| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,397 Views) | |
| abb | Jan 31 2017, 05:18 AM Post #1591 |
|
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/jackie-ordered-to-comply-with-subpoena-in-fraternity-s-suit/article_ed60fc0c-e751-11e6-84c4-57f8ee89a297.html ‘Jackie’ ordered to comply with subpoena in fraternity’s suit BY DEAN SEAL 9 hrs ago (0) The former University of Virginia student at the heart of an infamous Rolling Stone article is again being ordered to comply with a court order related to a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the magazine. Attorneys for the UVa chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity were in Charlottesville Circuit Court on Monday for a hearing in their defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, its publishers and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Erdely penned the now-retracted November 2014 article “A Rape on Campus.” Intended as an expose on the culture of sexual assault at elite universities, the widely read article came under intense scrutiny in the weeks after its release. The centerpiece narrative of the 9,000-word piece was the story of “Jackie,” a student who claimed that while attending a party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house during her freshman year, she was taken to a dark room and brutally gang-raped by seven men, seemingly as part of a fraternity initiation. The article incited outrage in the UVa community and beyond, prompting student rallies and spurring UVa’s administration to suspend Greek life for the remainder of the fall semester. Unidentified protesters vandalized the Phi Kappa Psi house and threatened the house’s inhabitants to the extent that they vacated the building. However, scrutiny of the article soon led to the magazine casting its own doubts about Jackie and her story. The article was retracted in April 2015 after an investigation from Charlottesville police turned up no evidence to support Jackie’s claims and a review of Erdely’s article from the Columbia Journalism School discredited the story. Three lawsuits were filed against Erdely and the magazine following the retraction. In May 2015, UVa administrator Nicole Eramo filed a defamation suit, claiming she was characterized as the “chief villain” of the article, which mentioned her by name and position dozens of times. Last November, a jury found in favor of Eramo, awarding her $3 million in damages. The magazine still contests that verdict, and will argue against it during a hearing set for next week. In July 2015, three alumni of the fraternity and university filed a defamation suit, claiming the debunked article left clues that could lead readers to believe the alumni had taken part in the alleged gang-rape. About a year after that filing, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, writing that the article’s details were “too vague and remote” to support the alumni’s claims. The final suit came in November 2015, with the UVa chapter of Phi Kappa Psi claiming that it became “the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide” as a result of the “entirely false” article. They’re seeking $26.4 million in damages from Erdely, the magazine and publishers Wenner Media LLC and Straight Arrow Publishers LLC. While the fraternity’s suit remained somewhat dormant while Eramo’s suit made its way through federal court, a motion in the case was taken up Monday morning. Just as Eramo’s attorneys did in her case, the fraternity has asked the court to compel Jackie to comply with a subpoena seeking documents related to her relationship with Erdely, the article and her alleged assault. Since the article’s release, Jackie has remained an anonymous figure within the public record of the court, and has resisted cooperation with any of the legal proceedings that have emerged from the article’s retraction. That said, a federal judge did rule last year that Jackie would have to produce documents germane to Eramo’s case, and was further ordered to sit for a video deposition prior to the trial. In response to this latest subpoena, Jackie again filed a slew of objections, arguing that she should not have to provide the requested materials. At Monday’s hearing, a judge again disagreed with Jackie’s attorneys, ruling that she would have to “substantially comply” with the subpoena. While the amount of information and documents that Jackie had to turn over in Eramo’s case was never publicly disclosed, an attorney for Phi Kappa Psi said Monday that the latest subpoena represents a “broader area of inquiry” than the scope of the discovery authorized in Eramo’s case. A 10-day trial for the lawsuit is scheduled to begin Oct. 23. Dean Seal is a reporter for The Daily Progress. Contact him at (434) 978-7268, dseal@dailyprogress.com or @JDeanSeal on Twitter. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 31 2017, 12:12 PM Post #1592 |
|
