Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN (/thread-25674.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN (/thread-25674.html)
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Mick - 08-08-2025
Successful defamation lawsuits against media companies include:
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts | 388 U.S. 130 (1967) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Carol Burnett vs. National Enquirer, 1983
UVA Dean Nicole Eramo vs. Rolling Stone, 2016
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - 82lsju - 08-08-2025
(08-08-2025, 01:39 PM)Mick Wrote: Successful defamation lawsuits against media companies include:
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts | 388 U.S. 130 (1967) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Carol Burnett vs. National Enquirer, 1983
UVA Dean Nicole Eramo vs. Rolling Stone, 2016
Dominion vs Fox News 2023, and while it was a settlement I'd call a $787m judgement "successful"
https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - BostonCard - 08-08-2025
Probably would be good to see what those successful suits/settlements had in common. I think in Fox vs. Dominion discovery had showed that executives at Fox News knew that what they were saying about Dominion was not true and they didn’t believe it, and did so anyways. So, maybe there is evidence that the reporters and executives at ESPN knew that what they were saying about the investigation was untrue, or, maybe Taylor’s lawyers want to find out if that’s the case by way of depositions and discovery.
BC
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - TrumpCard - 08-09-2025
Those three cases do not relate to articles that are based on an unabridged leaked copy of a completed investigative report, including a review of multiple witness statements and at least some admissions by the plaintiff. That said, it’s always possible that the recklessness here relates to some part of the reporting that isn’t backed by the investigative report. People have found all sorts of ways to do illegal stuff in a way that’s made to look innocent.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Mick - 08-09-2025
(08-09-2025, 08:06 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Those three cases do not relate to articles that are based on an unabridged leaked copy of a completed investigative report, including a review of multiple witness statements and at least some admissions by the plaintiff. That said, it’s always possible that the recklessness here relates to some part of the reporting that isn’t backed by the investigative report. People have found all sorts of ways to do illegal stuff in a way that’s made to look innocent.
Correct, those three cases were examples of successful defamation lawsuits against media companies. They were not granularly identical, thank you for pointing that out.
I believe that in the complaint, Taylor's attorneys asserted that ESPN's reporters made statements that, not only were incorrect with respect to the first investigative report, but that they didn't retract the initial misstatement despite the requests of Taylor and his attorneys, but that they also factually misstated and misreported elements of the second case and they refused to retract or correct those statements. A jury trial will be very interesting, if it actually comes off.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - fullmetal - 08-09-2025
I guess the trick is to convince the jury that this technicality is worth all the trouble.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - CardinalSagehen - 08-09-2025
It sounds like Taylor is basing damages on the loss of future earnings due to ESPN allegedly "destroying his career". In that case, one has to ask, hadn't Taylor's own job performance already destroyed his career and the market for his services? (I guess Bernie's gift keeps on giving because the recency of that extension makes it look otherwise.)
Taylor may well have a case, but I just find it super annoying that such a terrible coach is walking away with so much money...
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - TrumpCard - 08-09-2025
Many plausible scenarios here. Taylor has it in the bag because he or his lawyer already knows what's in the reports and it's different from the summary in the ESPN articles. Taylor doesn't know what findings the report made against him and is fishing for evidence of malice in discovery (which is permitted, but of course might not pan out). Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for names of accusers in discovery with the intent to smear them. Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for the person who leaked the report to ESPN, which, if disclosed to Stanford, might result in negative consequences for that person. I'm sure other alternatives are possible also. If we knew the nature of the attorney fee arrangement, that might help us narrow down the true reason for the lawsuit.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Mick - 08-09-2025
(08-09-2025, 03:14 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Many plausible scenarios here. Taylor has it in the bag because he or his lawyer already knows what's in the reports and it's different from the summary in the ESPN articles. Taylor doesn't know what findings the report made against him and is fishing for evidence of malice in discovery (which is permitted, but of course might not pan out). Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for names of accusers in discovery with the intent to smear them. Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for the person who leaked the report to ESPN, which, if disclosed to Stanford, might result in negative consequences for that person. I'm sure other alternatives are possible also. If we knew the nature of the attorney fee arrangement, that might help us narrow down the true reason for the lawsuit.
Four interesting scenarios, and let me add two more: First, that Taylor is borderline hallucinatory and is paying for the lawsuit on a full T&E basis with no contingent or incentive payments at all. Angry, aggressive supervisors often operate under illusions as to their behavior and how it affects others. And second, that he wants a jury trial -- his attorneys have strong litigator reputations -- so either the verdict or the settlement will allow him to reclaim enough of his reputation that he can get another coaching job. Because right now, he can't.
