Some 120 defendants were initially named in the suit, filed in September 2004. They included the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), individual Co-Op miners, newspapers and reporters who covered the Co-Op struggle, and numerous unions, union members, and others who have backed the miners’ fight. The first hearing on the suit was held in June 2005. At that time presiding judge Dee Benson ordered the coal company’s lawyers to rewrite their brief “if they want to keep this alive,” because the lawsuit was unclear as to who was being sued and for what.

Because the company failed to serve many of the defendants, and as a result of the latest round of replies by the coal bosses, those still being sued are the UMWA and its international officers, 16 Co-Op miners, Utah Jobs with Justice, the Militant, and Salt Lake City’s two main dailies—the Tribune and Deseret Morning News.

On September 30, the company dropped from the lawsuit the Utah AFL-CIO, the group’s president, Ed Mayne, and a local of the oil workers union based here.

C.W. Mining’s latest response to the Militant is in answer to the brief by Randy Dryer and Michael Petrogeorge, attorneys for the newsweekly, who on August 16 renewed the request that the case against the paper be thrown out. The Militant’s attorneys explained that the coal company’s lawyers still have not presented a valid defamation claim and utterly failed to follow Judge Benson’s instruction to clearly explain who was being sued and for what.

In their September 30 briefs, C.W. Mining and the IAUWU claim the judge only asked for clarity on who they are suing. The plaintiffs state the judge didn’t ask for specifics on why particular statements published in the Militant or other papers are defamatory.

In an exchange with the company’s lawyers at the June hearing, however, the judge read a quote by one of the newspapers cited in the lawsuit, which said, “Union leaders said labor tensions between the operators of C.W.M. and their workforce resulted in a lockout of 75 workers.” Addressing the company lawyers, the judge asked, “Just tell me with that one, what is defamatory about that?” After the C.W. Mining attorneys repeatedly fumbled for an answer, the judge again asked, “Pretend I’m a juror. Tell me why that is defamatory.”

“This lawsuit needs to be focused,” said the judge in ordering the company lawyers in June to rewrite their complaint. “People need to know what they are sued for, what they did wrong.”

In another attempt to claim that C.W. Mining has suffered as a result of the Militant’s reporting, company lawyers again cite negative statements about the mine owner by the Catholic bishop of Salt Lake City and others. But they don’t offer any explanation showing that those cited had ever even read the paper before making their comments.

C.W. Mining continues to press its charge of a conspiracy by all the defendants in the case, with the exception of the two Salt Lake City newspapers, which are only charged with defaming the company. The coal bosses’ lawyers say they don’t have to show “when the supposed meeting of the minds occurred” to plan and carry out the conspiracy. They claim C.W. Mining should not be expected to explain this point “before conducting discovery,” pushing for court approval of an intrusive and costly legal process through which the Militant and other defendants would be forced to expend enormous time and financial resources in responding to company requests for information.

The two Salt Lake City dailies and the Militant have until October 14 and October 17, respectively, to file further briefs supporting their motions to dismiss the case. Attorneys for the UMWA, Co-Op miners, and Utah Jobs with Justice have requested that the court grant them until October 21 to respond.
 
 
Related articles:
Utah miners use T-shirt to promote union fight
Massey refiles ‘defamation’ suit against UMWA  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home