http://watchdog.org/287156/rolling-stone-rape-hoaxer-ordered-comply-second-lawsuit/ Rolling Stone rape hoaxer ordered to comply with second lawsuit By Ashe Schow / January 31, 2017 “Jackie,” the woman at the center of a debunked gang-rape claim sensationally published by Rolling Stone magazine, will have to “substantially comply” with a subpoena from attorneys representing the fraternity named in the article. Jackie, whose last name is not included in court documents, told Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely she was gang raped by seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity when she was a freshman at the University of Virginia. She claimed she had gone on a date with a member, who took her to a party at the fraternity house and lured her into an upstairs bedroom where he directed other fraternity members to rape her. The original story was published in November 2014, but within a month doubts began to emerge, leading to a retraction from Rolling Stone, an investigation of what went wrong from by Columbia Journalism Review, and three lawsuits. The most well-known of those lawsuits was filed by University of Virginia dean Nicole Eramo, who was the only named villain in the article. Eramo’s attorneys successfully argued that Jackie needed to turn over documents relating to her interviews with Erdely, and last November, a jury ordered Rolling Stone, its publisher and the author to pay the former dean $3 million in damages. Documents released during the trial revealed Erdely’s bias against fraternity members and belief that campus sexual assault is prevalent, which led to her lack of investigation into whether Jackie’s claims were true. Erdely never confirmed that the man who allegedly orchestrated the gang rape actually existed, and didn’t seek out Jackie’s friends who were there for her the night of the alleged rape. Instead, she relied solely on Jackie’s word of what those friends said, and claimed she had spoken to one of them about Erdely’s article. The friends disputed Jackie’s claims of what happened, and said they hadn’t spoken to her in years. A second lawsuit against Rolling Stone was brought in July 2015 by three members of Phi Psi, who alleged there was enough information in the article to identify them. A judge disagreed, writing: “Their defamation claims are directed toward a report about events that simply did not happen.” The third lawsuit was filed in November 2015 by the UVA chapter of Phi Psi, and has been in limbo while Eramo’s lawsuit moved forward. Now the case is working its way through the system, and a judge has again ruled that Jackie must comply with a subpoena to turn over documents relating to the case. An attorney for Phi Psi said Monday they’re seeking a “broader area of inquiry” than what was requested by Eramo. Jackie’s claims about a gang rape fell apart once it was discovered that the man she allegedly had a date with on that night didn’t exist. She had made him up using a photo of a high school classmate and a fake text message service. There was also no party at the fraternity house the night in question. And Jackie’s story changed in material ways over the years, leading to doubts from her own friends. The original article sparked outrage across the country and led to protests at UVA, including the vandalization of the Phi Psi house. The fraternity will have its day in court starting Oct. 23, likely bolstered by Eramo’s win. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 10 2017, 05:14 AM Post #1593 |
|
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/eramo-rolling-stone-lawyers-square-off-again-in-roanoke/article_d3823b83-a09a-5725-b92f-155b9d9c8be5.html Eramo, Rolling Stone lawyers square off again in Roanoke BY DEAN SEAL 2/9/17 ROANOKE — The case of the University of Virginia administrator awarded $3 million in a high-profile lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine is once again in front of a federal judge, who has been asked to overturn the trial jury’s verdict. Counsel for Nicole Eramo faced off with attorneys for the magazine, its publisher and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely at Roanoke’s federal courthouse on Thursday, marking the first public hearing in the case since the 17-day trial concluded last November. The jury’s verdict came down just days shy of the two-year anniversary of “A Rape on Campus,” Erdely’s 9,000-word expose on the culture of sexual assault at elite universities. For her backdrop, Erdely chose UVa and wrote her story around the tale of a former student named “Jackie,” who claimed to have been gang-raped during her freshman year at a fraternity party. While the article quickly spread, launching protests and calls for action, details of Jackie’s story were soon debunked, and in April 2015, the article was officially retracted. Eramo, an associate dean who counseled student survivors of sexual assault prior to the article, filed a defamation lawsuit one month later. The jury found in Eramo’s favor, but in December, the magazine formally asked Judge Glen Conrad to vacate the jury’s verdict and make a new judgment as a matter of law, citing a rule that suggests the jury did not have a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for finding in Eramo’s favor. Specifically, the magazine has asked Conrad to overturn the jury’s finding that the magazine was liable for “republishing” three defamatory statements about Eramo on Dec. 5, 2014, when the magazine appended an editor’s note to the top of the article stating that it no longer found Jackie credible. The magazine alleges that the trial’s evidentiary record “does not support” the jury’s finding that the article had been “republished,” a position that nine news agencies also have taken in their own motion to the court. It further disputes the finding that Erdely acted with “actual malice” in publishing some of the statements, a standard set by Conrad ahead of the trial. They