Latest news with #JohnWoodcock
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge pauses Maine lobster defamation suit pending appeal
Apr. 15—A federal judge on Tuesday paused proceedings in a defamation lawsuit Maine lobstering groups brought against a California aquarium, staying the case until broad questions about how to interpret Maine libel law are answered by an appeals court. U.S. District Judge John Woodcock had ruled in February that the suit — brought by the Maine Lobstermen's Association, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association and a handful of lobstering businesses — could proceed after nearly two years in legal limbo. The groups sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation "for making false and defamatory statements about Maine lobster fishing practices and for misleading consumers and commercial lobster buyers about the integrity of the Maine lobster harvest" after the aquarium's Seafood Watch program downgraded its rating for Maine lobster. The aquarium claimed that the lobster industry threatens the North Atlantic right whale, and that U.S. and Canadian regulations failed to adequately protect the critically endangered species. But in a new ruling Tuesday, Woodcock placed a stay on the case while the 1st U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Boston takes up questions regarding the proper interpretation of group libel issues and whether the aquarium's decision to place Maine lobster on a list of foods to avoid constitutes a protected scientific opinion. Woodcock also granted an interlocutory appeal, a relatively rare legal device used in situations where questions arise that are unrelated to the merits of the case itself, including "a controlling question of law" with substantial grounds for a difference in opinion that could "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," according to federal law. The interlocutory appeal is focused on two points the aquarium raised in February. First, whether an exception to the group libel law should be granted in this case. The court in February ruled that the case could be exempted from the state's traditional rules on libel of a broad group, as the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that they were uniquely impacted by the sweeping declaration on Maine lobster. Before the proceedings can resume, the appeals court must determine whether that exception "applies to defamation claims brought by a plaintiff group consisting of lobstermen who each suffered similar demonstrable economic harms as a consequence of defamatory statements made against the American lobster as a commercial product," Woodcock wrote. Second, the appeals court must determine whether the aquarium's claims about the lobster industry are protected as a matter of differing scientific opinion. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the aquarium's "scientific assertion is factually false and the speaker deliberately ignored and did not disclose the existence of contradictory evidence of which it was aware at the time it made the statements," Woodcock wrote. Depending on its findings, the appeals court could send the case back to the lower court for renewed deliberation, move to dismiss the complaint or otherwise terminate the proceedings. A spokesperson for the aquarium said it "appreciates the District Court's decision" to grant the appeal and stay proceedings. "We seek to protect our ability to share critical information with the public and welcome the opportunity the decision presents," the spokesperson said in a statement emailed Tuesday. Kevin Lipson, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said they would brief the issues before the 1st Circuit "as it's deemed necessary," but he noted that the court could decline to take up the question of group libel applicability. "We're very confident in the trial judge's determination below, and we are confident that we'll prevail in the 1st Circuit," Lispon said on Tuesday. "This is the nature of the judicial process. It is a cumbersome and tiresome thing, but at the end justice will prevail." In a brief filed last month, the New England First Amendment Coalition argued that siding with the plaintiffs would be an "unprecedented application of the group libel rule" and threaten news reporting. Doing so could also create a chilling effect related to scientific and public policy debate, the coalition said. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine's $1B lottery winner will have to reveal his identity if privacy case goes to trial
Apr. 15—A federal judge has denied a request from Maine's biggest lottery winner to have a closed trial over allegations that his ex violated a nondisclosure agreement to protect his identity. After purchasing the winning $1.35 billion Mega Millions ticket more than three years ago, the man sued his ex-girlfriend in U.S. District Court in an anonymous complaint. He was allowed to use pseudonyms for himself and the woman in initial court records, but that protection will not extend to a trial, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock ruled Thursday. Woodcock said the request for the trial to be closed is a "nonstarter" that "runs hard against historic concept of what the courts are and what they are not in this country." In Maine, lottery winners are not required to disclose their names. This particular winner has gone great lengths to conceal his identity, even claiming his winnings through an LLC registered in Delaware, which doesn't require public disclosure of who created the organization. His lawsuit began to backfire last year after a judge agreed to unseal records that laid out the lottery winner's requests for anonymity. The orders, which still do not disclose his identity, were a win for the Maine Trust for Local News, which owns the Portland Press Herald and intervened in the case in late 2023. The Trust's attorneys have previously said they do not have plans to challenge the lottery winner's use of pseudonyms — but did object to the man's request to have a closed trial, citing a historic common-law and First Amendment public access rights to trials. The woman's attorneys also called for a public trial, should he refuse to dismiss what they've alleged is a baseless case. Thursday's ruling means that if the case goes to trial, the media and the public will be able to attend. His attorneys filed an appeal Monday, further delaying the case, which was filed roughly a year and a half ago. They've previously argued the situation places their client in a "Catch-22;" even if the lottery winner were to succeed at trial, they've written, "his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the public and the media; he would effectively lose the privacy war and subject himself and his minor daughter to the irreparable harm he brought suit to avoid." His ex, an emergency room nurse in Dracut, Massachusetts, has argued in records the entire case is a ruse designed to pressure her into giving up custody of their child. The lawsuit is centered around the lottery winner's allegation that his ex violated their nondisclosure agreement by telling his father about the winning ticket. But then his father told the court, under oath, that it was his son who told him about the winnings. The lottery winner then attempted to amend his lawsuit to accuse his ex of violating their contract by telling her attorney about his wealth while preparing for a child custody hearing. A judge determined that couldn't have violated their contract because she was covered by attorney-client privilege. The woman's attorneys are urging the lottery winner to drop the suit. "To prevail, Plaintiff would need to prove his unfounded allegations in a public trial, thereby defeating the point of the NDA and the lawsuit," her attorneys wrote. "Plaintiff should recognize that reality and dismiss this ill-advised lawsuit." In his order, Woodcock disagreed with the lottery winner that there is no presumption of public access to civil trial proceedings. He also rejected the man's alternative requests to limit testimony to audio-only and to use fake names for the parties their witnesses. The judge did not dispute there are limited circumstances that could allow for a limited public presence, especially when the privacy of third parties are at stake (like the lottery winner's daughter, who Woodcock agreed would only be identified by her initials in court.) But the plaintiff failed to prove how, should his name be released, it would endanger his daughter, Woodcock ruled. "By the Court's reckoning, one of Mr. Doe's main points is that because he is now wealthy, the consequences of his filing this lawsuit are different for him as opposed to other less financially fortunate individuals," Woodcock wrote. "He fears his new-found wealth will make him the target of an inquisitive and occasionally malevolent people ... However legitimate his concerns, a party's wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access." "Indeed, as he notes in his motion for leave to proceed under pseudonym, Mr. Doe's new-found wealth allows him to afford levels of security and isolation not generally available to the general public, thus mitigating the impact of the public revelation of his new financial status," Woodcock continued. Copy the Story Link
