[Mick]

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.

[Mick]

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.