Judge rules videotaped Steve Jobs deposition to remain out of public eye
After successfully defending a long-running antitrust case related to the iPod and iTunes ecosystem, Apple on Wednesday won a separate fight to keep videotaped deposition from late company cofounder Steve Jobs sealed.
District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sided with both Apple and plaintiffs in her ruling, saying Jobs' testimony in the iPod iTunes antitrust case, taped months before his death in 2011, should not be handled as judicial record and will therefore not be made public.
In the midst of trial proceedings last week, a number of large media outlets filed a joint motion to gain access to copies of Jobs' deposition, citing public interest in judicial procedure. The rare footage is thought to be one of Jobs' last filmed appearances and of value to interested parties, media intervenors said.
The Jobs testimony was played multiple times during Apple's trial, proceedings of which were open to the public, allowing gathered journalists to report on the video firsthand. At the time, however, media intervenors argued a videotaped testimony is "far more compelling" than written transcripts already available through the court's electronic filing system.
For its part, Apple noted the court has a duty to protect witness testimony. If the Jobs Deposition were made public, it might set a dangerous precedent for the release of videotaped testimony from other high-profile witnesses in future cases. For witnesses in compromising situations, the prospect of having their sworn statements broadcast out of court would likely dissuade testimony, hindering the legal process.
If the video were to have been submitted as evidence, or if parties in the case did not object to its dissemination, today's ruling "might be different," Judge Gonzales Rogers said.
Judge Gonzales Rogers cites a prior case dealing with witness testimony:
District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sided with both Apple and plaintiffs in her ruling, saying Jobs' testimony in the iPod iTunes antitrust case, taped months before his death in 2011, should not be handled as judicial record and will therefore not be made public.
In the midst of trial proceedings last week, a number of large media outlets filed a joint motion to gain access to copies of Jobs' deposition, citing public interest in judicial procedure. The rare footage is thought to be one of Jobs' last filmed appearances and of value to interested parties, media intervenors said.
The Jobs testimony was played multiple times during Apple's trial, proceedings of which were open to the public, allowing gathered journalists to report on the video firsthand. At the time, however, media intervenors argued a videotaped testimony is "far more compelling" than written transcripts already available through the court's electronic filing system.
For its part, Apple noted the court has a duty to protect witness testimony. If the Jobs Deposition were made public, it might set a dangerous precedent for the release of videotaped testimony from other high-profile witnesses in future cases. For witnesses in compromising situations, the prospect of having their sworn statements broadcast out of court would likely dissuade testimony, hindering the legal process.
If the video were to have been submitted as evidence, or if parties in the case did not object to its dissemination, today's ruling "might be different," Judge Gonzales Rogers said.
Judge Gonzales Rogers cites a prior case dealing with witness testimony:
On Tuesday, a jury found Apple not guilty of locking customers in to a monopoly digital music ecosystem with iPod, iTunes and FairPlay digital rights management. Plaintiffs in the case sought $350 million in damages, an amount that would have been tripled to more than $1 billion under U.S. antitrust law.Here, the Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit and concludes that the Jobs Deposition is not a judicial record. It was not admitted into evidence as an exhibit. Instead, the Jobs Deposition was merely presented in lieu of live testimony due to the witness's unavailability, and was and should be treated in the same manner as any other live testimony offered at trial.
Comments
Unlike Microsoft, this judge has good taste.
...a number of large media outlets filed a joint motion to gain access to copies of Jobs' deposition, citing public interest in judicial procedure.
Bullsh!t
It really irks the hell out of me when the media passes-of their own selfish, click-baiting desires as
"public interest".
They want that video public just so they can plaster it everywhere on their news site and get their web-click quota satisfied.
Parasites.
Bullsh!t
It really irks the hell out of me when the media passes-of their own selfish, click-baiting desires as
"public interest".
They want that video public just so they can plaster it everywhere on their news site and get their web-click quota satisfied.
Parasites.
I'm sure to some it holds interest but honestly it really serves no real purpose to be released and as you said is wanted to generate clicks.
I'm sure to some it holds interest but honestly it really serves no real purpose to be released and as you said is wanted to generate clicks.
For once, it would be nice if these "news" agencies would just fess up and admit their National Enquirer "Bat Boy" ways and stop essentially LYING that it's for the greater good of society. Pr!cks.
I think real journalism got flushed down the toilet when everything became digital. At least in newspapers, one had to be right (or damn near close to it) as it would be seriously expensive to print a mistake on all that paper. With websites, any lies can be simply wiped out with a few keystrokes and the news folks pretending nothing every really happened.
I think real journalism got flushed down the toilet with everything became digital. At least in newspapers, one had to be right (or damn near close to it) as it would be seriously expensive to print a mistake on all that paper. With websites, any lies can be simply wiped out with a few keystrokes and the news folks pretending nothing every really happened.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: true journalism died in the mid-Nineties.
This case is possibly beginning to perhaps redeem my faith in the U.S. Justice system.
Let's not be too hasty... but I do like this Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers so far.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: true journalism died in the mid-Nineties.
I guess I'm a bit more cynical - I'd have chosen 'pretty much any time after Watergate'...
I assume you're thinking of Murdoch, but the lesson had been learned, and the move to
marginalize news outlets by owning them was already underway when he perfected the trick.
I guess I'm a bit more cynical - I'd have chosen 'pretty much any time after Watergate'...
I assume you're thinking of Murdoch, but the lesson had been learned, and the move to
marginalize news outlets by owning them was already underway when he perfected the trick.
No, I'm not specifically thinking about Murdoch.
I'm thinking the beginning of the end was the 1992 Presidential campaign, when the New York Times found it more important to cover Hillary Clinton's hairstyle than her political platform or opinions on public policy.
The media had no presence on the Internet in that era; Joe Consumer didn't have a personal computer with a modem and web browser in 1992. This was also years before Murdoch had any real presence in the North American news media market.
By 1997-98 when most major news outlets did have websites, true journalism was already in the ICU, lying at death's door. The Internet hastened the decline of journalism, but wasn't the essential cause, and the bulk of the blame certainly can't be placed on Murdoch's shoulders. The entire industry was already going down the tubes when News Corporation really got going. Murdoch is somewhat of a scapegoat, even if he's also genuine trash.
Steve’s evidence has been used and is on record in print. The video should be destroyed.
No data should ever be destroyed.
Bullsh!t
It really irks the hell out of me when the media passes-of their own selfish, click-baiting desires as
"public interest".
They want that video public just so they can plaster it everywhere on their news site and get their web-click quota satisfied.
Parasites.
Whether it is public interest or not depended on the results of the case IMO. As the case was dismissed, it is not public interest (as opposed to what the public are interested in).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
As much as I would love to see how Jobs handle himself in these kinds of situation, I am also not interesting seeing him sick, I have a view of him in my mind that I would like to keep that way.
I have to agree there is no news worthy value of the video. The out coming of the trail is the only thing of news value.
True journalism is still alive, but it's been pushed very much to the side in favor of shock and awe / sensationalism / click-bait...
Have a look at the Center for Investigative Reporting http://cironline.org/ and The Centre for Investigative Journalism http://www.tcij.org/ for examples of current work that does have some standards...