claim Eramo failed to produce “clear and convincing evidence” that Erdely had acted with reckless disregard for the truth in publishing the statement, nor did Eramo produce sufficient evidence of special damages awarded for statements Erdely had made to media outlets after the article’s publication. The question of whether or not the magazine “republished” the article by appending an editor’s note to the story was a central topic on Thursday — aptly so, considering that $1 million of Eramo’s damages were gleaned from the jury’s determination that it did constitute a “republishing.” Just as they did at trial, attorneys for the magazine argued that the note clearly indicates that the editors no longer believed in Jackie’s account and that they were repudiating any statements or information that was attributed to her — including, they say, the defamatory statements made about Eramo. Conrad acknowledged the interpretation but pointed to publisher Jann Wenner’s taped deposition videos shown at trial, during which he stated that he did not consider the editor’s note to be a complete retraction of the article’s central narrative. Conrad further noted that the editor’s note does not specifically say anything about Eramo or her portrayal in the article, and that a “reasonable juror” could conclude that the note doesn’t retract the statements made about her. “This is where they made an error, and I think a grave error,” attorney Liz McNamara responded, before acknowledging that the legal interpretation may have to be taken up in the federal appeals court. The magazine’s attorneys also asked the judge to make a new ruling on the special damages awarded to Eramo due to six statements made by Erdely, both in the article and after its publication. Rolling Stone contends that, regardless of whether Erdely acted with actual malice in publishing two defamatory statements, Eramo did not present sufficient evidence that she was due any special damages for the other four, each made after the article’s publication. Eramo’s attorneys countered that their client was blocked from testifying about the damages she was due because of the post-publication statements, but the magazine proffered that the damages coming from those statements should either be nullified or decided with a new trial, a suggestion met with derision by all parties in the courtroom. Were the damages for the post-publication statements forfeited, McNamara said, then Eramo would only be due damages coming from the two remaining statements. Because the jury ordered $2 million in damages from Erdely’s six statements, eliminating four of those statements would reduce the damages to a total of $666,666.67. Two other motions were taken up on Thursday. The first pertained to a disagreement over the bill of costs accrued by Eramo’s counsel through the litigation. While Eramo’s attorneys claim roughly $144,000 in costs, the magazine estimate the costs to be closer to $65,000, alleging the opposing counsel was overzealous in their calculations of printing costs, fees for attaining video testimony and fees associated with using a private processing server. The final motion came from Eramo’s attorneys, asking Conrad to lift a sanction imposed on them during trial regarding the violation of a protective order. Eramo’s counsel provided deposition video of Erdely to the ABC program “20/20” for a Friday night episode that aired just ahead of the trial, a move that Conrad dubbed a violation of a protective order over video deposition transcripts. He then barred Eramo’s counsel from using any of the videos that were leaked to ABC during the trial, although McNamara acknowledged that the prohibition had little “substantive effect” on the case. Nonetheless, Eramo’s attorneys asked that the order be lifted on the grounds that, per its technical language, the protective order was never actually violated. The judge admitted that the attorneys were correct, but he added that there was no real relief he could grant, given that the trial had concluded. Attorney Libby Locke responded that lifting the sanction was more a matter of principle, calling the accusation that her firm intentionally violated a court order “unfair.” Conrad responded that, had he known their intentions, he would have forbidden Eramo’s counsel from releasing the video prior to trial, calling it “wrong” and warning that it could have had an adverse effect on the proceedings. At the hearing’s conclusion, Conrad said that he would take some time to review the arguments and issue a written opinion on the motions in the coming weeks. Following the hearing, Locke sent the following comment to The Daily Progress in an email: “It’s unfortunate that Rolling Stone is challenging the jury’s well-reasoned verdict, especially after telling the jury that Rolling Stone respected and heard their verdict. It’s clear that Rolling Stone lied to the jury in an attempt to avoid a significant damages award. But Rolling Stone’s arguments today have just as little merit as they did during the trial, and they should be ashamed that they are continuing to drag Ms. Eramo through this unnecessary litigation.” Soon after, Rolling Stone issued its own statement to The Daily Progress: “A publisher should not be penalized for issuing an editor’s note to alert readers to errors in an article — it is the right thing to do. This is a dangerous precedent that publishers should be aware of, as it will have the perverse effect of preventing corrections in pieces for fear of incurring new liability.” Dean Seal is a reporter for The Daily Progress. Contact him at (434) 978-7268, dseal@dailyprogress.com or @JDeanSeal on Twitter. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 6 2017, 03:45 AM Post #1594 |
