[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?