In a legal engagement that has captured the attention of media and legal circles alike, former President Donald Trump continues to pursue litigation against journalist Bob Woodward and publishing giant Simon & Schuster. The crux of the dispute involves an audiobook, derived from interviews Woodward conducted during Trump’s presidency, which Trump alleges was used without proper authorization. This has led to a $50 million copyright and contract suit initiated in the Northern District of Florida earlier in January 2023, despite none of the parties being based there. The case was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Trump’s attorney, Robert Garson, has not minced words in his quest to advance the case, urging the court to initiate discovery despite a pending motion to dismiss. Garson pointed to a parallel case involving ABC, suggesting Simon & Schuster should perhaps emulate ABC’s alleged contrition. In his view, further delay could harm both Trump and the American people due to alleged ongoing unauthorized financial gains from the use of Trump’s recorded voice. Judge Paul Gardephe, presiding over the matter, however, has denied early discovery requests, underscoring the process will only proceed post the motion’s resolution.
The backdrop to this legal contest is President Trump’s prior success in procuring a $15 million settlement from ABC, a victory Garson seems to use as both a rhetorical and strategic point in current proceedings. Trump has invoked the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer fraud law, in his claims, a move seen by some as controversial given its typical application outside journalistic contexts.
From a legal perspective, this ongoing litigation draws attention to the intricacies of copyright law as it intersects with public service and journalism. Indeed, Trump’s lawyer accuses the defendants of profiting inappropriately from conducting public duties. Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster’s legal representative, Elizabeth McNamara, rebukes these assertions, positing that the Copyright Act prohibits government officials like Trump from asserting such claims over works derived from official duties. For now, as is typical in such legal sagas, the final direction of this high-profile case rests firmly in judicial hands. For further details, follow the case’s docket on Court Listener.