Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresiding Justice Scheinkman (Appellate Division) has lifted the TRO against Simon & Schuster
Link to tweet
Justice Scheinkman (Appellate Division) has lifted the TRO against Simon & Schuster restraining it from publishing Mary Trumps book. The TRO remains in effect as to Ms. Trump, but we will be filing a brief in the trial court tomorrow explaining why it must be vacated.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 889 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Presiding Justice Scheinkman (Appellate Division) has lifted the TRO against Simon & Schuster (Original Post)
catbyte
Jul 2020
OP
The order was ridiculous in the first place if it was based on the NDA.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jul 2020
#1
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,660 posts)1. The order was ridiculous in the first place if it was based on the NDA.
Simon & Schuster wasn't a party to the NDA, so how could they be restrained from publishing the book? Even as to Mary Trump, normally the remedy for the breach of an NDA would be financial damages. I think her lawyers can make a good argument that preventing publication of the book would be an impermissible prior restraint.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)2. Thank You, Ma'am
That seems ironclad.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)3. Thanks.
I thought that might happen, or at least should.
Tweet went bye-bye though. Was it deleted for some reason?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,660 posts)5. It's still there.
crimycarny
(1,351 posts)4. And now even more people will want to buy her book
Nothing like telling people they cant have something to drum up interest!
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,660 posts)6. More detail here:
While Ms. Trump unquestionably possesses the same First Amendment expressive rights belonging to all Americans, she also possesses the right to enter into contracts, including the right to contract away her First Amendment rights, Scheinkman wrote.
Scheinkman found that, while anyone can enter into a confidentiality agreement, courts are not necessarily obligated to enforce such agreements. Courts must balance the interests of the party seeking to enforce the contract with other legitimate interests, including, especially in this context, the public interest, he wrote.
Drawing the appropriate balance may well require in camera review of the book sought to be enjoined the legitimate interest in preserving family secrets may be one thing for the family of a real estate developer, no matter how successful; it is another matter for the family of the President of the United States, Scheinkman wrote.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/07/01/ny-appeals-court-keeps-block-against-mary-trump-in-book-fight-but-lifts-it-for-her-publisher/Scheinkman found that, while anyone can enter into a confidentiality agreement, courts are not necessarily obligated to enforce such agreements. Courts must balance the interests of the party seeking to enforce the contract with other legitimate interests, including, especially in this context, the public interest, he wrote.
Drawing the appropriate balance may well require in camera review of the book sought to be enjoined the legitimate interest in preserving family secrets may be one thing for the family of a real estate developer, no matter how successful; it is another matter for the family of the President of the United States, Scheinkman wrote.