Murdoch succession fight to play out in closed Nevada courtroom
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Left to right: Lachlan, Rupert and James Murdoch during the media mogul's 2016 wedding to his now former wife Jerry Hall in London, England. Photo: John Phillips/Getty Images
Rupert Murdoch's courtroom hearings in Reno, Nevada, on his succession battle will remain closed to the public and media, a probate commissioner said in a recommendation for order Thursday.
Why it matters: The trial to settle a Murdoch family dispute begins on Monday and a coalition of six news organizations, including the New York Times and Reuters, filed a motion requesting open hearings and for the matter to be unsealed.
Context: The 93-year-old patriarch wants to amend his family's trust to ensure his son Lachlan Murdoch will control the family's media and business empire, but his three other elder children James, Elisabeth and Prudence Murdoch, refuse to go along with the change, Axios Pro's Michael Flaherty writes (subscription).
- Flaherty notes part of what's fueling the animosity is James Murdoch's inclination to sell Fox News, of which the trust holds significant control, along with News Corp.
Driving the news: Nevada's Second Judicial District Court issued an order in January sealing court records and closing hearings that would otherwise "reveal confidential personal, financial, and business information of the Trust and its beneficiaries or other family members who the Trustee serves," according to filings.
- Attorneys for the media coalition that also includes CNN, AP, NPR and the Washington Post argued in a memo to the court that although "some litigants may desire secrecy and some courts indulge this desire, this level of sealing does not pass constitutional muster," per Reuters.
- However, probate commissioner Edmund Gorman Jr. wrote in his recommendation that was shared with Axios that "protection of privacy interests" outweigh the public's right to access the proceedings.
Zoom in: The court "also recognizes that several of the parties and witnesses in this case — as even movants concede — are well known to the public and the subjects of intense media and public scrutiny," Gorman said.
- "These parties warrant additional security measures to ensure that their own physical access to the courts is not infringed, and that malicious actors who might wish them harm cannot use their appearances in this probate court to facilitate that harm," he said.
- "Certainly, additional court security measures can partially mollify these risks, but closure of hearings is another tool this court can employ to ensure these parties' safe access to the courthouse," Gorman added.
- "In this particular case, while these considerations do not, by themselves, warrant complete closure of hearings to the public, these considerations weigh in favor of closure when combined with the other privacy factors discussed above."
Yes, but: Gorman is permitting a limited number of documents in the case to be unsealed, though the majority of these "appear to be connected to whether or not documents in the matter should be sealed, like the approved recommendation today," notes Deadline, which first reported on Gorman's decision.
