The Murdochs are fighting an attempt to televise their Succession-style legal battle in a row over the family’s right to privacy.
Rupert Murdoch and his children are preparing for a blockbuster two-week trial that is likely to determine the future direction of the family’s media empire.
The 93-year-old mogul is attempting to change the terms of the family trust to hand sole control to his eldest son, Lachlan, after he dies.
It has triggered a legal battle with his other children – James, Elisabeth and Prudence – who argue they will be robbed of their say in how the empire is run.
The legal showdown has sparked comparisons to Succession, the hit show about the inheritance struggles of a US media dynasty that was partly based on the Murdoch family.
Click here to view this content.
But the trial, which begins in Nevada on Tuesday, could itself hit the small screen after a petition was filed to allow the proceedings to be televised.
Alexander Falconi, a software engineer and legal activist, has launched an attempt to unseal the court case and allow cameras into the courtroom.
In legal documents filed with the Second Judicial District Court, Mr Falconi argued that the press has a “constitutional right of access” to view the proceedings, citing the First Amendment.
He said: “It is inconsistent to seek the benefits of the public judicial system and its associated constitutional protections while simultaneously attempting to shield the proceedings from public scrutiny and constitutional protections of the press’ right to access,” the documents state.
“This approach is self contradictory and undermines the principles of open justice and transparency that are fundamental to the American legal system.”
Mr Falconi founded the campaign group Our Nevada Judges, which is aimed at improving transparency over the state’s legal system. Nevada is a popular location for family trusts because of favourable laws and privacy protections.
Mr Falconi scored a major victory in February, when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled there was a constitutional right for family court proceedings to be open to the public. He is using this victory as precedent for his petition in the Murdoch trial.
But the Murdochs’ lawyers have pushed back against the move, arguing that there is a “compelling interest” in keeping the case out of the public eye to protect confidential information.
Edmund Gorman, the probate commissioner for Washoe County, has sided with the family, arguing that filming the case would harm their right to privacy and could put their safety and wellbeing at risk.
Mr Gorman wrote: “Certain parties and witnesses in this case are nationally prominent figures who have received significant media attention in the past.
“Electronic coverage of the hearings in this case could expose these persons’ whereabouts, travel plans, and other information that could be exploited by malicious actors.”
The final decision on whether to allow cameras at the trial will rest with Washoe County Judge David Hardy.
Media analyst Alex DeGroote says it is unsurprising that the Murdochs are resisting the petition.
“You don’t wash your dirty linen in public,” he said.
“There is so much at stake in terms of voting rights and control.”
Still, efforts by the Murdochs to rely on privacy arguments will raise eyebrows given the chequered history of the family’s own media empire.
The media empire has spent more than £1bn on damages and legal fees relating to historical phone hacking claims at the now-defunct News of the World.
In April, Hugh Grant settled his case against the publisher of The Sun for an “enormous” sum of money.
The Notting Hill actor insisted he did not want to accept a settlement over his accusations that journalists used private detectives to tap his phone and burgle his house, but that a trial would have proved too expensive.
News Group Newspapers denies the claims and said the settlement was reached without admission of liability.
Mr Murdoch’s attempt to overhaul the family trust, dubbed “Project Harmony”, will have significant implications for the future of the media empire, which includes the Sun and Times newspapers as well as Fox News in the US.
Lachlan has taken pole position to take over the reins in recent years after adopting the roles of chief executive and chairman of TV group Fox Corporation in 2019 and chairman of News Corp last year.
The 52-year-old is viewed as the most conservative of Mr Murdoch’s children and as such is most closely aligned with his father’s views.
James and Elisabeth, who were both previously regarded as potential candidates to take over the family business, are more liberal than their father and have both publicly criticised the nonagenarian’s newspapers and TV channels.
Lawyers for Mr Murdoch argue that handing sole control to Lachlan will be good for all the siblings, as it reduces the risk of divided control that could undermine the business and damage their inheritance.
But the move has been widely regarded as an effort by the tycoon to ensure there is no softening of the Right-wing politics that has come to define his media empire.
While the family trust is classed as “irrevocable”, it is believed to contain a provision allowing for changes to be made in good faith if they have the sole purpose of benefiting all of the beneficiaries. The two-week trial will be tasked with determining if Mr Murdoch is in fact acting in good faith.
A spokesman for the Murdoch family has been contacted for comment.