[Mick]

As best I can tell, the case revolves around this inconsistency between the first and second ESPN articles.  In the original article, the reporter wrote:

The investigations began after multiple employees filed complaints against Taylor for what they called hostile and aggressive behavior, as well as personal attacks, the reports said.

That makes it sound like the first investigation was launched after there were multiple complaints, but then the follow-up article said:

While the investigation was initially launched in response to a single complainant who alleged gender bias and "a culture problem in football," the investigation ultimately included interviews with at least 20 Stanford athletic department staffers regarding four allegations against Taylor. Three of the allegations regarding belittling and inappropriate behavior toward multiple women were deemed to have merit. The investigator did find "insufficient evidence" regarding the original complaint.

I can’t see that as a basis for a defamation suit, because being sloppy doesn’t rise to the level of actual malice, and the first article says that “the investigations” (plural) were launched after multiple complaints, which while imprecise is not factually inaccurate. A defamation suit that depends on how you read a sentence is not going to hold water, unless there is evidence that the reporter and producer knew what they were doing and deliberately did it anyways.

BC

While I would tend to agree with your analysis, the real "fear" ESPN may have is that a jury will not be capable of making a decision based on a "point of law". There are many decisions out there that have cost companies billions that IMO didn't have merit, in some cases due to points of fact that didn't require interpretations. Juries often decide based on 1) their gut feel about who was "right" and 2) whether the defendant has deep pockets and can "easily" afford to pay. Even if the original verdict is appealed and the decision reversed (not a sure thing) it is going to cost buckets of money. ESPN may well decide it isn't worth the risk of losing big. Instead, they may settle for several million and avoid a worst case outcome without admitting misconduct. I suspect that Taylor and his lawyers are expecting this response.

Along those lines, I once read a survey of judges that stated that they would have voted the decision opposite the jury's decision in between 1/4th and 1/3rd of all cases. That doesn't seem like a very workable system. I don't think the common man has great legal sense, and I think they're easily swayed by erudite attorneys who understand how to communicate with juries.

---

1754060408[/url]']
Taylor is represented by Paul Salvaty of Cohen & Williams, former partner at Hogan Lovells. Hastings/Notre Dame. 
(1) Paul Salvaty | LinkedIn

And he liked the Sacto Bee's article outlining the case. Lawsuit alleges that Stanford leaked the confidential investigations to them:
(1) Post | Feed | LinkedIn

I didn't read the 54 page complaint, but he strikes me as the kind of attorney who doesn't take this on unless he has a strong case. 
Taylor v. ESPN Inc. et al (5:25-cv-06384), California Northern District Court

Interesting comment. Are you a litigator and do you know Salvaty directly? Do you have a gut as to whether the case is hourly or contingency? Do you have thoughts on the choice of federal court as the venue and whether that relates to the merits?  Or thoughts on what inside info Salvaty or Taylor might have about the leak or about ESPN’s vetting? Anything else strike you as being a key sign relating to the merits? I often find this sort of exercise like reading tea leaves, but I haven’t really considered the specifics of this case.

I'm not a litigator, I've worked with them for two decades.

I know Salvaty by reputation only. He defended Fox News in the Dominion Voting case. Salvaty left Winston & Strawn (excellent firm) for "rate flexibility." Let's say I wouldn't be surprised if there were contingent elements, although I don't know for certain if there is a contingent element to this case.

Reasons to try in Federal court probably has to do with the fact that Taylor is based in CA and ESPN is not, and media companies often try to remove cases from state to federal court. Amount at issue exceeds $75k. Fed courts may be viewed as more neutral or sophisticated, supposedly a better juror pool, good for national prestige for the lawyers involved. Federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so stricter pleading standards, more robust discovery rules, federal judges have reputation for being more experienced in media cases. Defamation cases often involve 1st Amendment defenses, federal courts are considered to be better equipped to handle them. Sarah Palin vs. New York Times, as an example. Case was initially dismissed at pleading, Second Circuit revived it two years later allowing discovery and ajury trial, three years later, jury found in favor of NYT. Judge announced mid-trial that he intended to dismiss the case regardless of the jury's verdict, that was interesting.

