Happy Monday, I’m Eriq Gardner.

Welcome back to The Rainmaker, a private email about money, power, fame, and, most of all, the law. (If you’re not already subscribed, click here to receive this weekly.)

In today’s edition, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle is embroiled in a shareholder lawsuit against Under Armour that involves her “Kevin Plank phone.” Bloomberg is fighting to keep her emails with the C.E.O. private, testing the boundaries of reporter-source relationships. Plus updates on Leon Black’s Jeffrey Epstein headache, a Trump civil suit, disgraced LA superlawyer (and Real Housewives ex) Tom Girardi, and much more.

But first…

• A ‘Blind Side’ family twist: It’s been interesting to see Blind Side producer Alcon Entertainment finally address the Michael Oher situation. What the media frenzy missed is the significant fact that the production company was co-founded and bankrolled by FedEx chairman Fred Smith, whose son, Cannon, is actually married to Collins Tuohy, daughter of Sean and Leigh Anne, the family at the center of the Blind Side.

  Then there are the NFL ties. Smith’s other son, Arthur, is head coach of the Atlanta Falcons. As for Smith himself, he was a minority owner of the Washington Commanders until a feud broke out with Dan Snyder. That ownership dispute contributed to Snyder’s ouster, and there are reports of an ongoing federal probe to ascertain whether the team was used as a personal piggy bank. Maybe worth bearing in mind when reading about how Alcon, no stranger to legal battles to recover its fair share, is attempting to refute that Oher was subjected to exploitation.

• Bryan Freedman isn’t done with Bravo: Speaking of press releases, NBCUniversal has yielded to mounting pressure by announcing that regardless of NDAs, the cast and crew of its reality shows are free to discuss and disclose any conduct they believe inappropriate. I found the statement somewhat ambiguous, so I got further clarification from NBCU that reality stars may report misbehavior on social media or to reporters (as well as internal whistleblower channels), and that the company won’t enforce the liquidated damages provisions of contracts.

  Still, that’s hardly enough for Bryan Freedman, representing Bethenny Frankel and other Bravo stars. He ripped into NBC for attempting to cool the controversy with a “vague oral modification” in a late Friday press release. He also told me that NBC’s response “is not only insufficient but a bald-faced lie”—that the NDAs don’t have exceptions and aren’t merely intended to protect disclosure of storylines. “While documents do not lie, apparently NBCU does,” he added. “Shame on them.” This show apparently isn’t over.

• Paging Jamie Dimon…: JP Morgan and Sinclair Broadcasting have been dragged into court in a pair of billion-dollar lawsuits over the fate of Diamond, a regional sports group that went bankrupt following Bob Iger’s $71 billion deal for Fox’s entertainment assets. The suits were filed in Texas bankruptcy court under seal last month, but redacted versions are now available here and here.

  The disagreement traces back to 2019, when Disney secured the approval of antitrust regulators by agreeing to sell off Fox’s regional sports networks to Sinclair Broadcasting Group. This $10.6 billion transaction was facilitated by loading up Diamond Sports Group with large amounts of debt. Diamond subsequently buckled under the weight of its financial obligations, and the company now finds itself in bankruptcy, fighting various MLB and NBA teams over payments for telecast rights.

  Last month, in a rather extraordinary turn of events, Diamond sued its corporate parent, Sinclair, as well as the bankers at JP Morgan who facilitated the deal both as an advisor and underwriter. Diamond, which claims it was improperly drained of cash that went to management fees and other distributions, is aiming to recover billions of dollars. If there’s no settlement, the unusual gambit could produce some fireworks.

Ruhle, of course, is an unusual hybrid in business news. As a former managing director at Deutsche Bank, she distinguished herself as one of the rare anchors who had spent years in the trenches on Wall Street. Her swift ascent in journalism owed, in large part, to that hard-earned first-hand experience, real financial acuity, and rolodex. She was also a voice of clarity for public market C.E.O.s dealing with the complexity of the Trump years. In the cutthroat world of television bookings, anchors have been known to forge relationships with the people they cover, and even sometimes on private planes.

Nevertheless, those flights triggered the Under Armour board to look into potential misuse of company resources. (Under Armour leased a jet from a company Plank owned.) But the shareholder lawyers were enticed by a different angle. During her tenure at Bloomberg, in 2016, Ruhle had discussed on air a Morgan Stanley report that had previously caused Under Armour’s share price to tumble. Ruhle has been dismissive of the report, noting it was based on incomplete and premature sales figures, and referring to Under Armour as a “long-term buy.”

Naturally, the lawyers wanted to know if this was Ruhle applying her analyst skills or whether her proximity to Plank might have factored into their contention that Under Armour had misled shareholders about its business. During the discovery phase of the litigation, they latched onto one exchange, in particular, between Plank and Ruhle, in which Plank messaged her, “These analysts are all over. Let’s get you a list to have them balance that bullshit story poisoning the public markets!” Plank sent the message during a “quiet period,” when executives are barred from selectively disclosing non-public information before releasing quarterly earnings. The message was also sent to an account associated with a special phone maintained by Ruhle.

