Haaretz Defamation Lawsuit Proceeds With Cost Penalty

A Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court ruled Monday that a defamation lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Shota and Shai Hovel against journalist Sharon Pfeffer and the newspaper Haaretz may continue, but only if the plaintiffs pay 10,000 shekels (approximately $2,700) in legal costs to the defendants. Deputy President Judge Efrat Busani criticized the plaintiffs' conduct throughout the proceedings.

The lawsuit, filed in 2021, concerns publications from 2012 and 2013 that the plaintiffs claim were republished in 2016. They are seeking 300,000 shekels in damages without proof of harm.

This marks the second iteration of the case. An initial lawsuit filed in 2017 was struck from the record in 2020 after the plaintiffs failed to submit an amended complaint as the court had ordered. The current lawsuit was struck in May after the plaintiffs missed the deadline for submitting their closing arguments, despite having been granted numerous extensions.

Following that dismissal, Pfeffer and Haaretz requested that the court amend the ruling to formally reject the lawsuit rather than simply strike it, and to order the plaintiffs to pay costs. Three days later, the plaintiffs submitted their closing arguments without permission and requested that the court cancel its ruling and reinstate the proceedings.

The plaintiffs argued that delays were due to their attorney's medical condition, he required eye surgery and had difficulty reading and writing. They attached documentation of a cataract surgery performed in June. However, the court determined that this documentation did not prove the claimed limitations existed when the closing arguments were originally due, noting that previous extension requests had stated the arguments were already prepared.

Judge Busani rejected the plaintiffs' claim that denying a mutually agreed-upon extension request was unusual. "A measure of audacity is required on the part of the plaintiffs to argue under these circumstances that rejecting their repeated request for an extension to submit closing arguments, submitted with consent and for reasons related to the plaintiffs' attorney, is not in line with standard practice," she wrote.

The judge further ruled that "consent is not a 'magic word,'" and that as long as an extension request had not been approved, the plaintiffs were obligated to comply with the court's decision and submit their arguments on time. She characterized their conduct as improper, stating it unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and constituted contempt for both the court's rulings and the defendants.

Nevertheless, Judge Busani denied the defendants' request to convert the dismissal into an outright rejection of the lawsuit. She determined that for efficiency's sake, it would be preferable to complete the dispute within the existing case file rather than allow a third lawsuit to be filed that would continue from the same stage.

Under the ruling, if the plaintiffs pay the costs by October 5, the judgment dismissing the lawsuit will be canceled, their closing arguments will be accepted into the file, and the defendants' closing arguments will be due by November 5. If payment is not made, the dismissal will remain in effect. Should a new lawsuit be filed on the same matter, payment will be a precondition for filing.