Let's look in on the Fox case

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis said Fox lawyers previously had "represented to him more than once" that Murdoch was not an officer for the subsidiary cable network. Such information "could have" led him to make different rulings earlier on in the case, he said.

"I'm not very happy right now," Davis said, in his often-understated manner.

[...]

In a statement released Tuesday evening, a spokesperson for the network said "Rupert Murdoch has been listed as executive chairman of FOX News in our SEC filings since 2019 and this filing was referenced by Dominion's own attorney during his deposition."

A Fox proxy statement filed in 2020 does indeed list Murdoch as serving as the "executive chairman of Fox News Network, LLC."

  NPR

So...oopsie judge.

However...

Fox attorneys had sought to keep any potential liability against the cable network separate from that against the parent company. They also resisted requests from Dominion during the early stages of the lawsuit for information about the Murdoch family because, as Fox argued, "they were only affiliated with Fox Corporation," Dominion attorney Justin Nelson said on Tuesday.

As a result, Dominion's attorneys are "missing a whole bunch of Rupert Murdoch documents that we otherwise would be entitled to," Nelson claimed.

[...]

In response, one Fox attorney called Murdoch's position with the network "honorific," and said the role had been disclosed during a previous deposition. But Davis was not pacified. He said an officer of a company cannot "escape responsibility" by saying they didn't have any tasks.

[...]

Davis warned attorneys to "stay away from the word 'newsworthy'" in opening statements, because he had previously ruled it is not a legal defense against defamation. Still, he said, he would allow Fox hosts testifying during trial to state whether they personally believed false claims against Dominion were newsworthy.

That prompted the first instance of pushback from attorneys for Dominion on Tuesday, who argued that a jury would be prejudiced by such testimony from a Fox host. Davis shot back, arguing there is a distinction between what a Fox host believed to be newsworthy, and what Fox lawyers argued could absolve the company from defamation.

[...]

In a response that neared a roleplay, Davis suggested various questions that Dominion attorneys could ask during a cross-examination, including why Fox hosts who believed election lies to be newsworthy didn't also air interviews with then-President elect Joe Biden.

"I could have a lot of fun with this case," Davis said.

I think I see an appeal coming on.

On the other hand...

Dominion attorneys also pushed back against a previous decision from the court that barred them from introducing information at trial about the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, or about details of threats made against Dominion employees.

Davis said the actions made by individuals with no relationship to Fox – or what he called "third parties' looniness" – could unfairly prejudice the jury against Fox. While jurors could hear about the mere existence of threats, Dominion attorneys could not discuss the fine details of them, the judge said.

What?

Davis stressed that he must strike a "balance" between giving attorneys leeway and ensuring jurors would rule only on the claims in the case — and not the controversial issues that linger just beyond it.

[...]

Nelson argued Dominion should be allowed to question Fox employees about the Capitol riots as they are relevant to evidentiary issues, particularly why Fox chose to "pivot" its support away from Trump following the event.

Davis in response again suggested a question that Dominion could ask in its place. He said Dominion could inquire why Fox executives chose to pull back support from Trump. If their answer brought up Jan. 6, Dominion could pursue the topic, the judge said.

This all sounds like Dominion might be more inclined to settle than was earlier thought, but what do I know?

UPDATE 04/12/2023:

UPDATE 04/13/2023:

[T]he Delaware judge overseeing the case declared he would sanction Fox News and launch an investigation into Fox's apparent repeated failures to disclose information, including about the role of Fox founder Rupert Murdoch.

The trial, one of the most significant defamation cases in many years, is set to begin on Monday.

[...]

"I need people to tell me the truth," Davis said as he dressed down the network's attorneys. "And, by the way, omission is a lie."

Last week, Davis ruled that Dominion had already proved the contested statements' falsity and that the jury won't have to weigh their validity; instead, the judge will instruct them that the statements are false and defamatory.

[...]

Moving forward, Davis announced he would appoint a so-called "special master" to investigate Fox's apparent failure to share all information. Davis also allowed Dominion to re-depose some witnesses from Fox, including [Fox host Maria] Bartiromo, at Fox's expense.

  NPR

And here's a little tidbit that I found interesting...

Dominion attorney Davida Brook also cited a story broken by NPR earlier this week: NPR disclosed that Fox's chief political anchor, Bret Baier, had unsuccessfully lobbied from late November 2020 to January 2021 to host an hour-long special debunking election fraud myths for its viewers. According to five sources, Baier never received an anchor. (A Fox executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, say it was a "nascent" idea that became irrelevant after the January 6th, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. All attention turned to the Biden transition, the executive said.)

Irrelevant. Fox viewers are still believers in the Big Lie. And acting on it.

UPDATE 04/16/2023:

But I'm guessing that wasn't presented on the Fox channel.