Taylor's public comments about the articles (and in the complaint) are diametrically opposite that of the ESPN articles. This leads me to believe that he's either hallucinatory or he and his lawyers have evidence that ESPN got it wrong. They may also have evidence that the reporter had it in for Taylor and/or took creative liberties.
Your last three scenarios are interesting. Seems like a lot of money to spend for not much return. Damage has already been done, is it really necessary to identify people. It doesn't help ESPN, incidentally, that they took a victory lap celebrating Taylor's firing after their article appeared, and Luck himself indirectly credited that exterior attention in causing Taylor's firing, perhaps responding to this section from an ESPN article:
"It's somewhat of a mystery exactly why he remained on the job -- this is Stanford,
after all, or at least is supposed to be. The NCAA violations were fairly minor, but
that's all the more reason not to fight them. The attitude displayed to compliance is a
red flag of its ovm. Again, Stanford. "
One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.
The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - BostonCard - 08-09-2025
(08-09-2025, 03:47 PM)Mick Wrote: One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.
The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint
Right, but generally, that's where the "actual malice" comes in. Mere misrepresentation of the facts is not enough of a basis for defamation suit, and selective presentation of the evidence certainly isn't. Taylor's attorneys are going to have to show that ESPN and the reporter at the very least acted with reckless disregard for the truth or that they knew that what they were publishing was false. Because it is based on the reporter(s) state of mind, in order to Taylor to win, his lawyers are going to have to show that the reporter and editors at ESPN knew what they were writing was untrue and either didn't care or deliberately published the fake narrative. I'm sure they will say that they tried to alert ESPN of the falsity, but unless there is evidence that someone at ESPN was like "oh crap, he's right" ESPN will simply say that every time they publish something that is critical of someone the subject will ask for a retraction and that they believe their interpretation of the report, as published is correct.
The other thing is thrust of the original article is not really in dispute. Unless the two investigations were made up whole cloth, the main issue is how they were interpreted, but again, differences in interpretation or how they are portrayed is not enough for defamation. The worst you can say is that the story makes it sound like the reports found against Taylor when at least some of the accusations were found to lack sufficient evidence. But subsequent reporting found at least some of the allegations were sustained (unless that was made up), and even Taylor released a statement through Stanford saying he was using the investigations to improve "how I interact with others." Like, substantively the investigations happened, if your allegation of defamation is that the report found Taylor was an equal opportunity a-hole rather than a sexist a-hole, you've lost the plot.
BC
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - cardcrimson - 08-10-2025
(08-09-2025, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: . . . . or that they knew that what they were publishing was false.
Since when has that become criteria for a defamation case?
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - dabigv13 - 08-10-2025
Since 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Mick - 08-10-2025
(08-09-2025, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-09-2025, 03:47 PM)Mick Wrote: One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.
The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint
Right, but generally, that's where the "actual malice" comes in. Mere misrepresentation of the facts is not enough of a basis for defamation suit, and selective presentation of the evidence certainly isn't. Taylor's attorneys are going to have to show that ESPN and the reporter at the very least acted with reckless disregard for the truth or that they knew that what they were publishing was false. Because it is based on the reporter(s) state of mind, in order to Taylor to win, his lawyers are going to have to show that the reporter and editors at ESPN knew what they were writing was untrue and either didn't care or deliberately published the fake narrative. I'm sure they will say that they tried to alert ESPN of the falsity, but unless there is evidence that someone at ESPN was like "oh crap, he's right" ESPN will simply say that every time they publish something that is critical of someone the subject will ask for a retraction and that they believe their interpretation of the report, as published is correct.
The other thing is thrust of the original article is not really in dispute. Unless the two investigations were made up whole cloth, the main issue is how they were interpreted, but again, differences in interpretation or how they are portrayed is not enough for defamation. The worst you can say is that the story makes it sound like the reports found against Taylor when at least some of the accusations were found to lack sufficient evidence. But subsequent reporting found at least some of the allegations were sustained (unless that was made up), and even Taylor released a statement through Stanford saying he was using the investigations to improve "how I interact with others." Like, substantively the investigations happened, if your allegation of defamation is that the report found Taylor was an equal opportunity a-hole rather than a sexist a-hole, you've lost the plot.
BC
Taylor and attorneys ("TT") are claiming that ESPN and Thai (ET) knew full well that they made, published and repeated defamatory statements that were actually false, not matters of interpretation. The crux is that ESPN and Thai had copies of both of the confidential reports, and that TT are claiming that because they had the documents, ET willfully and purposefully made false statements not found in those documents, including the following factually incorrect statements:
1) ET claims TT "bullied" and "belittled" female athletic staffers and engaged in "hostile and aggressive behavior and personal attacks" and "both investigations determined Taylor's treatment of employees, particularly of women, was inconsistent with Stanford's standards." TT claims these were false statements and ET knoew them to be false.