|
http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/rolling-stone-returns-to-court-in-charlottesville/article_fed514c2-cf64-5564-a4d8-3141d24f0490.html Rolling Stone returns to court in Charlottesville BY DEAN SEAL The (Charlottesville) Daily Progress 7 hrs ago (0) CHARLOTTESVILLE — Attorneys for Rolling Stone magazine were back in a Charlottesville court on Wednesday afternoon to take up matters in the third lawsuit filed against them for a now-retracted article that generated national controversy. Months after losing in a defamation lawsuit filed by University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo, the magazine’s counsel came to Charlottesville Circuit Court on Wednesday to spar with an attorney for the national chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity implicated in the November 2014 article “A Rape on Campus.” Intended as an expose on the culture of sexual assault at elite universities, the article sent shockwaves through the Charlottesville community and beyond with the centerpiece story of a then-student named “Jackie,” who claimed that during a party in her first year, she was brutally gang-raped at Phi Kappa Psi’s off-campus UVa fraternity house. Students and faculty quickly organized marches and protests that led to the front door of the Rugby Road home, while the UVa administration suspended Greek life for the remainder of the fall semester. Within weeks of its release, the public sentiment surrounding the article transmuted from outrage to incredulity as key aspects of Jackie’s tale began falling apart under scrutiny. By Dec. 5, 2014, the magazine appended their online article to include a disclaimer, stating that the editorial staff and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely had lost faith in Jackie’s side of the story. Following a scathing review of its journalistic practices, along with an investigation from Charlottesville police finding no evidence to back Jackie’s claims, Rolling Stone officially retracted the article on April 5, 2015. Within one month, Eramo filed suit against the magazine, its publisher and Erdely, seeking $7.85 million for defamation. At the time of the article’s publication, Eramo had served as the associate dean of students, charged with aiding student survivors of sexual assault. Mentioned by name more than 30 times in the article, Eramo alleged that she was cast as the article’s chief villain, who showed callous indifference to the needs of her students. Last November, a weeks-long trial ended with a jury awarding Eramo $3 million in damages. Eramo’s suit was the first of three. By July 2015, three former Phi Kappa Psi brothers filed a lawsuit asserting that, as former residents of the fraternity house, readers could wrongly deduce that they were involved in the alleged assault. That suit was tossed out 11 months later, with a federal judge ruling that the details were “too vague and remote” to link the plaintiffs to the article. Then in November 2015, the UVa chapter of Phi Kappa Psi filed its own defamation lawsuit, seeking $25 million in damages after receiving “an avalanche of condemnation worldwide” in the article’s wake. Like Eramo, the fraternity accused Erdely of specifically seeking out “a sensational story of graphic and violent rape” and failing to properly vet the story with sources beyond Jackie. The frat further alleged that its reputation and membership were significantly harmed by the article’s release. While Rolling Stone has lobbed its objections to the suit, claiming that the article could not be reasonably interpreted as a censure of the fraternity, Judge Richard Moore has denied the magazine’s attempts to throw it out of court. A 10-day jury trial in the matter is scheduled for October. With discovery set to close this summer, Wednesday’s court hearing dealt with a motion from the fraternity’s national chapter to be left alone as the magazine prepares for its battle with the UVa chapter. Rolling Stone has issued subpoenas to the national chapter and its insurer, hoping to uncover information that addresses the reputation of the frat’s UVa chapter. Representing the frat, attorney Dirk McClanahan said that the magazine’s subpoena contains requests for information that are “about as broad as you can conceivably make them,” alleging that the requests are “not strategic,” but rather “harassing and oppressive.” He stated that many of the requests seek information about the fraternity’s other 98 chapters and their recorded infractions, such as matters of sexual assault and underage drinking violations. “They don’t need to hunt down our dirty laundry,” McClanahan said, before arguing that the magazine had a clear dislike of the fraternity, which in turn drove their expansive requests. Counsel for the magazine responded that the requests McClanahan referenced sought information that might inform the fraternity’s “internal conduct” across its many chapters and give insight into the “brand” that Phi Kappa Psi now believes to be damaged. After taking time to review the magazine’s requests, Moore returned to the courtroom and ruled that 13 of the magazine’s 29 requests from the chapter would not be allowed to go forward, while the remaining 16 requests should be responded to only as they pertained to the UVa chapter of the fraternity. Speaking after the hearing, Rolling Stone attorney Liz McNamara said she was pleased that the judge agreed with “critical aspects” of their discovery requests. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 6 2017, 03:46 AM Post #1595 |
