to Gawker’s computers, smartphones, and network servers to determine whether Gawker employees purposely leaked confidential information about the former pro wrestler, The Hollywood Reporter reported Thursday.
Florida Circuit Judge Pamela Campbell ruled that Hogan and his team could search through the electronic data for the limited purpose of determining whether “the defense team potentially leaked irrelevant and inflammatory information that was under a ‘Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only’ designation, and that the information was subsequently published by the National Enquirer or Radar Online, and then others.” Campbell also ruled that Hogan and his team could conduct depositions of Gawker founder Nick Denton, former editor-in-chief A.J. Daulerio and general counsel Heather Dietrick, as well as anyone in the media found to have communicated with them about Hogan case.
Hogan has been entangled with Gawker ever since the blog published an excerpt of his sex tape without his permission in October 2012. Hogan sued Gawker for $100 million and the two are scheduled to go to trial in March.
Over the summer, various tabloids published transcripts of prior racist rants by Hogan. The wrestler accused Gawker obtaining those transcripts via the discovery process and leaking them to the press in order to hurt Hogan’s credibility. The controversy led to World Wrestling Entertainment’s decision to sever ties with Hogan, who is one of the longest-reigning champions in WWE history.
Campbell’s order will not take effect until November 18 so that Gawker can appeal.
“The judge’s order is literally unprecedented,” Gawker attorney Michael Berry told the Hollywood Reporter. “It has no basis in law or fact. We intend to appeal. This order should send a shiver down the spine of all media companies and anyone who believes in the free press. It says that a court can confiscate all data in a media company’s computer system based on nothing more than a baseless hunch and accusation. It then gives a litigant all reporters’ and editors’ data that mentions his name and a long list of other names. This order is an affront to the First Amendment.”
