Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

'Rosie' Lawsuits

Aired November 10, 2003 - 09:17   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's turn now to CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin for his take on the dueling O'Donnell lawsuits. A lot of money at stake here, $100 million on one side, $125 million on the other side of it.
When you have a case where it's the judge who's deciding as opposed to a jury, how does that change the case? We still have seen lots of emotion, which I would have thought would generally play to a jury.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. I mean, there are moments in this trial that would have had a huge impact on a jury. When Rosie O'Donnell had this conversation with one of her subordinates and said, you know, you don't lie, people who lie get cancer.

O'BRIEN: Horribly cruel.

TOOBIN: Horribly cruel.

O'BRIEN: A moment that a jury might have said, you know, I've heard enough, end of story. A judge might be less swayed by that. Just in terms of practical effect, this trial will go to the judge without summations. There will be no summing up, except through briefs, and the decision will probably come weeks or months when the judge writes a written opinion. The format can be very different.

O'BRIEN: We found out Friday that Rosie O'Donnell lied in her deposition. She said that that horrible statement about "if you lie, you get cancer," and she's saying it to an employee who was a breast cancer survivor. So you almost could not say anything more cruel to a human being. She lied in her deposition, said she didn't say it. On the stand, she admitted saying it.

What kind of an impact does that have, or does it not matter, because it's really about a nasty statement but has no merit in the case?

TOOBIN: Well, Her credibility is a big issue in the trial, so it could have a big impact.

You know, this trial, as far as I can tell, needs a psychiatrist more than it needs a judge. There is actually relatively little money, it seems, at stake, notwithstanding what they asked for. The claims here is that Rosie says Gruner and Jahr didn't let her run the magazine. Gruner and Jahr says Rosie was too crazy, and too lazy and too disengaged to run the magazine. But the fact is, neither side made anything of the case this magazine would have been a success if their vision had been implemented. So what -- I don't see what the damages are. Both sides were led to failure. They will no lost profits as far as I can tell. So it doesn't seem there's actually much money at stake here.

O'BRIEN: It's sort of a lot of money on the part of the spiteful behavior on both sides?

TOOBIN: Right, they're angry about the failure, but it was a failure. And I don't see how you could argue either one of them is the cause of the failure. So lost profits, which is what you -- breach of contracts, lawsuits are usually about, I don't see either one of them winning much money.

O'BRIEN: It's Interesting, the actual contract dispute I find is so secondary in all of this. What's the bottom line? What does the contract say? And Shouldn't that be something a judge could basically read and say, her contract says, editorial control, X, Y, Z proves she did, or she didn't or whatever it is, and it's sort of straightforward?

TOOBIN: The problem, as is often the case, is the contract was rather poorly drafted. What does editorial control mean? Gruner and Jahr says she gets to be sort of the figure head. Rosie says editorial control means I get to decide what's in there. The judge has to interpret what those words mean in the context of how either side behaved.

But I just keep returning to the fact that this was a failure. And you know, why this lawsuit didn't settle is just an illustration of how eccentric the personalities involved are, because this thing should never have gone to trial. All this money spent on lawyers, and for likely, I think, not much of a recovery for either side.

O'BRIEN: Clear indication of just how much each side hates the other.

TOOBIN: Hates each other. Danny Brewster, the CEO of Gruner and Jahr, Rosie O'Donnell, don't invite them to the same party.

O'BRIEN: That would be very ugly, I think It's fair to say. Jeff Toobin, as always, thanks so much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired November 10, 2003 - 09:17   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's turn now to CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin for his take on the dueling O'Donnell lawsuits. A lot of money at stake here, $100 million on one side, $125 million on the other side of it.
When you have a case where it's the judge who's deciding as opposed to a jury, how does that change the case? We still have seen lots of emotion, which I would have thought would generally play to a jury.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. I mean, there are moments in this trial that would have had a huge impact on a jury. When Rosie O'Donnell had this conversation with one of her subordinates and said, you know, you don't lie, people who lie get cancer.

O'BRIEN: Horribly cruel.

TOOBIN: Horribly cruel.

O'BRIEN: A moment that a jury might have said, you know, I've heard enough, end of story. A judge might be less swayed by that. Just in terms of practical effect, this trial will go to the judge without summations. There will be no summing up, except through briefs, and the decision will probably come weeks or months when the judge writes a written opinion. The format can be very different.

O'BRIEN: We found out Friday that Rosie O'Donnell lied in her deposition. She said that that horrible statement about "if you lie, you get cancer," and she's saying it to an employee who was a breast cancer survivor. So you almost could not say anything more cruel to a human being. She lied in her deposition, said she didn't say it. On the stand, she admitted saying it.

What kind of an impact does that have, or does it not matter, because it's really about a nasty statement but has no merit in the case?

TOOBIN: Well, Her credibility is a big issue in the trial, so it could have a big impact.

You know, this trial, as far as I can tell, needs a psychiatrist more than it needs a judge. There is actually relatively little money, it seems, at stake, notwithstanding what they asked for. The claims here is that Rosie says Gruner and Jahr didn't let her run the magazine. Gruner and Jahr says Rosie was too crazy, and too lazy and too disengaged to run the magazine. But the fact is, neither side made anything of the case this magazine would have been a success if their vision had been implemented. So what -- I don't see what the damages are. Both sides were led to failure. They will no lost profits as far as I can tell. So it doesn't seem there's actually much money at stake here.

O'BRIEN: It's sort of a lot of money on the part of the spiteful behavior on both sides?

TOOBIN: Right, they're angry about the failure, but it was a failure. And I don't see how you could argue either one of them is the cause of the failure. So lost profits, which is what you -- breach of contracts, lawsuits are usually about, I don't see either one of them winning much money.

O'BRIEN: It's Interesting, the actual contract dispute I find is so secondary in all of this. What's the bottom line? What does the contract say? And Shouldn't that be something a judge could basically read and say, her contract says, editorial control, X, Y, Z proves she did, or she didn't or whatever it is, and it's sort of straightforward?

TOOBIN: The problem, as is often the case, is the contract was rather poorly drafted. What does editorial control mean? Gruner and Jahr says she gets to be sort of the figure head. Rosie says editorial control means I get to decide what's in there. The judge has to interpret what those words mean in the context of how either side behaved.

But I just keep returning to the fact that this was a failure. And you know, why this lawsuit didn't settle is just an illustration of how eccentric the personalities involved are, because this thing should never have gone to trial. All this money spent on lawyers, and for likely, I think, not much of a recovery for either side.

O'BRIEN: Clear indication of just how much each side hates the other.

TOOBIN: Hates each other. Danny Brewster, the CEO of Gruner and Jahr, Rosie O'Donnell, don't invite them to the same party.

O'BRIEN: That would be very ugly, I think It's fair to say. Jeff Toobin, as always, thanks so much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com