Kelli L. Sager

LOS ANGELES - Kelli L. Sager has had a very good year defending news organizations and journalists sued by powerful people upset by press coverage of them. But she is a bit concerned about the future.

"We wound up with a string of victories," she said. "It was really gratifying to get the results that we got."

In December, she won a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, claiming he was defamed by an article linking him romantically with actress Jane Krakowski. Lindell v. Mail Media, 1:21- cv-00667 (S.D. N.Y., filed Jan. 25, 2021).

In February, she won a motion for summary judgment ending a defamation suit against ABC filed by former coal executive and West Virginia GOP Senate primary candidate Don Blankenship. Unlike Lindell, Blankenship has appealed. Blankenship v. Napolitano, 22-1207 (4th Cir., filed March 2, 2022).

In May, an appellate court ruled in favor of an anti-SLAPP motion Sager had filed for Fox Television to halt a lawsuit by a prominent plastic surgeon accused of insurance fraud and medical battery. Calvert v. Fox Television Stations, B310772 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., dec'd. May 25, 2022).

And last month, Blac Chyna abandoned her appeal of an adverse anti-SLAPP ruling in favor of Sager's client, TMZ. White v. A360 Media, 20STCV49927 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 31, 2020).

Sager said she is nonetheless concerned about the rise in litigation brought by rich, powerful people attacking coverage they dislike. "We're seeing so many of these cases across the country that it's kind of a scary time for the media."

She links the litigation to former President Donald J. Trump's attacks on the media. A new element in many of the cases are contentions that the media is too powerful and has too much protection.

"We're seeing that in almost every case, where they're saying New York Times v. Sullivan and the actual malice rule shouldn't be protecting the media anymore."

In his appeal to the 4th Circuit, Blankenship has specifically argued that New York Times case was wrongly decided and should not be followed. Even more worrisome, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch also have questioned whether the ruling should remain. paper confronting the justices' arguments against the 58-year-old precedent. Sager and her firm, working with Ballard Spahr, contributed a chapter rebutting the notion that the media has grown so powerful it no longer needs protection.

In fact, given the growth in litigation by the wealthy and powerful, they argue, it is all the more important to protect the media, "many of whom are smaller who ... and are intimidated by the cost of litigation," she said.