Judge rules videotaped Steve Jobs deposition to remain out of public eye

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
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.

Steve Jobs


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:
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.
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.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    Unlike Microsoft, this judge has good taste.

  • Reply 2 of 20
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,339member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ...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.

  • Reply 3 of 20
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 4 of 20
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,339member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 5 of 20
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,348member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 6 of 20
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,591member
    A smart decision.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    This case is possibly beginning to perhaps redeem my faith in the U.S. Justice system.
  • Reply 8 of 20
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    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.

  • Reply 9 of 20
    Good ruling.
  • Reply 10 of 20
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,589member
    mpantone wrote: »

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: true journalism died in the mid-Nineties.
    Unfortunately people no longer want to pay for it, and few people have the time to appreciate it.
  • Reply 11 of 20
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

    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.

  • Reply 12 of 20
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 13 of 20
    mpantone wrote: »
    boredumb wrote: »
     
    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 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">was already underway when he perfected the trick.</span>


    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 an easy scapegoat.
    I think it was CNN and other "news networks" that caused it more. Once people wanted news from a talking head it didn't need to be intellectual. It was about showing video footage of disasters, fashion of celebs, etc. it was the equivilent of click baiting for channel surfers. Simply put it was the shortening of the American attention span.
  • Reply 14 of 20
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member

    Steve’s evidence has been used and is on record in print. The video should be destroyed.

  • Reply 15 of 20
    Originally Posted by mhikl View Post

    The video should be destroyed.



    No data should ever be destroyed.

  • Reply 16 of 20
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    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).

  • Reply 17 of 20
    nairb wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 18 of 20
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,371member

    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.

  • Reply 19 of 20
    Good! So far Judge Rogers is a breath of fresh air. No one needs to see (and exploit for profit) Steve Jobs in such a state. We know how the media behaved about this kind of thing before and it was all to exploit his frail condition. Screw that noise. They can find something else.
  • Reply 20 of 20

    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...

Sign In or Register to comment.