A Florida court recently handed down a ruling that the board of the Pulitzer Prize organization must provide internal communications for the discovery phase in the lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump against them. He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Committee over its awarding its top prize to the New York Times and Washington Post for their combined coverage of the Russian collusion storyline that dominated the news for years.

In a recent motion filed by the lawyers for the Pulitzer Prize board members, they sought to get a Protective Order Governing Discovery to prevent the requirement that internal documents be given to the court. Judge Robert L. Pegg, in the Circuit Court of Okeechobee County, ruled against this motion. “The rule requires 'an affirmative showing of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense' from such party or person… Defendants have failed to meet this requirement.”

Trump filed the suit against the Pulitzers in 2022, alleging the board recognized the two outlets as co-winners in 2018 in order to substantiate the accusations that the Trump campaign worked with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. The lawsuit states this claim was debunked, but the Pulitzer board went forward to grant this award for the coverage to lend more credibility to the accusations.

In its description of the work that was being awarded for National Reporting, the committee recognized the two outlets for their work on the collusion storyline. Twenty articles entries between both newspapers were cited for recognition:

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. 

The reason Trump brought this suit to the Pulitzers was in part because he was unable to sue The Times and The Post for defamation due to the statute of limitations. When Trump requested the Pulitzers rescind this particular award, as a result of the Mueller Report effectively killing off the long-running collusion narrative, the body issued a defiant report. In its statement in response, the board declared it conducted a pair of internal reviews and would stand by its awarding of its honor to the papers.

That statement took place in a timeframe that permitted Trump to bring suit, and now it will be interesting to see if anyone involved in either news outlet will be called to testify to litigate the reports. A number of motions to dismiss the Pulitzer's lawyers have been filed, including one arguing that this statement was one of opinion and could not be declared defamatory. They have also argued the case should not be in Florida as the 19 defendants are not residents, and recently they lost the bid to dismiss using Trump’s defense in other cases regarding his presidential standing.

That the court has seen fit to have this case move forward toward a jury indicates this is yet another example of the judiciary appearing to be more open to media culpability. Trump received a settlement in a suit he brought against ABC News, and CNN was ruled by a jury as liable for defamation and acting with malice in a false news story. The producers of “60 Minutes” recently turned over transcripts of their interview with Kamala Harris to the FCC in another suit brought by Trump in an election interference case, and he also has sued the Des Moines Register over its flawed pre-election polling reports.

It appears to be a developing reality that the courts are more open to exploring accountability with press outlets. In years past, defamation cases have been less likely to be moved through the system; this is becoming more of a legal reality.