What discovery documents from the Dominion case were produced and how have they been cited in Smartmatic filings?
Executive summary
Smartmatic has repeatedly sought to import discovery produced in Dominion’s defamation litigation against Fox—primarily depositions, internal Fox documents, exhibit materials and transcripted audio/video—arguing those materials show Fox personnel knew claims about Smartmatic were false and therefore are directly relevant to Smartmatic’s separate defamation claims [1] [2] [3]. Fox agreed to turn over “reams” of Dominion-produced materials after pressure from courts and Smartmatic’s motions; Smartmatic has cited specific Dominion discovery (including depositions identified in Dominion exhibits) in its filings to compel production and to press its case [4] [2] [1].
1. What kinds of Dominion discovery Smartmatic sought and obtained
Smartmatic’s public filings and press materials describe a targeted grab of the same categories of materials that emerged in Dominion’s suit: internal Fox emails and documents, deposition transcripts of Fox executives and hosts, exhibit files, and transcripts/recordings used during the Dominion litigation—material Smartmatic argues bear directly on what Fox knew and when [1] [3]. Reporting and court notices state Smartmatic demanded reproduction of all “relevant documents and depositions from the Dominion actions,” and that Fox ultimately agreed to hand over thousands of those documents [1] [4].
2. Specific documents referenced in reporting and filings
Public reporting and advocacy groups point to particular pieces of Dominion discovery that Smartmatic has highlighted or that are now available: Dominion exhibits and deposition testimony showed Fox executives—named in Dominion exhibits such as 601 and 605—testifying they did not believe the false notion that Smartmatic owned Dominion, and internal Fox materials that acknowledged some on-air claims about Smartmatic were untrue; Media Matters summarizes those documentary reveals and cites the specific exhibit numbers and testimony [2]. Smartmatic’s court filings also cite portions of the Dominion record when arguing Fox “slow‑rolled” production and when seeking court orders to reproduce depositions and exhibits for use in Smartmatic’s case [4] [3].
3. How Smartmatic has used Dominion discovery in its legal strategy
Smartmatic has used the Dominion record procedurally and substantively: procedurally, to compel Fox to reproduce Dominion-produced files and depositions into Smartmatic’s New York litigation and to argue that Fox’s delay tactics hampered Smartmatic’s access to relevant discovery [1] [3]; substantively, by pointing to Dominion-deposition admissions and internal emails to show Fox personnel knew statements about Smartmatic were false—evidence Smartmatic says establishes Fox’s reckless or knowing dissemination of defaming claims [2] [4]. Smartmatic has publicly framed the Dominion materials as the “same discovery, the same evidence” that will be determinative in its separate suit [1].
4. What the public record actually documents—and its limits
The public reporting, Fox-produced press releases, and available court dockets confirm thousands of documents existed in the Dominion discovery set and that large swaths were transferred or made available to Smartmatic (reports cite “more than 52,000 documents” sought by Smartmatic) [4]. At the same time, the provided sources do not contain a comprehensive, itemized inventory of every Dominion exhibit or file produced to Smartmatic, nor do they provide the full text of all cited depositions beyond the referenced exhibits and summaries; therefore, while specific depositions and exhibits (e.g., exhibits 601 and 605) are cited in coverage as having relevance to Smartmatic, the complete universe of transferred documents and the full extent of their use in Smartmatic’s pleadings are not fully set out in the sources provided [5] [2] [4].
5. Competing narratives and implicit incentives
Dominion’s discovery has been used by Smartmatic to buttress its defamation claims and to force Fox to produce material that could establish knowledge or recklessness; Fox and some observers characterize the cross‑use of discovery as litigation overlap or fishing for evidence created for a separate suit, while Smartmatic frames it as necessary to equalize access to proof that allegedly damaged its business [1] [3]. Independent outlets and advocacy groups note the Dominion docket left “breadcrumbs” suggesting on‑air falsehoods about Smartmatic were known inside Fox—an implicit charge that the network’s financial incentives and editorial choices shaped what was broadcast and later litigated [2] [4].