NEW YORK (Reuters)—The New York Post is seeking to keep its top editor from having to answer questions in a bias lawsuit about his discussions with media mogul Rupert Murdoch over a published cartoon that appeared to liken U.S. President Barack Obama to a chimpanzee.

Calling the February 2009 cartoon "quintessential political speech entitled to the strongest protections of the First Amendment," the newspaper in a court filing late Friday night also said the discussions were irrelevant to the lawsuit brought by Sandra Guzman, a former associate editor.

In November 2009, Ms. Guzman, who is black and Puerto Rican, sued the Post, its editor Col Allan and its parent News Corp. for alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, gender and national origin, saying she had been fired in retaliation for complaints over inappropriate conduct.

She also claimed to have objected to the cartoon, which referred to the $787 billion federal economic stimulus and depicted a policeman shooting a crazed chimpanzee, a reference to an actual incident in Connecticut.

Many people thought the animal was meant to depict President Obama, and Mr. Murdoch later apologized to readers.

In a June 29 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis in Manhattan had ordered Mr. Allan, in a two-hour deposition, to answer questions, including over whether he told Mr. Murdoch he disagreed with publishing an apology, and whether he thought Mr. Murdoch believed it was a mistake to do so.

%%BREAK%%

But in Friday's filing, the defendants argued that the order would let Ms. Guzman breach "the heart of the editorial process" and asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones to reverse it.

The defendants said the cartoon was intended to mock Congress' drafting of stimulus legislation and made no reference to race. They also called Ms. Guzman's request "nothing more than a fishing expedition that would invade and chill the editor's and newspaper's First Amendment rights to political expression."

"We have maintained from the very beginning that the New York Post assertion of an editorial privilege was baseless," Ms. Guzman's lawyer Kenneth Thompson said in a phone interview on Sunday. "We now look forward to bringing Col Allan back to answer our questions."

The case is Guzman vs. News Corp. et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-09323.