Categories
News

Day 12: Judge tosses part of Eramo’s suit against Rolling Stone

The third week of former UVA dean Nicole Eramo’s $7.5 million defamation trial against Rolling Stone began October 31, and in a nod to Halloween, Eramo chose black and orange attire for her court appearance. Her attorney, Libby Locke, came in sporting crutches, but those were not a costume and came from a sprained ankle over the weekend, according to the judge.

Otherwise, it was a trial day with a hint in the air that it all might be over soon, especially after Judge Glen Conrad dismissed a portion of Eramo’s claim that the overall article, “A Rape on Campus,” defamed her by implication.

No reasonable juror would find that “the story implies that Eramo was a false friend to Jackie who pretended to be on Jackie’s side while seeking to suppress sexual assault reporting,” the judge ruled. He also found that Eramo did not establish that the defendants “designed and intended this defamatory implication.”

Rolling Stone called it “a critical element” of Eramo’s case, and said in a statement, “We are pleased that the judge recognizes the limitations of Plaintiff’s lawsuit and we trust the jury will find that her remaining claims also have no merit.”

Conrad refused to throw out other parts of the suit, and he said the jury will consider “the things Jackie said to Eramo, things that can be read that Eramo was indifferent to sexual assault victims” and whether Eramo discouraged the reporting of sexual assault.

And the magazine had less success in arguing that its republication of the story on December 5 and 6, 2014, with editor’s notes that first said the magazine’s trust in Jackie was misplaced and then that the mistakes were the magazine’s responsibility, did not constitute actual malice.

“Every time a publication enters a correction, that would constitute republication,” said Rolling Stone attorney Elizabeth McNamara.

“You and I are going to have to disagree on that,” said Conrad.

The judge cited Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner’s testimony from Friday, in which Wenner said that in order to understand what is being taken back, you have to reread the article. ”That can be deemed republication under that law,” said Conrad. “I’m going to let the jury decide.”

The magazine called to the stand Susan Davis, UVA associate vice president of student affairs, who was the point person between the university and the Office of Civil Rights when it began its investigation into UVA’s handling of sexual assaults in 2011.

Davis’ name came up in testimony last week in an e-mail, in which she said she wanted to kill a story the UVA alumni magazine was working on about sexual assault on campus unless it was substantially revised. The alumni magazine piece was in the works that same fall Erdely was reporting the Rolling Stone piece, and it never ran.

Davis testified that the OCR investigation had been dormant for 17 months until November 20, 2014, the morning after Rolling Stone published “A Rape on Campus,” the now-debunked tale of first-year Jackie’s gang rape at a fraternity.

In its September 2015 findings, the OCR determined UVA did not promptly investigate two cases of assault at fraternities, presumably Jackie and Stacy, who was also in the Rolling Stone story, although Davis said she did not know to which cases the OCR report referred.

The jury got a replay of Erdely’s recording of a September 12, 2014, dinner she had with Jackie, Alex Pinkleton and Jackie’s boyfriend, Connor, who learns that Jackie allegedly got syphilis from the alleged gang rape.

“Oh, that made my heart leap a little,” Connor said. Jackie assures him the STD is no longer a problem. When Erdely asked her for medical records, Jackie said she’ll get them from her mother, and then back tracks. “Actually she doesn’t have them,” said Jackie. “I never told her.”

On rebuttal with Erdely back on the stand, Locke pointed out the inconsistency.

“She was thinking out loud,” said Erdely. “She was flustered.”

Locke also focused on Jackie referring to Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity where she claimed the gang rape occurred, as “Pi Phi,” which is a sorority, rather than Phi Psi in an interview with Erdely.

“I knew Pi Phi is a sorority,” said Erdely, “and I didn’t think she was telling me she was raped at a sorority.”

Locke pointed to another instance in Erdely’s notes where Jackie says Pi Phi. “She doesn’t have her story straight,” said Locke.

“No, it isn’t that she doesn’t have her story straight,” said Erdely. “It’s all Greek to her.”

Shortly after 2pm, with all evidence in, the judge dismissed the jury for the day, and was greeted with an arm pump and a “yay” by one of the jurors.