During his deposition, Plank admitted to providing Ruhle with an iPhone to maintain discreet conversations away from the prying eyes at Under Armour. In her deposition, Ruhle acknowledged possessing three phones: a personal device, a work gadget, and the “Kevin Plank phone.” Both Plank and Ruhle referred to each other as “friends,” with Plank adding in testimony about their relationship, “I would give her counsel on her career, and she would give me counsel on things that I was dealing with that were either banking or media or human nature in relation.”

Under Armour’s share price eventually rebounded some weeks after Ruhle discussed the Morgan Stanley report on her Bloomberg show. Whether out of gratitude for her coverage of the company, or merely as a gesture of friendship—or simply as a transactional chess move intended to inspire the jealousy of media competitors—Under Armour also orchestrated an interview between Ruhle and NBA superstar Stephen Curry, a brand endorser. Plank confided to a colleague, “I hope that the CNBC crew takes notice and shows more love.”

The most unusual aspect of the dispute over the journalist’s emails, however, was that it wasn’t Ruhle fighting to shield them. In fact, she willingly submitted to a deposition and answered questions, leading the shareholder lawyers to later argue—unsuccessfully—that any journalistic privilege claim had been forfeited. Moreover, MSNBC didn’t endeavor to protect her exchanges with Plank, either. Indeed, Ruhle’s current bosses received a subpoena and handed over relevant material last November after learning more about the situation from the shareholder attorneys. (NBCU declined to comment.) But Ruhle’s former employer, Bloomberg, took a different stance. It has spent months resisting the handover of decade-old work emails. “The reporter’s privilege offers essential protections for all newsrooms,” a spokesperson for the company told me. “It allows journalists to engage in newsgathering without outside interference or pressure, and we think it’s worth fighting for.”

The motion to compel Bloomberg’s compliance with a subpoena landed at the desk of Lewis Kaplan, the judge known for overseeing cases that scrutinize the media’s privileges under the First Amendment. Indeed, the ruling on Ruhle’s emails was informed by several of Kaplan’s prior cases, particularly a decision last year involving Kevin Spacey. (It also comes just days after Kaplan revoked Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail after the ex-FTX leader leaked a former colleague’s writings to The New York Times.) Although Kaplan assigned the matter to Gorenstein, he retains control over the push by Under Armour shareholders to score Bloomberg’s documents. He may be asked to review the latest ruling.

In the opinion (read here), Gorenstein emphasized that the pivotal question is not whether a personal relationship existed between Ruhle and Plank, but whether she maintained “independence” in her work. On that score, the magistrate judge was unpersuaded by the argument that Ruhle’s reporting on the Morgan Stanley report was done at the behest of Under Armour, and wrote that he saw no indication that Ruhle was promised the Steph Curry interview in exchange for favorable coverage. Indeed, Gorenstein noted that it was Ruhle who initiated contact with Under Armour regarding the Morgan Stanley report.

As for whether Ruhle’s connection with Plank may have tainted her assessment of the company, Gorenstein said the question was “irrelevant.” Whatever her personal viewpoint, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest she was commissioned with promoting a particular standpoint. Regarding Plank’s belief that he could confidently share nonpublic information to Ruhle during the quiet period, the judge referred to the common journalistic practice of going “off the record.”

“[T]here is nothing to suggest that Ruhle needed or sought Under Armour’s approval for anything she planned to report about the company,” the opinion concludes. “Certainly, there is evidence that Ruhle supplied Plank with advice and information, that she was unusually helpful to Under Armour, and that Under Armour in turn helped her or her employer. But as has been remarked about the making of sausages, sometimes it is best not to see how journalism is actually made.”

In the New York Attorney General’s civil suit over alleged financial fraud by the Trump family, there’s been a flurry of recent motions by non-party banks and insurers looking to seal documents. The Trumps, interestingly, are opposing on the basis that there’s a presumption of open access to courts, and the financial institutions haven’t justified it. Naturally, but very odd to hear that coming from Team Trump, even if he thinks these docs favor his defense. [Read one of the motions]

In the legal war over Château Miraval, Angelina Jolie is taking aim at Brad Pitt’s allegation that the pair agreed never to sell their respective interests without the other’s consent. She’s now looking to have several claims tied to alleged oral and implied contracts with her ex-hubby dismissed. Should have gotten it in writing, Brad! [Read the demurrer here]

A judge has tossed out a complaint against Google made by the Republican National Committee that fundraising emails were intentionally misdirected to the spam folder. [Read here]

Hey, look who’s the latest to sign a name, image, and likeness deal with college athletes: It’s none other than the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Southern California. [DOJ]

Speaking of the good ol’ D.O.J., federal prosecutors believe that Tom Girardi, 84, is faking incompetence to get out of a trial for allegedly stealing from clients. The disgraced L.A. lawyer/ Real Housewives star appeared in person at a hearing this past week. The decision is coming soon… [People]

Finally, the Visual Artists Rights Act allows artists to sue when their works are destroyed. But what happens when someone decides just to hide a work behind a barrier so that no one can see it? Vermont Law School, looking to make a racist work a bit more obscure, recently got a welcome answer from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. [Courthouse News]