|
http://www.nbc29.com/story/35079646/judge-hears-more-motions-in-fraternitys-suit-against-rolling-stone Judge Hears More Motions in Fraternity's Suit Against Rolling Stone Posted: Apr 05, 2017 3:18 PM CST CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) - Charlottesville Circuit Court is again taking up motions in a fraternity’s lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine. Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia is suing the magazine, claiming that its reputation was damaged as a result of the now-debunked article “A Rape On Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Erdely’s article centered on then-UVA student “Jackie”, and her claim of being gang raped at the fraternity house in September 2012. Nicole Eramo, who was an associate dean at the time, successfully sued Rolling Stone, its publisher Wenner Media, and Erdely for defamation. The plaintiff’s legal team argued the article portrayed Eramo as a villain, indifferent to Jackie’s allegation. Jurors concluded on November 4, 2016, that all three defendants were responsible for libel with actual malice against Eramo. The jury recommended Eramo receive $3 million in damages. Phi Kappa Psi is suing Rolling Stone for $25 million. A 10-day jury trial is scheduled for October 25. Right now both sides are filing motions before eventually moving into the discovery phase of the civil lawsuit. Wednesday, April 5, a judge heard motions from the fraternity to quash a subpoena for information from Rolling Stone. The magazine wants access to certain documents from the fraternity’s national chapter, including conduct incident reports, insurance, liability assessments and litigation records. A lawyer for the national fraternity had argued that the magazine’s request is broad, costly, and irrelevant. The judge, however, partially disagreed. "The local fraternity here are seeking a whopping of $25 million in damages. Clearly their reputation is intertwined with the national reputation of PKP [Phi Kappa Psi]. PKP national is very involved in this on the facts underlying this from the outset, and we believe it's appropriate to get discovery from the national organization, and the judge agreed with us on that point," said Elizabeth McNamara, attorney for Rolling Stone. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 6 2017, 03:49 AM Post #1596 |
|
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rolling-stone-takes-aim-at-fraternitys-reputation-virginia-defamation-fight-991188 April 05, 2017 7:30am PT by Ashley Cullins Rolling Stone Takes Aim at Fraternity's Reputation in Virginia Defamation Fight Rolling Stone says records involving sexual assault at nationwide Phi Kappa Psi fraternities are paramount to its defamation fight with the irginia Alpha Chapter over its since-redacted story of the gang rape of a University of Virginia student named "Jackie" that had purportedly happened at its campus frat house. The magazine knocked out a defamation suit from a handful of fraternity brothers, who are appealing the decision, but it's still in the first round of a $25 million fight with the chapter itself. PKP has filed motions to quash subpoenas for documents regarding "claims, investigations, risk assessments, and disciplinary actions relating to incidents of sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse, and/or fraternity hazing" that involve PKP as a whole and other local chapters. Rolling Stone argues the documents are relevant because the national organization's brand and the local chapter's reputation are "inextricably intertwined." "If other chapters of PKP nationwide have been disciplined and/or suspended in response to incidents of sexual assault and hazing, those incidents affect the value of the reputation that goes along with being recognized in the world as a 'Phi Kappa Psi brother' and, accordingly, are relevant to the damages claimed by VAC," writes attorney Robert Hall. In its motion to quash, PKP argues that VAC is a separate entity from the national organization and any harm to its reputation and membership are specific to the local chapter. "In regards to PKP and the Other Chapters, the information requested is not relevant to the litigation nor is it likely to lead to admissible evidence," writes attorney Dirk McClanahan. "For example, assuming arguendo there was a hazing or sexual misconduct incident in Ames, Iowa, that incident would not prove or disprove the truth of an article that wrongly accused a party of a detailed and specific gang-rape allegation in Charlottesville, VA." Alternatively, the organization asked the court to designate any materials produced as in camera only, attorney's eyes only or confidential. The magazine's lawyers pulled no punches in the responding memo filed March 27, indicating the fraternity chose not to speak up before the story ran. “While numerous criticisms have been leveled at Rolling Stone, entirely missing from that discourse, until now, are the conscious decisions by VAC, guided by