For five years at Dow Jones, I was the reporter making this call. I'd already talked to the company. I had a deadline. I needed the plaintiff's lawyer to say something I could print, and I needed it in the next hour. Some lawyers were wonderful. Most never called back, and the story ran with the line that says so. Twenty-nine years later, I'm on the other side, and the call hasn't changed. Here is what I tell every lawyer I work with to do when it comes.
Not answering is an answer. The story runs either way, and "did not respond to a request for comment" tells every reader, including the judge and the other claimants, that you had nothing to say. If you truly can't talk at that moment, say when you can and keep to it. Twenty minutes is fine. Tomorrow is not.
What's the story about? When's your deadline? Who else have you talked to? What did they say? Reporters answer these as a matter of routine, and the answers tell you what kind of call this is. A routine filing story is one thing. A story the company's communications people handed to the reporter is another, and you can usually tell from the second question.
What happened, who was hurt, what the case asks for. If you've read my other posts you've seen this before, and you'll see it again, because it's the single thing that most decides whether the plaintiff's position appears in print. If the reporter asks something the sentences don't cover, answer it with a fact or say you can't and give the reason in one clause: the court's order, Rule 3.6, a client's privacy. A reason gets respected. "No comment" gets printed.
The reporter will tell you what the company said if you ask. Meet it with a fact and a document. If they say they didn't know, point to the paragraph that says when they were told and offer the exhibit. When I was a reporter, I would always rather quote a document than a lawyer's characterization of it. Reporters still would.
The complaint, the ruling, the exhibit, as PDFs, with a one-paragraph summary and your cell number in the body of the email. Confirm it arrived before you hang up. Now the plaintiff's material is on her screen while she writes. In my experience that is the single biggest factor in whether it gets used.
On the record: your name, your words. On background: she can use it but not attribute it to you by name, and you agree on the attribution first. Off the record: she can't use it at all, and it's agreed before you say it, never after. Nearly everything a plaintiff's lawyer says should be on the record. Background is for helping her understand the case. I almost never go off the record, and I'd advise you not to either. It gets misunderstood, and there's rarely a reason for it.
Read the story. If a fact is wrong, email the reporter the same day with the correction and the source. Outlets fix specific, polite requests quickly. If the story was fair, tell her in one line. She'll cover the case again, and the next call starts somewhere better. Some of the reporters I worked with in 1997 still take my calls, and that's the whole reason.