"Two Silicon Valley billionaires with a history of bad blood are squaring off over Gawker. Pierre Omidyar, an eBay co-founder, is leading the charge to support Gawker in its appeal of a $140 million judgment ... Omidyar ... is reaching out to other media organizations to file friend-of-the court briefs in support of Nick Denton's Gawker ..." Kevin Dugan, New York Post, May 27, 2016. Here is the article.
The newest development in that amazing $140 million Florida jury verdict in favor of Hulk Hogan and against Gawker et al. is that it has evolved into the clash of the titans.
Billionaire Peter Thiel had ponied up $10 billion to fund Hogan's legal bills. Thiel was co-founder of PayPal.
Now, billionaire Pierre Omidyar, who co-founded eBay which later purchased PayPal, is getting into the act on the side of Gawker. His strategy is to round up key media players to submit amicus or friend of the court briefs to champion First Amendment rights. Some contend what is at risk in "Hogan v Gawker" is free speech.
So, in a sense "Hogan v. Gawker" has mutated into "Thiel v. Omidyar."
However, I wonder if a flood of amicus briefs can have a backlash. When the verdict against three defendants, including Sherwin Williams, in the Rhode Island lead paint class action public nuisance litigation was appealed to the state supreme court, there was a flood of amicus briefs supporting the plaintiff. That was the people of RI. The court tossed the whole enchilada. Here is the opinion Download Statev.LeadIndustriesAssoc.,Inc..
At the hearing before that court, some justices were sarcastic with the plaintiff's attorney hired on contingency (Motley Rice). For example, when Fidelma Fitzpatrick was starting in on a backgrounder about lead, one justice stopped her, saying they knew all about lead.
I always wondered if the justices were irked by all those amicus briefs.
Thiel could wind up winning this one by just staying cool.