multiple lawyers, public relations experts, and national and alumni advisors to assume the risk of remaining largely silent and not sharing with Rolling Stone…the factual discrepancies in Jackie’s story of which they were aware before and immediately after the Article was published,” writes Hall. “For had they done so, the Article never would have been published.” Rolling Stone argues that for at least two months before its article was published, both the local chapter and national organization were “regularly advised” by university staff regarding the allegations. “The initial failure by VAC and PKP to instantly and categorically deny the allegations is evidence that they believed, like multiple trained personnel at UVA, that these extreme allegations of sexual violence and wrongdoing at a VAC event were plausible,” writes Hall. Further, the magazine argues that the fraternity had "the knowledge, power, choice and wealth of opportunity to mitigate or avoid the harm it allegedly suffered from the Article," and the motivation for the lawsuit is money. "The award sought would underwrite VAC's operations for some 160 years, or until approximately the year 2177," writes Hall. "This is a particularly egregious demand given that VAC did not lose any members post-publication." The magazine also argues that PKP failed to show that the records sought warrant in camera only or attorney's eyes only protection. It does not object to a confidential designation under a previously stipulated protective order. A hearing on the matter is set for Wednesday afternoon in Charlottesville Circuit Court. Trial is currently scheduled to begin Oct. 23. Rolling Stone also is appealing a highly controversial ruling in the defamation suit brought by then-UVA associate dean Nicole Eramo. The court found story itself wasn't defamatory, but rather the magazine defamed the dean when it appended the original story with a retraction. Many in the legal industry and the press have warned that the ruling, if it stands, will likely chill media apologies. PKP has not yet responded to a request for comment. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 6 2017, 07:35 AM Post #1597 |
|
Typical for what happens in a defamation suit -- the other side argues that your reputation was already so bad that a little more criticism,even if false. couldn't hurt that much. That's what would have happened had the lax players sued for defamation -- "what they did was bad enough", so a little more criticism couldn't have hurt that much. I really wish at some point someone would show some honest indignation over the theft of reputation. [Bonfire of the Vanities] : Judge Leonard White: [to court room] Racist? You dare call me racist? Well I say unto you, what does it matter the color of a man's skin if witnesses perjure themselves. If a prosecutor enlists the perjurers. When a district attorney throws a man to the mob for political gain, and men of the cloth, men of God, take the prime cuts? Is that justice? Judge Leonard White: I don't hear you... Judge Leonard White: Let me tell you what justice is. Justice is the law, and the law is man's feeble attempt to set down the principles of decency. Decency! And decency is not a deal. It isn't an angle, or a contract, or a hustle! |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 10 2017, 04:28 AM Post #1598 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/04/judge-rules-on-motion-filed-by-phi-kappa-psi-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit Judge rules on motion in Phi Kappa Psi suit against Rolling Stone National chapter calls subpoena filed by magazine 'unduly burdensome,' 'irrelevant' by Alexis Gravely | Apr 10 2017 | Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore ruled April 5 on a motion set forth by the national chapter of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity to quash a subpoena duces tecum filed by Rolling Stone magazine. The motion is a part of an ongoing $25 million lawsuit filed against Rolling Stone in which the Virginia Alpha Chapter — the official name of the University’s PKP chapter — alleges Rolling Stone’s now-retracted article “A Rape on Campus” defamed the organization’s reputation. A subpoena duces tecum is a court summons for the production of evidence which orders the recipient to appear in court and produce either documents or other tangible evidence for use during trial. Rolling Stone’s subpoena sought any documentation from VAC, the PKP national organization and all other chapters of PKP nationwide that related to any sort of misconduct, including hazing, sexual misconduct and alcohol abuse. The subpoena had 29 separate requests. Moore ruled that 13 of the requests would move forward as written while information gathered by the other 16 needed to pertain only to VAC or sexual misconduct reported at other PKP chapters. PKP filed the motion to quash for several reasons, primarily because they said the requested information was broad and irrelevant to the case. “In regards to PKP and the Other Chapters, the information is not relevant to the litigation nor is it likely to lead to admissible evidence,” the motion read. “PKP and the Other Chapters are not parties to this litigation. PKP and the Other Chapters are separate entities from VAC.” PKP argued that, for example, if documentation showed a sexual misconduct incident had occurred in Ames, Iowa, it would not prove the accuracy of an