Media request to unseal Murdoch succession fight denied in Nevada court
A Washoe County probate commissioner has denied attempts to videotape secretive court proceedings in media magnate Rupert Murdoch’s legal battle against his children, as national media outlets attempt to unseal the case.
Murdoch — the 93-year-old businessman behind the media companies that control Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and other outlets in Australia and Britain — has been using a Nevada probate court to seek changes in an irrevocable trust controlling company shares and who will succeed him following his death, the New York Times reported in July.
The case is set to go to trial this month, to determine whether Murdoch is acting in good faith and for the sole benefit of heirs by seeking to change the trust, the New York Times reported. The limited information publicized about the case shows that a series of evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin on Sept. 16.
Six national media outlets — the New York Times, CNN, The Associated Press, National Public Radio, The Washington Post and Reuters — have joined in an attempt to open proceedings to the public and access the case’s records, according to documents obtained by the Review-Journal.
In August, Probate Commissioner Edmund Gorman Jr. denied a request to videotape the proceedings from Alexander Falconi, the operator of the Our Nevada Judges media website.
The commissioner wrote that electronic coverage of the case would violate the “parties’ rights to privacy which are protected by Nevada Revised Statutes,” according to court documents obtained by the Review-Journal.
Our Nevada Judges has challenged the commissioner’s decision to prevent coverage, prompting responses from attorneys involved in the proceedings who are seeking to prevent public access. Attorneys who authored responses to the challenge do not indicate the names of their clients, and wrote that the court proceedings scheduled for this month should remain closed because they concern a trust.
“The confidential nature of these proceedings is supported by both historical precedent and current legislative intent to protect the privacy and well-being of those involved,” attorneys wrote in a response to Our Nevada Judge’s challenge. “This protection is crucial for maintaining Nevada’s status as a competitive jurisdiction for estate planning and asset protection.”
Multiple attorneys involved in the case did not respond to request for comment on Monday afternoon.
“I will continue to authorize Our Nevada Judges Inc. to participate in litigation confronting efforts by the judiciary and legislature to seal and close our courts without the strict scrutiny analysis mandated by the First Amendment,” Falconi said in an emailed statement. “The sealing of the entire file of the Murdoch trust case is egregiously excessive and an ongoing embarrassment.”
The national media outlets filed a motion last week to unseal the case. Attorney Maggie McLetchie, who is representing the media outlets, wrote that there is a large public interest in the case due to “the potential of this proceeding to determine the direction of a media empire with immense influence over the American political landscape,” according to a copy of the motion.
The only published information about the case includes “general docket information” visible on the Washoe County District Court’s website, which fails to include the names of the parties involved in the court proceedings. A status conference in the case is scheduled for Tuesday and remains closed to the public, District Court Clerk Alicia Lerud said Monday.
“Though some litigants may desire secrecy and some courts indulge this desire, this level of sealing does not pass constitutional muster,” McLetchie wrote in the motion filed on behalf of the media companies, adding that civil proceedings and records should be presumed open to the public under the First Amendment and Nevada’s constitution.
Documents filed by Our Nevada Judges and the coalition of national media outlets both reference a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in a separate case brought by Falconi, in which the high court found that the public has a constitutional right to Family Court proceedings.
McLetchie wrote in the motion that because of the Supreme Court ruling, a judge must give a reason to close a case in civil proceedings.
Attorneys opposing Our Nevada Judge’s efforts to obtain media access wrote that trust proceedings are ruled by a different state law, unrelated to the Supreme Court ruling in the prior case.
“Unlike the family law proceedings at issue in Falconi, the trust proceedings at issue here are deeply rooted in equity and were historically treated as private matters,” the attorneys wrote in court documents.
Murdoch’s trust currently divides control of the family business between his four oldest children — Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence, the New York Times reported. But Murdoch wants to only allow Lachlan, currently the top executive at Fox Corp. and News Corp., to run the businesses, arguing in court that doing so would preserve conservative editorial standards the companies’ commercial value, according to the Times.
Attorneys for Elisabeth, Prudence and James Murdoch have argued that their father is trying to disenfranchise them, which would violate the spirit of the trust’s “equal governance provision,” the Times reported.
Contact Katelyn Newberg at knewberg@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0240.