Donald J. Trump v. Mary L. Trump, The New York Times Company, et al., No. 453299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Decision and Order on Motion to Dismiss entered June 9, 2023.
Former president Trump has sued his niece, Mary L. Trump, because, he alleges, she breached a settlement agreement entered with respect to his father’s, and Mary Trump’s grandfather’s estate, which agreement contained provisions precluding publication of information concerning litigation related to the estate.
It appears that it is not disputed that after some importuning, Mary Trump turned over documents from her attorney’s files that were utilized by the New York Times in publication of an article that indicated that any wealth that Donald J. Trump possesses was inherited and was manipulated through tax evasion. Subsequently Mary Trump published a memoir about her family which included memories of her uncle.
The former president was unsuccessful in blocking publication of Mary Trump’s book, as an injunction would violate the First Amendment as a prior restraint of speech.
On motion to dismiss, Mary Trump argues that the litigation must be dismissed as anti-SLAPP procedures would prohibit a suit which represents Mary Trump’s participation in public discussion.
The court concluded that at present the consideration before the court is the confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement, which is a matter of contract, which may be decided without reference to the anti-SLAPP laws. This determination, the court cautioned, is limited to the anti-SLAPP defenses and has no bearing on the validity of the claims concerning the confidentiality provisions.
The court further concluded that no cause of action exists against the New York Times in this matter, as the confidentiality agreement does not bind the New York Times and the New York Times enjoys wide latitude in news gathering even if the party presenting newsworthy information is in violation of any agreement.
The New York Supreme Court rejected Mary Trump’s defense that the absence of a termination date in the confidentiality agreement meant that she could terminate the agreement any time, and thus any provision of information or publication that she engaged in violated no agreement, as no agreement bound her. Discovery may be had, the court ruled, concerning the intent and meaning of the parties’ entry into a settlement agreement and whether the court could limit the confidentiality agreement as overly broad.
Moreover, the court rejected the defense that the vagueness of the confidentiality provisions renders them unenforceable, for the language is clear as to assisting in publication of news or a book.
Any breaches of the confidentiality agreement that would preclude Donald Trump from proceeding against Mary Trump must be examined on the facts, precluding dismissal as a matter of law, the court concluded.
The argument that the confidentiality provisions violate public policy as the provisions inhibit First Amendment guarantees and the provisions insulate public figures from public discussion also fails, the court found, as individuals are free to contract away First Amendment rights. Dismissal on the basis of ‘public policy’ is not indicated where Mary Trump received money and was represented by counsel in the proceedings.
The denial of a restraining order that would have prohibited publication does not mean that damages for publication may not be sought. The issue before the court is the nature of the confidentiality provisions, any breach of those provisions, if valid, and whether any breaches damaged the former president.
The court has dismissed Mary Trump’s good faith and unjust enrichment claims as the former is redundant and the latter cannot be asserted where, as where, the existence and overall validity of a contract has been established.
Just Lawful 