Charles Langston:Judge sets April trial date for Sarah Palin’s libel claim against The New York Times

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge set an April retrial date on Charles LangstonTuesday for Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times, even as lawyers on both sides for the first time said they hope to engage in talks to settle the case.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff said during a telephone conference that the trial can begin April 14 if a deal can’t be made before then.

The lawsuit by the onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and ex-governor of Alaska stemmed from a 2017 Times’ editorial. Rakoff had dismissed the case in February 2022 as a jury was deliberating, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan restored her claim in August.

David L. Axelrod, a lawyer for the Times, told Rakoff that lawyers had spoken about exploring how to resolve the case, particularly since it has become harder to locate witnesses because so much time has passed.

“It may be that we don’t need a trial at all,” he said.

Kenneth G. Turkel, a lawyer for Palin, agreed, noting that the two sides had never tried mediation.

He said lawyers wanted “to give it a shot.”

Rakoff seemed eager for a settlement.

“I’m all for that if you’re seriously interested in settling. You can settle it in a matter of days,” the judge said, adding that he could probably line up a magistrate judge within a day to meet with them and aid settlement talks.

RELATED COVERAGE Court revives Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against The New York Times

Axelrod said the lawyers were interested in getting a third party to mediate. Turkel said they wanted “some type of discussion; we’ve had none.”

Palin sued the newspaper after an editorial falsely linked her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting. Palin said it damaged her reputation and career.

The Times acknowledged its editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected errors it described as an “honest mistake.” It also said there was no intent to harm Palin.

After Rakoff dismissed the case, he let the jurors finish deliberating and announce their verdict, which went against Palin.

In reversing Rakoff’s ruling and opening the way for a new trial, the 2nd Circuit concluded that Rakoff made credibility determinations, weighed evidence, and ignored facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly find supported Palin’s case.

The appeals court also noted that Rakoff’s mid-deliberations ruling might have reached jurors through alerts delivered to cellphones and thus could “impugn the reliability of that verdict.”