Dan Rather Gets A Chance To Replead Dismissed Portions Of Suit
 Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

Court resumed yesterday for Dan Rather vs. CBS Corp.  Judge Ira Gammerman dismissed portions of Dan Rather's claims this month, and yesterday Rather's attorneys sought a second chance to defend the claims.  Discovery between the parties will be coming up soon, and CBS News' lead attorney Jim Quinn expressed that he's looking forward to "[getting] Dan in the chair...We're going to ask him question related to the basis of his claims because we don't believe there is any basis."

But Rather said yesterday that the lawsuit is "alive and well and moving forward.  Reports on its demise seem to be wishful thinking on the part of some...Soon we'll have those who were in a position to know what happened with their right hands up in the air.  That is when hopefully we will get the truth, which is all I ever wanted."

Judge Gammerman ruled yesterday that Dan Rather's legal counsel may subpoena the investigator that CBS employed to check into the story about President George W. Bush's military service.

"The Court's rulings today make clear that Mr. Rather's lawsuit following the Court's April 10 opinion is not just a 'garden variety contract claim,' as CBS previously announced," said Martin R. Gold, Lead Counsel for Dan Rather.  "The Court has allowed discovery to proceed with respect to Mr. Rather's allegations about deficiencies in the Thornburgh Panel's investigation of the Bush Air National Guard broadcast, including depositions of the two panelists, Louis Boccardi and Richard Thornburgh, as well as witnesses interviewed by the Panel."

Sonnenshcein, Nath & Rosenthal, the attorneys representing Dan Rather, also reported that the court is allowing discovery to proceed regarding all aspects of the contract dispute, "including CBS's treatment of Mr. Rather after the Bush Air National Guard broadcast."

The court is also allowing Rather's submission of an Amended Complaint to replead legal claims that were dismissed in the April 10th opinion.

Comments > >