[Mick]

Not understanding this at all.  As best I can tell, the story that ESPN ran was substantively true; nobody is alleging that the reports ESPN cited didn’t exist. So, under the “actual malice” standard, I’m struggling to see how Taylor would prove that ESPN knowing reported untrue information, when it doesn’t seem like the information was untrue.

I think as a matter of journalistic standards, reporters ought to give the subjects of their stories a legitimate opportunity to respond, but as a legal matter, I don’t think they are required to reach out at all.

So, I honestly don’t know what Taylor is getting at.  I suppose the best case scenario is that the evidence shows that ESPN made the report sound worse than it actually was and he uses that to rehabilitate his image?

BC

ESPN’s headline was “Reports find Stanford’s Taylor bullied, belittled female staffers.” Taylor’s thesis for his Master’s teaching credential focused on anti-bullying, and he has repeated that in multiple public conversations over the years. Sac State’s AD said there was never any complaints by female staffers during his tenure there. Two female Stanford staffers in the football department stated that they never witnessed Taylor treat anyone inappropriately. One said he was great to work with, the other said Taylor was always kind to her. Both admired his work ethic, one said they only had positive experiences with him.

The complaint states that ESPN and reporter Thai “made, published and repeated defamatory statements about Taylor, knowing full well that the statements were false, for the purpose of smearing Taylor’s reputation and injuring him in his profession.”

Taylor’s attorneys allege that ESPN used out-of-context snippets from both reports without providing context. Also looks like his attorneys are parsing the semantics of Thai’s statements to indicate ESPN knew they were making false statements. Part of the challenge that ESPN faces is that they made statements in their last report on Taylor that directly contradicted statements they made earlier…but they never retracted the earlier prior statements, nor did they append, correct or clarify the text versions.

They also allege that the reporter didn’t reach out to Taylor until the same day as the article was published and only by voicemail. The news wasn’t breaking, and (not surprisingly) ESPN didn’t want to dilute their great story with the departing coach’s meaningless, trivial response.

Taylor’s attorneys have requested that ESPN produce the two investigatory reports, and ESPN declined stating that they do not share unpublished information – though ironically, they benefit from unpublished information.

The complaint asserts that the first investigation did not find or conclude that Taylor bullied or belittled female staffers based on their gender, contrary to what ESPN claimed. They also asserted that Taylor requested that the AD replace the female football administrator because of an anti-female bias, not because Taylor (as he has claimed) wanted to handpick his right-hand, go-to football ops person, which is common in college football.

Taylor stresses that his complaint isn’t with Stanford, it is how the media misreports confidential data. He also notes that Stanford terminated him without cause and is honoring the original payment terms of the contract. I imagine that Taylor wasn’t too happy when he was told he wasn’t allowed to meet with his players on campus, or return to his office to pick up his things. His wife was allowed to drive to Stanford’s football coaching parking lot to load up Taylor’s items.

Taylor wrote to ESPN to inform them that their reporting was inaccurate and unfair. No response from ESPN.

Taylor’s attorneys are well-known, Paul Salvaty of Cohen & Williams and name partner Marc S. Williams. They represented very high profile people in the past for defamation lawsuits. 

Here's the complaint in its entirety: Taylor v ESPN | DocumentCloud

[Mick]

Not understanding this at all.  As best I can tell, the story that ESPN ran was substantively true; nobody is alleging that the reports ESPN cited didn’t exist. So, under the “actual malice” standard, I’m struggling to see how Taylor would prove that ESPN knowing reported untrue information, when it doesn’t seem like the information was untrue.

I think as a matter of journalistic standards, reporters ought to give the subjects of their stories a legitimate opportunity to respond, but as a legal matter, I don’t think they are required to reach out at all.

So, I honestly don’t know what Taylor is getting at.  I suppose the best case scenario is that the evidence shows that ESPN made the report sound worse than it actually was and he uses that to rehabilitate his image?

BC

ESPN’s headline was “Reports find Stanford’s Taylor bullied, belittled female staffers.” Taylor’s thesis for his Master’s teaching credential focused on anti-bullying, and he has repeated that in multiple public conversations over the years. Sac State’s AD said there was never any complaints by female staffers during his tenure there. Two female Stanford staffers in the football department stated that they never witnessed Taylor treat anyone inappropriately. One said he was great to work with, the other said Taylor was always kind to her. Both admired his work ethic, one said they only had positive experiences with him.

The complaint states that ESPN and reporter Thai “made, published and repeated defamatory statements about Taylor, knowing full well that the statements were false, for the purpose of smearing Taylor’s reputation and injuring him in his profession.”

Taylor’s attorneys allege that ESPN used out-of-context snippets from both reports without providing context. Also looks like his attorneys are parsing the semantics of Thai’s statements to indicate ESPN knew they were making false statements. Part of the challenge that ESPN faces is that they made statements in their last report on Taylor that directly contradicted statements they made earlier…but they never retracted the earlier prior statements, nor did they append, correct or clarify the text versions.

They also allege that the reporter didn’t reach out to Taylor until the same day as the article was published and only by voicemail. The news wasn’t breaking, and (not surprisingly) ESPN didn’t want to dilute their great story with the departing coach’s meaningless, trivial response.

Taylor’s attorneys have requested that ESPN produce the two investigatory reports, and ESPN declined stating that they do not share unpublished information – though ironically, they benefit from unpublished information.

The complaint asserts that the first investigation did not find or conclude that Taylor bullied or belittled female staffers based on their gender, contrary to what ESPN claimed. They also asserted that Taylor requested that the AD replace the female football administrator because of an anti-female bias, not because Taylor (as he has claimed) wanted to handpick his right-hand, go-to football ops person, which is common in college football.

Taylor stresses that his complaint isn’t with Stanford, it is how the media misreports confidential data. He also notes that Stanford terminated him without cause and is honoring the original payment terms of the contract. I imagine that Taylor wasn’t too happy when he was told he wasn’t allowed to meet with his players on campus, or return to his office to pick up his things. His wife was allowed to drive to Stanford’s football coaching parking lot to load up Taylor’s items.

Taylor wrote to ESPN to inform them that their reporting was inaccurate and unfair. No response from ESPN.

Taylor’s attorneys are well-known, Paul Salvaty of Cohen & Williams and name partner Marc S. Williams. They represented very high profile people in the past for defamation lawsuits. 

Here's the complaint in its entirety: Taylor v ESPN | DocumentCloud