Use of news reports challenged in ABC defamation trial

Mark Walker | Argus Leader

Show Caption Hide Caption Trial involving BPI and ABC news begins A closer look at the case involving Dakota Dunes-based BPI and ABC News.

ELK POINT — Jurors in the defamation trial against ABC News were released early Tuesday after plaintiff's attorneys objected to the use of earlier news reports of the South Dakota company.

Beef Products Inc. attorney Eric Connolly repeatedly objected to New York Times references during cross examination of the company's general counsel. The newspaper wrote about BPI's Lean Finely Textured Beef product years before ABC News' reporting would land the broadcaster in a multi-billion dollar defamation suit.

The judge called a recess until attorneys could develop “limiting instructions” for the jury. The instruction would explain to the 16-person jury how much weight to give the new reports published by media outlets other than those from ABC.

Union County Judge Cheryle Gering gave both lawyers about a half an hour to develop the instructions or she’d dismissed the jury for the remainder of the day. But, an agreement could not be reached.

“This is only week three and this is a very important issue we have been discussing with counsel,” Judge Gering told the jury before dismissing them.

The jury was expected to reconvene Wednesday morning.

Earlier Tuesday, BPI’s general counsel Rich Jochum was asked about an expert list the company provided ABC after a request for an interview about Lean Finely Textured Beef.

ABC’s lawyer Dane Butswinkas questioned Jochum about the connections the company had to each name provided. The questioning revealed the company had direct connections with all of the names, including consultants and groups the company had made significant financial contributions to.

One of the first names on the list sent to ABC works for an law firm that assists the company when needed.

“It’s a firm we use or have used when we are having regulatory issues with the USDA,” Jochum conceded.

Some of the information that was sent to or recommended to ABC had been partially crafted by BPI and Jochum. This included a company commissioned study from an Iowa State University professor in which Jochum suggested changes to the way LFTB was referenced.

Jochum acknowledged ABC reached out multiple times for a phone interview. However, Jochum said he choose to send the information he included with his statement.

When asked if he every called ABC regarding its 2012 news reports, Jochum replied: “No, he never called me either.”

Jochum’s testimony will continue Wednesday in BPI's $5.7 billion defamation lawsuit against ABC for a series of news reports in 2012 that questioned the quality and safety of lean finely textured beef.

BPI, Inc. vs. ABC News: Previous Coverage

May 31: Jury selection begins in BPI defamation case

June 1: Jury chosen for BPI-ABC trial

June 2: Judge to lawyers in BPI case: Act like whiskey drinkers

June 3: Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC lawsuit

June 5: ABC destroyed reputation with 'pink slime' descriptor, attorney says

June 6: Survey showed people didn't think BPI product was beef

June 7: Beef expert says controversial label for BPI product is false

June 8: Past food safety questions raised at BPI trial

June 9: Nutritional value of BPI beef questioned at trial

June 12: Expert didn't think ABC's Avila wanted both sides of BPI story

June 13: Sawyer called ABC beef reports factual, fair

June 14: ABC News reporter concluded 'there was a story to do' on beef product

June 15: Scientists defend 'pink slime' label in ABC suit

June 16: BPI administrator says ABC ignored accurate info

June 19: Before 'pink slime' label, BPI battled salmonella, USDA