Patel’s drinking lawsuit blows up in his face as judge allows hunt for medical records

FBI Director Kash Patel's fight to clear his name over drinking allegations took a turn he likely didn't see coming.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Tuesday froze most discovery in Patel's defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick, but he carved out an exception that allows the magazine to pursue Justice Department and FBI records that Patel's own lawyers say reach as far as his medical records.

In opposing the exception, Patel's legal team called the proposed records requests "extraordinarily broad" and complained that they sought "everything from Dir. Patel's medical records to his travel records, calendar, membership at private clubs, and personnel decisions throughout his tenure as FBI Director."

Sullivan wasn't persuaded. He wrote that "at this juncture, Defendants have adequately explained the need to initiate" the requests, pointing to The Atlantic's argument that Patel's own allegations are sweeping, covering claims about his drinking, his frequent absences, his handling of high-profile investigations and his firing of employees seen as disloyal.

"The scope of the requests thus tracks the scope of the claims," the magazine's lawyers wrote in a reply brief the judge cited.

The ruling does not put any of those records in The Atlantic's hands. The requests go through the Justice Department's so-called Touhy procedures, the process for seeking material from the department's files, and it remains up to the DOJ and the FBI how they respond. The Atlantic told the court that process is "inherently slow," which is why it wanted to get started now. Patel is free to file his own requests as well.

The rest of Sullivan's 16-page opinion was a string of defeats for Patel. The judge wrote that Patel "misrepresents Defendants' argument, the court's reasoning in Moldea, and the standard applicable in this district," referring in part to an older defamation case the two sides fought over. He found Patel's arguments "without merit" and noted that Patel didn't address one of the three factors courts weigh at all, meaning he "has conceded it."

Patel had argued the article was causing him "ongoing defamation and reputational harm of the most severe kind" and that any delay would hold up his effort to repair the damage. Sullivan rejected that, noting Patel "cited no legal authority in support of his argument."

The Atlantic, meanwhile, argued it would be harmed if discovery moved ahead, calling Patel a "serial defamation plaintiff."