FBI Director Kash Patel listens intently during the inaugural event of the Great American State Fair, held on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
Several months have passed since FBI Director Kash Patel initiated a substantial $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic. Patel has strongly dismissed allegations of “excessive drinking” and episodes of being “inaccessible behind locked doors,” labeling them as “pure fantasy.” In response, The Atlantic has moved to dismiss the case, while also demanding discovery to rigorously challenge Patel’s denials.
In a memorandum submitted on Monday, The Atlantic requested that Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan dismiss Patel’s complaint with “prejudice,” which would prevent the possibility of refiling the suit in the future.
The attorneys representing The Atlantic, from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, contend that Patel’s defamation lawsuit lacks merit, drawing parallels to his previous unsuccessful suits against media giants like the New York Times, CNN, Politico, and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi. Specifically, they defended staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick amidst the legal proceedings.
“Director Patel’s latest legal action marks his fifth attempt to sue the media in recent years, and it’s his second since becoming FBI Director. With none of these prior cases achieving success, this current lawsuit appears equally unfounded,” stated the memo. Furthermore, it emphasizes the broader implications of Patel’s actions, suggesting that these suits serve as a warning to the press about the high stakes of reporting on topics he disfavors, labeling Patel a “powerful public official who is and should be the subject of public discussion—positive and negative.”
One prominent legal expert told Law&Crime at the outset that Patel’s suit faces “daunting” odds of success because he has to show the defendants “knew or suspected that what it said about him was false.” Rather than looking for a way to settle, the Atlantic is defending its work and declining to give Patel “a veritable veto power over their reporting.”
Though looking to halt discovery until Sullivan rules on the motion to dismiss, the Atlantic makes an exception for discovery of “purported internal DOJ and FBI information” that the director’s complaint “repeatedly relies on […] to attempt to refute the Article’s reporting[.]”
“[A]s the records are already within DOJ and FBI’s possession, there is no prejudice to Director Patel in letting the Touhy requests proceed,” a separate memo said, describing the procedure for document demands of a government agency when it isn’t a party to a case; Patel has sued in his individual capacity. “[I]f DOJ, FBI, and Director Patel resist producing these records, that may require early dismissal of this action.”
In a statement to Law&Crime, the Atlantic’s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg reaffirmed that the lawsuit is “politically motivated retaliation” and a “meritless” action that “should be dismissed as a matter of law.”
“We are simultaneously asking the court to permit us to begin seeking factual discovery from the FBI and the Department of Justice – including documents and depositions of key individuals – that is appropriate given the allegations in this matter,” Goldberg explained. “If Director Patel did not want to face this process, he should not have filed this suit.”
That discovery could entail details about his travel, any “membership or attendance at private clubs, social spaces, and recreational facilities,” “retaliatory firings,” and witnesses “likely to have information related to Director Patel’s alcohol consumption, absences and unreachability, retaliatory firings, concerns about his job security, and focus on image,” court documents indicated.
Patel attorney Jesse Binnall did not respond to Law&Crime’s request for comment.
The post Kash Patel’s own lawsuit could force him to cough up ‘internal DOJ and FBI’ docs in discovery about any ‘absences and unreachability’ first appeared on Law & Crime.