Barry Hinckley, a former Project Veritas board member, is seeking to block his deposition from being recorded on video in ongoing litigation with James O’Keefe, citing concerns that the footage may be used publicly in a way that could damage his reputation.
Hinckley, one of the members involved in the removal of O’Keefe from the organization he founded, filed a motion for a protective order in federal court in Florida. Hinckley’s filing argues that video of his deposition could be selectively used by the defendants, James O’Keefe and O’Keefe Media Group, to suggest that he participated in what O’Keefe has called a “fraudulent ouster.”
According to the motion, Hinckley contends that public dissemination of his deposition could result in “obvious harm” to his safety and that of his family, as well as to his “personal and professional reputation.” The filing further claims that the publication of deposition footage would serve to “intimidate, embarrass, and annoy” him, and provoke similar responses from the public.
At a June hearing in the Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause emphasized the public nature of the proceedings, stating: “As a general matter, this is a public proceeding, it’s an open court, and generally, things that are discussed in the courtroom are not subject to sealing.” Krause added that it was “generally unlikely” the court would seal material from open court hearings.
“It continues to be one of the great ironies of my life to see people working for Project Veritas, the organization I created, fighting against First Amendment principles using logic we used to fight against in federal court,” O’Keefe said.
Hinckley’s motion also points to the ongoing release of investigative video content by O’Keefe and OMG, alleging the defendants intend to use deposition footage to “sell a full-length documentary” and generate public interest in their countersuit. O’Keefe, however, defends the publication of deposition clips as consistent with his role as a journalist and founder of an investigative media organization, claiming, “Journalism exists to tell the truth, so that people are informed about what’s happening,” he said. “A byproduct, sometimes an intention, is that people will be outraged at the injustice, and they are free to express their conscience.”
O’Keefe also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Time, Inc. v. Hill (1940), which affirmed that “exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community,” and that this risk “is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and of press.”
O’Keefe responded plainly: “You don’t earn a protective order just because the truth might ‘annoy’ you.”
The Florida court has yet to rule on Hinckley’s request. Meanwhile, depositions of remaining Project Veritas executives are set to move forward next week, particularly former Board Member Matthew Tyrmand, and former FBI-agent-turned-whistleblower, Kyle Seraphin.
