Judge: Bill O’Reilly’s defamation suit papers can be public

Former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly lost a bid Wednesday to keep private settlement deals with women who charged him with harassment after a Manhattan federal judge ruled there was no compelling reason to block public access to the documents in a defamation suit.

“A possibility of future adverse impact on employment or the celebrity status of a party is not a ‘higher value’ sufficient to overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents,” wrote U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts.

The plaintiffs in the case — former Fox colleagues Andrea Mackris, Rachel Bernstein and Rebecca Diamond — sued O’Reilly and Fox for defamation after he denounced them as liars following reports last year about their allegations. O’Reilly argued settlement deals with Diamond and Mackris required arbitration, but wanted to keep them secret.

After Batts’ ruling, the agreements and briefs in the case were unsealed. Lawyers for the women said they included revelations that the women had to turn over all their evidence as part of the settlements, that Fox had hired private investigator Bo Dietl to surveil Mackris, and that if any of her evidence later surfaced she was required to disclaim it as “counterfeit or forgeries.”

“With this decision, the public can finally see how ridiculously over-reaching and unethical settlement agreements can deny women their most basic rights, including forcing them to lie under oath,” said Nancy Erika Smith, a lawyer for the women, in a statement.

Fred Newman, a lawyer for O’Reilly, said in a statement that O’Reilly had only settled cases to “protect his children.”

“Confidentiality and arbitration were two critical terms for which Mr. O’Reilly bargained in good faith,” the statement said. “For the past 14 years, Mr. O’Reilly has always respected the agreed confidentiality . . . but now that the provision has been breached, Mr. O’Reilly will be taking all appropriate legal action to enforce the agreements.”

Fox, which took no position on the unsealing, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.