Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: August, 2026
Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Likelihood of a Lawsuit Concerning Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Likelihood of a Lawsuit Concerning Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with The Hollywood Reporter about the likelihood of a successful lawsuit if Nancy Guthrie’s family decides to pursue legal action against law enforcement over numerous unresolved questions and potential missteps in her kidnapping investigation. The article “Does Guthrie Family Have Grounds to Sue Pima County Over Alleged Investigation Missteps?” outlines the probability of a successful lawsuit through an examination of the case thus far.
On February 1, 2026, Nancy Guthrie, mother of The Today Show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, was taken from her Tucson home. Upon her kidnapping, the Guthrie family operated closely with federal and state law enforcement, publicly appreciating their investigative measures. Nancy Guthrie is now pronounced dead, and over the past six months, law enforcement has failed to uncover a suspect or a serious person of interest. While many believe the Guthries only want their mother’s remains returned to them, the Wall Street Journal’s recently published article showcased the shortcomings of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, prompting many to question whether the family might sue.
Bryan shares that he believes a theoretical lawsuit’s success is “highly unlikely.” He continues on to emphasize the difficulty in bringing cases against law enforcement.
“It’s very, very difficult to sue law enforcement for failing to investigate, or basic negligence,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter.
The article also addresses the ransom notes assumed to be from Nancy’s kidnapper, which included a Bitcoin demand and deadlines for more considerable payouts. Typically, law enforcement is against paying out ransom, leaving many to wonder whether the Guthries were advised not to pay.
Bryan illustrates how this aspect would affect a potential lawsuit, highlighting that in a court of law, it would not satisfy a burden of fault if the Guthries were advised not to pay. He explains that in a case such as this one, law enforcement is equipped with “qualified immunity” as long as they were “acting in good faith.”
“The police are exercising their best judgment,” Bryan concludes. “Sometimes they’re wrong.”
Read the full article in The Hollywood Reporter.
Bryan Sullivan Joins Schwab Network to Answer Key Questions Regarding Paramount Skydance’s Proposed Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery
Category: News, Press | Monday, August 10th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Joins Schwab Network to Answer Key Questions Regarding Paramount Skydance’s Proposed Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bryan Sullivan recently joined Schwab Network to discuss the challenges and uncertainties encountering Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery as legal battles continue to advance. In the segment entitled “PSKY-WBD Merger ‘Could Be Dragged Out a Year,’’ Bryan examines the central components of this merger and the aspects he feels ultimately define it.
While the merger cleared federal regulators, numerous state attorneys general requested a trial, now slated for mid-2027. With the trial and possibility of appeals, Bryan shares that the merger may not be completed for over a year. He also notes the key differences in the current case compared to the previous study conducted by federal regulators, emphasizing the focus is on “competition, prices for consumers, and content, and its litigation under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.”
Bryan illustrates a key attribute to this case: market definition. Paramount’s definition includes what Bryan describes as “anything that touches entertainment,” and therefore incorporates streaming services, gaming services, and more.
“The state attorneys general are defining the market very narrowly to cable distribution and theatrical distribution, whereas Paramount is defining it as the entire entertainment industry,” he explains to Schwab Network.
Another key aspect of the merger is the difficulty to prove traditional media companies operate in a separate market. Bryan shares there are strong arguments present as the number of studios that produce theatrical releases and own cable networks is small.
“This case is really going to be defined by expert testimony using what’s called the HHI calculations,” he shares. “They’ll figure out what the market share is and then the court is going to have to determine whether they’ll have to use the narrow definition of market or the broader definition of market.”
He continues to delve into the compelling argument that the greater scale is necessary for media companies to compete with tech giants and remain competitive. Bryan adds that companies like Apple and Amazon generate billions of dollars in revenue from non-entertainment products and services.
“Paramount and Warner Bros.’s only revenue source is entertainment content,” he tells Schwab Network. “They are competing on streaming with a company that can put a billion dollars into production and not miss a beat.”
Data findings and analysis will also be very important in evaluating the merger. Bryan points to a case he considers particularly important: Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox. At the time, it was said it would increase content and lower prices for consumers. However, Bryan notes he does not believe this has happened and instead has seen more layoffs.
As the trial approaches, Bryan recommends for individuals to evaluate the respective party’s filed expert reports, which will come out well before trial, and “really analyze the economies of this deal” and “the broader implications on the entertainment industry.”
To conclude the segment, he emphasizes that the midterm election results will be significant.
“If democrats take control during the midterms as predicted, then Congress could also get involved in examining the merger as well,” he highlights. “What we’ve seen happening at CBS News with reporters leaving because of what they have said was ‘pressure to support the administration rather than be critical of it,’ and that goes into the acquisition of Warner Brothers by Paramount, which then CNN would be under the umbrella of Paramount.”
Watch the full segment on the Schwab Network.
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Fast Company About Fauci’s COVID-19 Diary Entries Stored on Government Servers
Category: News, Press | Friday, August 7th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Fast Company About Fauci’s COVID-19 Diary Entries Stored on Government Servers
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke to Fast Company about Anthony Fauci’s public COVID-era diary entries stored on government servers. In the article, titled “What Fauci’s diary leak should remind employees about privacy at work,” Bryan examines legal considerations for employees storing personal information on company servers while providing best practices on protecting private data.
As the article outlines, Republican Senator Rand Paul has consistently and publicly criticized Fauci’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic and his statements concerning the virus’s true origin. While Fauci left his government position in 2022, Paul remained committed to investigating the origins of COVID-19 and Fauci’s use of taxpayer funding for research. A central piece of Paul’s argument is over 1,000 pages of Fauci’s journal entries from the pandemic, which Paul has since released because the entries were on government property.
Bryan examines the relationship between personal information and company devices, illustrating a “universal rule” that “employees have no right of privacy.”
“If you’re going to keep anything personal, you don’t keep it on a work computer, a work system, or a work device in any way,” he tells Fast Company. “The company or the employer owns that, whether it’s the U.S. government or not. You have no privacy when it comes to using work technology.”
Bryan continues to highlight that the legal landscape becomes less clear when an employee uses a personal device for work, or when an employer pays for an employee’s phone service but not the device itself.
“The bottom line is, if you’re using your personal device for work, to the extent that it overlaps, your work will have a right to inspect that device,” he explains.
Bryan also provides practical advice for employees, urging them to review their company’s employee handbook and carry a separate phone for work. He underlines that these handbooks generally contain technology policies, notably whether employees have consented to the company’s right to search their work devices and/or if the company has a provision allowing employers to inspect personal devices used for work.
“Most people don’t even think about it or bat an eye,” Bryan adds. “They’ll save stuff in their own personal folder on their work computers, and use their work email for personal stuff just because it’s there and it’s easier. So, my guess is, [Fauci] probably didn’t even think about this,” he concludes.
Read the full article in Fast Company (subscription required).