Whether the First Amendment requires a different standard for evaluating libel claims involving private figures in media reporting about matters of alleged public concern

No question identified. : APPLICATION To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, and 30, and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(d), Petitioners Mischa Shuman and Maria Pia Shuman respectfully request a 60-day extension of time to and including Monday, February 19, 2024 (60 days falls on the Sunday), to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision below. 1. The State of New York Court of Appeals, in the final decision of the highest state court in this matter, ruled below on September 21, 2023, 40 N.Y.3d 974 (2023) (Hon. Rowan D. Wilson, presiding) (at infra 1a), denying leave to appeal and any other relief. 2. Currently, a petition for certiorari is due on December 20, 2023. This application is being filed on or over ten days before the petition is due. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.5. 3. The jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). 4. This case presents the important U.S. Constitutional First Amendment issue of the parameters of the doctrine of public interest or public concern in libel cases for press covering private figures under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and subsequent rulings prominently including Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 448 (2011), with the resulting standard of requisite journalistic care. The Shumans intend to challenge New York’s errors of misapplication and nonapplication of the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence on these questions as a violation of their reputational rights to be free of widely published, highly damaging, defamatory falsehoods. 5. In the proceedings below, on a Motion to Dismiss, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, dismissed the Complaint, erroneously referring to U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment standards and asserting the authority of New York case law that is wrongly predicated on First Amendment jurisprudence. See 72 Misc.3d 1211(A), 2021 WL 3161629 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2021) (R. Latin, J.) (at infra 6a). The challenged articles were accordingly mistakenly found “of public concern” (id. at *2) and “more substantially accurate than false.” Ud. at *3). New York’s uniquely difficult standard for libel plaintiffs of “gross irresponsibility” of journalistic fault was found not shown. (Id.) 6. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 211 A.D.3d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022) (Webber, J.P., Friedman, Gonzales, Mendez, J.J.) (at infra 2a), the ruling was affirmed. The challenged articles were found “of public concern” on incorrect Constitutional grounds, id. at 558, applying decisions incorrectly based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and neglecting the Court’s subsequent decisions. The journalist’s behavior was found not grossly irresponsible. Id. at 559-60. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. (at infra 1a). 7. The Shumans intend to demonstrate, as argued throughout these proceedings, that, on correct application and clarification of First Amendment law, their libel case is entitled to proceed to trial. Sexually abused women like the Shumans need access to a fair and balanced law of libel when their reputations are defamed in the press in retaliation for seeking justice for their abuse—access New York has refused in this instance, in the mistaken guise of First Amendment authority. They deserve their day in court. 8. Mr. Kleven, who practiced law in the field of defamation and related torts for over 20 years, joined the Shumans’ legal team as lead counsel for this stage in the proceedings on December 5, 2023. This extension is requested so newlyretained counsel has sufficient time to prepare and file a petition for a writ of certiorarl. 9. Between the date of retention and when the time to file a petition for certiorari expires on December 20, Mr. Kleven is committed to filing briefs in two cases