article that alleged a gang-rape incident at the University. PKP’s motion said the VAC is a “separate entity” from the national organization and other chapters, and any harm to its organization and reputation “are to VAC specifically.” However, Rolling Stone’s opposition to the motion argued VAC’s reputation is not the only one at stake. “VAC’s reputation and ‘brand’ are inextricably intertwined with and dependent on the reputation and ‘brand’ of the PKP fraternal organization and network as a whole,” the opposition memorandum read. “VAC is not an island that exists independent of its sponsor, partner and parent, PKP.” The memorandum said this connection is evident in PKP’s official manual, which states “the reputation of a ‘national’ fraternity, such as PKP, is developed and affected by the actions of its individual chapters and members.” Additionally, VAC is commonly identified as PKP in a variety of instances, including on the chapter’s house at the University, federal tax returns and the University’s rush map. The motion also said Rolling Stone’s subpoena was “unduly burdensome,” as it is requesting all relevant information and communications from 99 chapters and eight colonies from the past 11 years. PKP has collected 92 megabytes of documents and thousands of emails from VAC alone and said expanding the search to include the other chapters would be “a monumental undertaking.” Rolling Stone argued PKP’s claim of the subpoena being “unduly burdensome” is premature, and they have not offered an “estimate of the volume of potentially responsive information” or the “potential cost of review and production” of gathering the documentation. The memorandum also acknowledged that Rolling Stone has offered to “narrow the scope of the requests” and “limit the volume of material to be searched” in order to make the process less burdensome. This is Rolling Stone’s third lawsuit as a result of “A Rape on Campus.” In November, a federal jury found the magazine liable of actual malice in its portrayal of former Assoc. Dean Nicole Eramo. The 10-day jury trial is scheduled to begin on Oct. 25. |
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Apr 11 2017, 12:06 PM Post #1599 |
|
ABB, Thanks for continuing to keep us up to date with this story.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 11 2017, 02:04 PM Post #1600 |
|
I try every day to do a search for anything related to this case and the Penn State case. It's amazing how history repeats itself. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 11 2017, 07:32 PM Post #1601 |
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rolling-stone-settles-admin-uva Report: Rolling Stone Settles With UVA Admin In Defamation Suit ByKristin Salaky PublishedApril 11, 2017, 5:47 PM EDT Rolling Stone Magazine has settled the defamation case filed by a University of Virginia administrator who was named in the publication’s now-debunked story about a gang rape on the university’s campus, BuzzFeed News reported Tuesday. Details about the settlement are being kept quiet, according to BuzzFeed, but UVA administrator Nicole Eramo filed notice in federal court informing them that she was dropping her lawsuit against Rolling Stone, the magazine’s parent company Wenner Media, and Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely. A representative for Wenner Media did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment. This is most likely the end of a long saga after Rolling Stone published the bombshell story “A Rape On Campus” in 2014. Soon after the story was published, people began poking holes in the account of the protagonist’s — known as Jackie — story about being violently gang raped at a fraternity party. Rolling Stone has since retracted the story and apologized. Jurors previously awarded Eramo $3 million in November, but the defendants challenged the verdict in December. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Apr 11 2017, 07:52 PM Post #1602 |
|
Thanks for sharing this breaking news, abb! This is major! Loved to see Rolling Stone have to make a multi-million dollar payout in addition to major legal fees and court costs
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 11 2017, 08:14 PM Post #1603 |
|
I really think there is a public interest in having the details made public. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 12 2017, 05:36 AM Post #1604 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/rolling-stone-settles-with-u-va-dean-in-defamation-case/2017/04/11/5a564532-1f02-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.cb6fb03eba03 Rolling Stone settles with former U-Va. dean in defamation case By T. Rees Shapiro and Emma Brown April 11 at 8:35 PM Rolling Stone has reached a confidential settlement with Nicole Eramo, a former University of Virginia associate dean who had sued the magazine alleging that it defamed her in a 2014 story about an alleged gang rape on campus, according to lawyers for both parties. The settlement brings an end to a lawsuit that had roiled the U-Va. community with a case study in the practice and ethics of journalism. “We are delighted that this dispute is now behind us, as it allows Nicole to move on and focus on doing what she does best, which is supporting victims of sexual assault,” said Libby Locke, a lawyer for Eramo, in a statement Tuesday. Rolling Stone called the settlement an “amicable resolution.” The magazine’s November 2014 