The jury returns for closing arguments Tuesday morning.

Categories
News

Eramo’s status: Public figurehood will determine how lawsuit plays out

A phalanx of lawyers assembled to argue motions in former UVA associate dean Nicole Eramo’s lawsuit against Rolling Stone, along with plaintiff Eramo herself, August 12 in U.S. District Court in Charlottesville.

Eramo’s $7.85 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine, writer Sabrina Rubin Erdley and Wenner Media is scheduled for a jury trial in October, and Rolling Stone attempted to get the suit thrown out on the grounds that Eramo is a public official and must meet a higher standard and prove the November 2014 article “A Rape on Campus” was published with actual malice, which means a reckless disregard for the truth.

The now-discredited article told the story of Jackie, who claimed she had been gang raped at Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in 2012, a tale that almost immediately fell apart and that Rolling Stone retracted in April 2015. The piece also has generated lawsuits by the fraternity and three of its members, the latter of which has been thrown out.

Eramo’s team had three lawyers at the plaintiff’s table, led by Tom Clare, who is also representing ousted Penn State president Graham Spanier, who is suing the school for breach of contract for releasing a report that found he helped cover up Jerry Sandusky’s child molestations.

Rolling Stone has five attorneys listed in its court filings, and lead attorney Elizabeth McNamara is currently representing Tony Schwartz, Donald Trump’s Art of the Deal ghostwriter who has denounced the Republican presidential candidate.

Clare kicked off the proceeding by pointing out that the Rolling Stone article is “quite literally” on exhibit as a “cautionary tale” of media mistakes in the Newseum in D.C.

The article mentioned Eramo 33 times, said Clare, including in a picture that was photoshopped to show her giving a thumbs up gesture to a victim of sexual assault while “Stop victim blaming” placard-carrying protesters marched outside her window.

“Is this too mean?” Rolling Stone’s fact checker had queried in red ink. The magazine “ignored dozens of warnings and red flags” about Jackie’s credibility, said Clare, and “irreparably damaged” Eramo’s reputation by its portrayal of her as an indifferent administrator responsible for handling victims of sexual assault at the University of Virginia.

“It depends on the spin you put on this,” said Judge Glen Conrad, when Clare asserted that the article showed Eramo as unfit to perform her duties and demonstrating a “want of integrity.”

Clare’s partner, Libby Locke, argued that Eramo was a private, not a public, figure who was not responsible for setting policy at the university. As an intake official, Eramo was the one who would get the call from assault victims, and she was legally precluded from discussing those interactions. And although she was head of the Sexual Misconduct Board at UVA, Eramo hadn’t done anything in that role in a year, said Locke.

“She was interviewed 28 times by the campus newspaper and TV stations,” said Judge Conrad. “She was the face of the university on sexual assault.”

Conrad said he anticipates the case will go to trial, with Eramo as a limited purpose public figure, a designation that requires her to prove actual malice on the part of Rolling Stone.

“This may be the most clear case of actual malice the Fourth Circuit has seen,” assured Locke.

When Rolling Stone republished the article online December 5, 2014, with the editor’s note that the magazine had lost confidence in Jackie’s credibility, that constitutes actual malice, said Locke, because it stood behind the reporting regarding Eramo, including the statement Eramo denies she said about why there are no statistics on sexual assault: “Nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school.”

“Rolling Stone knows how to issue a retraction, and it did so on April 5,” said Locke.

For Rolling Stone attorney McNamara, there were multiple individual grounds to dismiss the case, most notably because Eramo is a public figure and she failed to establish actual malice.

“Rolling Stone has apologized to her,” McNamara said. “Rolling Stone took prompt action within hours when it became apparent there were questions.” Up until December 5, the defendants believed Jackie was credible, she said.

And Eramo’s claim that it was actual malice for Rolling Stone to publish an apology sends a “chill to publications that they correct errors at their peril,” said McNamara. “Publishing a retraction or apology is evidence of not actual malice.”

She asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, a request Conrad seems unlikely to agree to, but he said he will rule on whether Eramo is a public figure.

A two-week trial is scheduled to begin October 11.