2) Separately, another ET reporter sought to pressure Luck to terminate Taylor from his position and noted with satisfaction that the goal was accomplished. At the same time, Luck acknowledged succumbing to the public pressure and attributed the decision to ET.
3) ET didn't give TT time to respond.
4) ET failed to retract or correct after notification and in fact doubled down repeating knowingly false claims that "two outside firms found Taylor bullied and belittled female athletic staffers"
5) ET twice falsely claimed that "investigations began after multiple employees filed complaints against Taylor for hostile & aggressive behavior and personal attacks." It took three weeks before ET acknowledged the investigation was launched not in response to "multiple employees" but a single complainant.
6) Three weeks later, ET also noted that the investigator found no gender-based bullying, belittling or unlawful discrimination, but in that same article stated "allegations regarding belittling behavior toward women were deemed to have merit" by the first investigator, which wasn't true.
7) TT claims ET intentionally twisted facts to advance a narrative and made and repeated false statements.
8) The reporter posted the article's false/defamatory headline and opening paragraph including a photo of Taylor with the false statement (per TT) "Stanford head coach Troy Taylor remains on the job after two investigations found he had bullied and belittled athletics staff, especially women, and made inappropriate comments about one woman's appearance." It's still on her Instagram account, even today.
9) TT, a month after he was canned, issued a public statement to rebut ET's falsehoods, to which ET published a fourth defamatory article in which they claimed three allegations were made in the first investigation regarding belittling and inappropriate behavior toward multiple women were deemed to have merit." TT claims that is a false statement.
10) TT notified ET about their numerous false and defamatory statements and the harm they caused to TT, requested that they retract their false reporting and allow TT to address prior harm, and ET declined to retract anything stating that they fully stand by both the accuracy and propriety of their reporting.
The article was republished by the NYT, CBS, AP and many others.
As far as I'm concerned, Taylor is a terrible coach, and seems like a jerk (although Walt Harris was a bigger jerk, IMHO). He should have been fired for incompetence a year earlier. But if his team's complaint is correct, it sounds like it could be a problem for ESPN.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - cardcrimson - 08-10-2025
(08-10-2025, 08:36 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Since 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
smh
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Mick - 11-11-2025
Article written by former lawyer turned author.
Ex-Stanford Football Coach and ESPN Battle Over ‘the Truth'
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Bruce Wang - 11-11-2025
This episode has got circular firing squad written all over it. ESPN better hope there are no sports fans frustrated with numerous and confusing streaming logins or YouTube TV subscribers on that jury.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - fullmetal - 11-11-2025
(11-11-2025, 07:18 AM)Mick Wrote: Article written by former lawyer turned author.
Ex-Stanford Football Coach and ESPN Battle Over ‘the Truth'
IANAL, but my gut feeling is that ESPN has a better case. TT was a public figure at the time, and his win-loss record already made him controversial (as was his coaching staff hiring). I think we knew about those investigations at the time of reporting, did we not? Timeline is murky in my head.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - Jamesy - 11-11-2025
(11-11-2025, 07:18 AM)Mick Wrote: Article written by former lawyer turned author.
Ex-Stanford Football Coach and ESPN Battle Over ‘the Truth'
Here's the link to the original article, rather than an aggregator. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2025/troy-taylor-espn-lawsuit-legal-analysis-stanford-1234876196/
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - 2006alum - 11-11-2025
The part I'm having the hardest time buying is Taylor's contention that he's not a public figure. Pretty sure when you're a coach of a major D1 football program, provide literally weekly interviews with the national media, and are one of the university's highest paid employees, you're a public figure.
And yeah, the ticky tacky disputes about whether ESPN presented every detail correctly feels a little missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, he doesn't, and he can't, dispute the overall thrust of their reporting. And the party that should be most embarrassed here is not ESPN, but Stanford, for knowing about all of this and not taking any action until it became public and they could avoid it no longer.
RE: Troy Taylor Sues ESPN - jacket3ree - 11-11-2025
He won't win the not a public figure argument.
I think his reputation is genuinely diminished and since he doesn't have the P4 track record that some other reputationally damaged but retread able coaches have, he is worried about his livelihood and needs to win or at least arrive at a satisfactory settlement.
Are cases like this usually done on retainer/T&M or on commission? This might take years to work its way through the court system and I assume ESPN can afford to be cautious on settlement.