story, “A Rape on Campus,” recounted the shocking story of a young woman’s gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity house — a story that was discredited after serious flaws were revealed. An investigation by The Washington Post showed that aspects of the account were not true. For example, no one in Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity in question, matched the name or description that the young woman — known as Jackie — gave for the person who allegedly was the ringleader in her 2012 assault. A person whom Jackie had described to friends at the time as her assailant was complete fiction, according to Eramo’s attorneys, and The Post found that a photo she shared of her alleged attacker was actually of someone she knew from high school, who attended a different university out of state. The magazine soon acknowledged that it had lost faith in its main source for the story and — after a police investigation and a report by the Columbia University School of Journalism found that aspects of the account were false — ultimately retracted the article. [Jury awards U-Va. dean $3 million in Rolling Stone defamation case] In a trial that began in October 2016, Eramo’s lawyers argued that the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, had arrived on campus determined to write a story about a university’s callousness to the problem of sexual assault. She did not let facts get in the way of the story, they argued, and she wrongly turned Eramo into the face of institutional indifference. Eramo testified that she faced threats, lost professional credibility and lost her ability to work as an advocate for sexual-assault prevention. Tom Clare, one of the attorneys representing Eramo, said during his closing statement that his client had become “collateral damage in a quest for sensational journalism.” Jackie’s tale “had all the elements of a perfect story,” Clare said. “And when something appears too perfect, it usually is.” Scott Sexton, an attorney for Rolling Stone, told the jurors in his closing statement that the magazine “acknowledges huge errors in not being more dogged. . . . It’s the worst thing to ever happen to Rolling Stone.” The article cost Erdely her job at the magazine and her reputation as a journalist, Sexton said. In court documents, Erdely said she was “shattered” to discover that she had repeated falsehoods in her story. “This experience has been devastating to me, both professionally and personally. Never in my 20-plus years as a reporter have I had a story or a source fall apart on me after publication. After feeling so sure about the Article, and believing so strongly that it would help spur change on college campuses, losing faith in the credibility of one of my major sources post-publication took me entirely by surprise. I was stunned and shaken by the experience, and remain so to this day.” In November, a federal jury sided with Eramo, awarding her $3 million in damages — $1 million from Rolling Stone and $2 million from Erdely. Rolling Stone filed a motion to vacate that judgment, the first step toward an appeal, but then agreed to settle the case before a judge could rule. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 12 2017, 05:51 AM Post #1605 |
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/business/media/rolling-stone-university-virginia-rape-story-settlement.html?_r=0 Rolling Stone Settles Lawsuit Over Debunked Campus Rape Article By MATTHEW HAAGAPRIL 11, 2017 Rolling Stone and a writer have agreed to settle a libel suit brought by a University of Virginia administrator over a debunked article that described a gang rape at the university, the magazine announced on Tuesday. The administrator, Nicole P. Eramo, asserted that the discredited November 2014 article defamed her and portrayed her as the “chief villain,” indifferent to sexual assault on campus. Last November, a federal jury awarded her $3 million in damages, which the magazine and the article’s writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, appealed. But lawyers for Ms. Eramo filed a notice in Federal District Court in Virginia on Tuesday that she was dropping the suit. “We are delighted that this dispute is now behind us, as it allows Nicole to move on and focus on doing what she does best, which is supporting victims of sexual assault,” Libby Locke, one of her lawyers, said in a statement. A spokeswoman for Wenner Media, the parent company of Rolling Stone, said: “Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Nicole Eramo have come to an amicable resolution. The terms are confidential.” The article by Ms. Erdely, “A Rape on Campus,” amplified a national conversation about college rape when it was published, telling the story of a woman, identified only as Jackie, who said she was a victim of a gang rape at a fraternity party. But the article was almost immediately called into question for relying on a single source, Jackie. A report by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism criticized Rolling Stone for not taking basic steps to verify Jackie’s account. An investigation by the Charlottesville, Va., police found no evidence of the rape. Rolling Stone retracted the article in 2015. A jury in November found that Ms. Eramo was libeled by the Rolling Stone article and in comments made after publication by Ms. Erdely and the magazine. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:14 AM Jul 11