[newguy]

our former coach has just sued ESPN.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...defamation

[newguy]

our former coach has just sued ESPN.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...defamation

[Mick]

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

And there's a lot of minutiae in the Sacto Bee article:
Ex-Stanford, Sac State coach Taylor sues ESPN for defamation | Sacramento Bee

The judge, Virginia DeMarchi, is Stanford ('90) and Harvard Law ('93, cum laude). She's an excellent attorney, former IP litigation partner at Fenwick.
Fenwick’s Virginia DeMarchi to Join U.S. District Court,… | Fenwick

[Mick]

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

And there's a lot of minutiae in the Sacto Bee article:
Ex-Stanford, Sac State coach Taylor sues ESPN for defamation | Sacramento Bee

The judge, Virginia DeMarchi, is Stanford ('90) and Harvard Law ('93, cum laude). She's an excellent attorney, former IP litigation partner at Fenwick.
Fenwick’s Virginia DeMarchi to Join U.S. District Court,… | Fenwick

[jacket3ree]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

[jacket3ree]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

[Mick]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

Interesting that the reporter was leaked the full, final report and Taylor himself never saw it.

[Mick]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

Interesting that the reporter was leaked the full, final report and Taylor himself never saw it.

[fullmetal]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.
2. I feel like ESPN's lawyers had to have gone over this story carefully before publication, no?  If only to head off lawsuits like this?


3. Re: malicious intent--

Because Taylor is a public figure, his defamation lawsuit must meet the so-called “actual malice” standard in order to succeed in court. This means proving that ESPN not only reported untrue information but did so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Taylor’s lawsuit alleges this standard is met because, his attorneys wrote, Thai, the reporter, did not reach out to Taylor for comment until the same day the initial article was published.

It does seem problematic that a reporter wouldn't make a good faith effort to get both sides of a story.  But maybe Thai did reach out much earlier and TT ignored it.

4. Of course, I'm sure the goal here is for a juicy out-of-court settlement, but if that happens, will the court of public opinion decide that TT will have had performed righteous indignation sufficiently to seem innocent?

[fullmetal]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.
2. I feel like ESPN's lawyers had to have gone over this story carefully before publication, no?  If only to head off lawsuits like this?


3. Re: malicious intent--

Because Taylor is a public figure, his defamation lawsuit must meet the so-called “actual malice” standard in order to succeed in court. This means proving that ESPN not only reported untrue information but did so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Taylor’s lawsuit alleges this standard is met because, his attorneys wrote, Thai, the reporter, did not reach out to Taylor for comment until the same day the initial article was published.

It does seem problematic that a reporter wouldn't make a good faith effort to get both sides of a story.  But maybe Thai did reach out much earlier and TT ignored it.

4. Of course, I'm sure the goal here is for a juicy out-of-court settlement, but if that happens, will the court of public opinion decide that TT will have had performed righteous indignation sufficiently to seem innocent?

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[Mick]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.

Taylor wants another coaching job. He's only 57. He's not going to sue an employer, particulary one who is complying with the terms of the contract. ESPN's reporter did the alleged smearing, not Stanford.

[Mick]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.

Taylor wants another coaching job. He's only 57. He's not going to sue an employer, particulary one who is complying with the terms of the contract. ESPN's reporter did the alleged smearing, not Stanford.

[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

[BostonCard]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

[BostonCard]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

[Mick]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, "actual malice" doesn't refer to ill will, but whether the defendant knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false, hence the "reckless disregard." I believe that's what the complaint is trying to get across, that since the reporter had the actual copies of the investigation and knowingly made false statements regarding the investigations and refused to retract them, that should satisfy the legal standard.

[Mick]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, "actual malice" doesn't refer to ill will, but whether the defendant knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false, hence the "reckless disregard." I believe that's what the complaint is trying to get across, that since the reporter had the actual copies of the investigation and knowingly made false statements regarding the investigations and refused to retract them, that should satisfy the legal standard.

[82lsju]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, "actual malice" doesn't refer to ill will, but whether the defendant knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false, hence the "reckless disregard." I believe that's what the complaint is trying to get across, that since the reporter had the actual copies of the investigation and knowingly made false statements regarding the investigations and refused to retract them, that should satisfy the legal standard.

but if Taylor and his lawyers have not seen the reports how do they know what the reports said which I would think they would need to know to tell either if the reporter knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false?

[82lsju]

All of which may be true, but based on my limited understanding of defamation law, doesn’t rise to the standard of “actual malice”.  

BC

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, "actual malice" doesn't refer to ill will, but whether the defendant knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false, hence the "reckless disregard." I believe that's what the complaint is trying to get across, that since the reporter had the actual copies of the investigation and knowingly made false statements regarding the investigations and refused to retract them, that should satisfy the legal standard.

but if Taylor and his lawyers have not seen the reports how do they know what the reports said which I would think they would need to know to tell either if the reporter knew a statement was false or consciously ignored a strong likelihood that it was false?

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[Goose]

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.

[Goose]

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.

[qwerty49]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

My gut instinct echoes your first sentiment. His sideline demeanor just looked out-to-lunch to me. As if stuff was going on and he was trying to process it. Sorry for the pile-on but just my 2 cents.

[qwerty49]

Easily my least favorite Stanford coach of all time and that's a high (or low?) bar.

Why would ESPN give a rat's ass about Troy Taylor's career? They are out to destroy him? They received an anonymous tip and ran with the story. My understanding is that Taylor acknowledged the problems with his behavior and management style. I thought his acknowledgement was a little more than he could 'improve his tone.'  Will the two investigations be discoverable? Can't ESPN subpoena Stanford witnesses?

It seems Stanford was careful to honor his contract and not fire for cause or he'd have a stronger case to go after Stanford. I suppose whoever leaked the report is still unknown?

My gut instinct echoes your first sentiment. His sideline demeanor just looked out-to-lunch to me. As if stuff was going on and he was trying to process it. Sorry for the pile-on but just my 2 cents.

[BostonCard]

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.

California has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP statute, so I would expect ESPN to try to get the suit thrown out first; failing that, you are right that they may not want to take their chances with a jury trial.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

California has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP statute, so I would expect ESPN to try to get the suit thrown out first; failing that, you are right that they may not want to take their chances with a jury trial.

BC

[fullmetal]

That's the one thing I learned from Suits: always get a settlement.

[fullmetal]

That's the one thing I learned from Suits: always get a settlement.

[TrumpCard]

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.

[TrumpCard]

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.

[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.

[TrumpCard]

All interesting info, but I didn’t see anything there that made me think the case has merit. Defamation against a media company for an article about a public figure on an issue of public concern that’s based on a leaked investigative report sounds rough to me, absent evidence that’s not obvious on the surface.

[TrumpCard]

All interesting info, but I didn’t see anything there that made me think the case has merit. Defamation against a media company for an article about a public figure on an issue of public concern that’s based on a leaked investigative report sounds rough to me, absent evidence that’s not obvious on the surface.

[cardcrimson]

Absence of Malice. Pretty good movie with Paul Newman, Sally Field, and Wilford Brimley. Saw it at the Sunday Flicks. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Absence of Malice. Pretty good movie with Paul Newman, Sally Field, and Wilford Brimley. Saw it at the Sunday Flicks. . . .