|
|
|
Marketplace
|
|
Sections
|
|
Customer Service
|
|
 |
|
Attorneys argue case once again
By Bill Hankins
The Paris News
Published March 13, 2008
Attorneys for Essent-Paris Regional Medical Center and a still-unidentified blogger argued their cases in a 62nd District Court hearing Wednesday in Lamar County.
The hearing came about after PRMC attorneys had filed another subpoena for the identity of the blogger to be revealed, and James Rodgers, attorney for the blogger, filed a motion for protective order to prevent that action.
Wes Tidwell, local attorney representing Essent, said PRMC attorneys are somewhat handcuffed by not getting the identity of the blogger, but said the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by PRMC against the unknown blogger have more than adequately shown enough evidence to get a summary judgment.
“If the blogger is an employee or former employee of PRMC, he has breached the confidentiality contract with the hospital,” Tidwell said. “We have shown seven different items that have been very damaging to the hospital’s reputation.”
Tidwell said by not knowing the blogger’s identity “we have to make assumptions.”
Rodgers countered PRMC’s arguments before Judge Scott McDowell with: “They have presented no new information.”
“Before you can challenge first amendment rights, you have to come forward with evidence,” Rodgers said. “They have not come forward with evidence the statements are not true.”
Rodgers said PRMC is regurgitating the same old statements the Court of Appeals already has heard.
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled earlier that the Lamar County court must treat the case as a summary judgment case, hearing all the evidence before action on the identity of the blogger.
“They still have to show actual harm,” Rodgers said. “Why haven’t they shown us some harm. You must bring forth facts before you attack a person’s freedom of speech.”
Rodgers said he has the right to challenge those who say the statements by the blogger are not true.
“They need to come forward with affidavits stating these are not true, and I have the right to question those who signed the affidavits,” Rodgers said.
“The burden of truth in the statements is not on us,” Tidwell said. “These statements should be presumed to be false under the law.”
McDowell said he would take the statements given in the hearing under advisement and gave both sides 14 days to present written arguments.
The lawsuit was filed June 19, 2007, by PRMC, which accused the blogger of wrongful conduct in publishing “false and misleading” information detrimental to the hospital and asked he be silenced.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print |
Letter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