Los Angeles Times
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration ordered to unfreeze funding in dispute with Maine over transgender students
PORTLAND, Maine — A U.S. District Court judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze Agriculture Department aid to Maine to comply with requirements under a law aimed at prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. District Court Judge John Woodcock issued a temporary restraining order Friday in a case brought by the state of Maine against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An email message seeking comment was sent Saturday to the Agriculture Department. At issue was the freezing of federal funds to Maine for certain administrative and technological functions in the state's schools. A letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins explained that the decision stemmed from a disagreement between the state and federal governments over whether Maine was complying with Title IX, the federal law that bans discrimination in education based on sex. Soon after Rollins' letter was sent, Maine's Department of Education could not access several sources of federal funds for a state nutrition program, according to the court's written order. The dispute between Maine and the Trump administration has roots in the president's push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes. In February, the president and governor sparred during a meeting at the White House. As President Trump discussed an executive order on transgender athletes, he sought out Gov. Janet Mills and asked her if she'd comply with it. She told him she'd comply with state and federal law. 'You'd better comply,' Trump retorted. 'Otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.' The governor responded that she'd see the administration in court. Woodcock wrote that his order did not directly address the larger dispute that formed the 'backdrop of the impasse.' The court's order came the same day Maine officials said the state would not comply with a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports in the wake of a Trump administration finding that the state violated antidiscrimination laws by allowing the students to participate. The U.S. Education Department said in March that an investigation concluded the Maine Department of Education violated the federal Title IX law by allowing transgender girls to participate on girls' teams.
Washington Post
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump administration ordered to unfreeze funding in dispute with Maine over transgender students
PORTLAND, Maine — A U.S. District Court judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze Agriculture Department aid to Maine to comply with requirements under a law aimed at prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. District Court Judge John Woodcock issued a temporary restraining order on Friday in a case brought by the state of Maine against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An email message seeking comment was sent Saturday to the Agriculture Department. At issue was the freezing of federal funds to Maine for certain administrative and technological functions in the state's schools. A letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins explained the decision stemmed from a disagreement between the state and federal governments over whether Maine was complying with Title IX, the federal law that bans discrimination in education based on sex. Soon after the secretary's letter was sent, Maine's Department of Education could not access several sources of federal funds for a state nutrition program, according to the court's written order. The dispute between Maine and the Trump administration has roots in the president's push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes. In February, the president and governor sparred during a meeting at the White House. As the president discussed an executive order on transgender athletes, he sought out Mills and asked her if she'd comply with it. She told him she'd comply with state and federal law. 'You'd better comply,' Trump warned. 'Otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.' The governor responded that she'd see the administration in court. Woodcock wrote that his order did not directly address the larger dispute that formed the 'backdrop of the impasse.' The court's order came the same day Maine officials said the state would not comply with a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports in the wake of a Trump administration finding that the state violated antidiscrimination laws by allowing the students to participate. The U.S. Education Department said in March that an investigation concluded the Maine Department of Education violated the federal Title IX law by allowing transgender girls to participate on girls' teams.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration ordered to unfreeze funding in dispute with Maine over transgender students
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A U.S. District Court judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze Agriculture Department aid to Maine to comply with requirements under a law aimed at prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. District Court Judge John Woodcock issued a temporary restraining order on Friday in a case brought by the state of Maine against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An email message seeking comment was sent Saturday to the Agriculture Department. At issue was the freezing of federal funds to Maine for certain administrative and technological functions in the state's schools. A letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins explained the decision stemmed from a disagreement between the state and federal governments over whether Maine was complying with Title IX, the federal law that bans discrimination in education based on sex. Soon after the secretary's letter was sent, Maine's Department of Education could not access several sources of federal funds for a state nutrition program, according to the court's written order. The dispute between Maine and the Trump administration has roots in the president's push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes. In February, the president and governor sparred during a meeting at the White House. As the president discussed an executive order on transgender athletes, he sought out Mills and asked her if she'd comply with it. She told him she'd comply with state and federal law. 'You'd better comply,' Trump warned. 'Otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.' The governor responded that she'd see the administration in court. Woodcock wrote that his order did not directly address the larger dispute that formed the 'backdrop of the impasse.' The court's order came the same day Maine officials said the state would not comply with a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports in the wake of a Trump administration finding that the state violated antidiscrimination laws by allowing the students to participate. The U.S. Education Department said in March that an investigation concluded the Maine Department of Education violated the federal Title IX law by allowing transgender girls to participate on girls' teams.
