Judge agrees that request for copies of newspaper articles dating to 1996 is 'unreasonably burdensome'

A Circuit Court judge agreed Monday that The Gaffney Ledger shouldn't have to search more than 22,000 pages of microfilm to defend itself against a civil lawsuit.

As part of the ongoing exchange of information that's customary before civil cases go to trial, a lawyer for Cherokee County School Trustee Sandra Greene and her son Joel was seeking copies of all Gaffney Ledger newspaper articles referencing Sandra Greene dating back to 1996.

Greene and her son are suing the Ledger and its publisher on various grounds; she for alleged emotional distress caused by newspaper articles about her and her family and Joel Greene for alleged libel. Their lawsuit claims the newspaper's coverage stemmed from a vendetta against their family.

While the newspaper has already given the Greenes' lawyer 133 newspaper articles dating back to October 2004, the newspaper's lawyer argued that going back earlier than that would be unreasonably burdensome.

Attorney Brad Lanford, who represented The Ledger in court on Monday, said all of the articles prior to October 2004 are archived on microfilm. Searching for all articles referencing Sandra Greene from 1996 to 2004 would require visual inspection of more than 22,000 pages of microfilm, Lanford argued in court.

Attorney Jay Bender, who is the lead attorney representing The Ledger against the lawsuit, argued in a court document the Greenes already have access to the same microfilm copies which are kept by the Cherokee County Public Library and the South Carolina Library at the University of South Carolina.

Bender also argued in a court document many of the requested articles fall outside the applicable statute of limitations. That argument was not brought up in court Monday, however, as the Greenes' lawyer did not appear to contest the newspaper's challenge.

Circuit Judge Roger Couch, who presided over the brief hearing Monday, instructed Attorney Lanford to submit a court order for his approval and to indicate in the order the Greenes' lawyer had been notified of the hearing date.