[Mick]

As best I can tell, the case revolves around this inconsistency between the first and second ESPN articles.  In the original article, the reporter wrote:

The investigations began after multiple employees filed complaints against Taylor for what they called hostile and aggressive behavior, as well as personal attacks, the reports said.

That makes it sound like the first investigation was launched after there were multiple complaints, but then the follow-up article said:

While the investigation was initially launched in response to a single complainant who alleged gender bias and "a culture problem in football," the investigation ultimately included interviews with at least 20 Stanford athletic department staffers regarding four allegations against Taylor. Three of the allegations regarding belittling and inappropriate behavior toward multiple women were deemed to have merit. The investigator did find "insufficient evidence" regarding the original complaint.

I can’t see that as a basis for a defamation suit, because being sloppy doesn’t rise to the level of actual malice, and the first article says that “the investigations” (plural) were launched after multiple complaints, which while imprecise is not factually inaccurate. A defamation suit that depends on how you read a sentence is not going to hold water, unless there is evidence that the reporter and producer knew what they were doing and deliberately did it anyways.

BC

While I would tend to agree with your analysis, the real "fear" ESPN may have is that a jury will not be capable of making a decision based on a "point of law". There are many decisions out there that have cost companies billions that IMO didn't have merit, in some cases due to points of fact that didn't require interpretations. Juries often decide based on 1) their gut feel about who was "right" and 2) whether the defendant has deep pockets and can "easily" afford to pay. Even if the original verdict is appealed and the decision reversed (not a sure thing) it is going to cost buckets of money. ESPN may well decide it isn't worth the risk of losing big. Instead, they may settle for several million and avoid a worst case outcome without admitting misconduct. I suspect that Taylor and his lawyers are expecting this response.

Along those lines, I once read a survey of judges that stated that they would have voted the decision opposite the jury's decision in between 1/4th and 1/3rd of all cases. That doesn't seem like a very workable system. I don't think the common man has great legal sense, and I think they're easily swayed by erudite attorneys who understand how to communicate with juries.

---

1754060408[/url]']
Taylor is represented by Paul Salvaty of Cohen & Williams, former partner at Hogan Lovells. Hastings/Notre Dame. 
(1) Paul Salvaty | LinkedIn

And he liked the Sacto Bee's article outlining the case. Lawsuit alleges that Stanford leaked the confidential investigations to them:
(1) Post | Feed | LinkedIn

I didn't read the 54 page complaint, but he strikes me as the kind of attorney who doesn't take this on unless he has a strong case. 
Taylor v. ESPN Inc. et al (5:25-cv-06384), California Northern District Court

Interesting comment. Are you a litigator and do you know Salvaty directly? Do you have a gut as to whether the case is hourly or contingency? Do you have thoughts on the choice of federal court as the venue and whether that relates to the merits?  Or thoughts on what inside info Salvaty or Taylor might have about the leak or about ESPN’s vetting? Anything else strike you as being a key sign relating to the merits? I often find this sort of exercise like reading tea leaves, but I haven’t really considered the specifics of this case.

I'm not a litigator, I've worked with them for two decades.

I know Salvaty by reputation only. He defended Fox News in the Dominion Voting case. Salvaty left Winston & Strawn (excellent firm) for "rate flexibility." Let's say I wouldn't be surprised if there were contingent elements, although I don't know for certain if there is a contingent element to this case.

Reasons to try in Federal court probably has to do with the fact that Taylor is based in CA and ESPN is not, and media companies often try to remove cases from state to federal court. Amount at issue exceeds $75k. Fed courts may be viewed as more neutral or sophisticated, supposedly a better juror pool, good for national prestige for the lawyers involved. Federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so stricter pleading standards, more robust discovery rules, federal judges have reputation for being more experienced in media cases. Defamation cases often involve 1st Amendment defenses, federal courts are considered to be better equipped to handle them. Sarah Palin vs. New York Times, as an example. Case was initially dismissed at pleading, Second Circuit revived it two years later allowing discovery and ajury trial, three years later, jury found in favor of NYT. Judge announced mid-trial that he intended to dismiss the case regardless of the jury's verdict, that was interesting.