| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,411 Views) | |
| abb | Jul 24 2016, 03:55 AM Post #1381 |
|
Court Docs: Rolling Stone Author Was Too Lazy To Fix Bogus Gang Rape Article Posted By Blake Neff On 1:24 PM 07/23/2016 In | No Comments New court documents filed in the defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone reveal that disgraced reporter Sabrina Erdely knew her story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia (UVA) was deeply flawed, but refused to change it because improving it would simply be too much work. They also reveal that Rolling Stone attempted to stem a rising tide of bad press by seeking a “sympathetic” MSNBC reporter who would let Erdeley defend herself without pushing back too much. The revelations comes in a court filing made Friday by by attorneys representing UVA dean Nicole Eramo. Eramo is suing Rolling Stone for $25 million, claiming the magazine’s 2014 article “A Rape On Campus” defamed her by portraying her as indifferent towards the gang rape of student Jackie Coakley and unwilling to take her claims seriously. After the article’s release, it became clear Coakley had invented her gang rape out of whole cloth, and that her story had huge flaws Erdely should have easily discovered but didn’t because she failed to perform due diligence as a reporter. (RELATED: Emails Show Exact Moment Rolling Stone Reporter Realized Jackie Was A Liar) In the filing, Eramo’s attorney quote a deposition given by UVA activist Alex Pinkleton, who helped Erdely with the preparation of the article. Pinkleton says she spoke with Erdely December 5, the same day Rolling Stone posted an apology for factual errors in its story. According to her deposition, Pinkleton says Erdely “basically admitted … she should have completely rewritten [the story] and regrets that she didn’t.” Why wasn’t the story re-written? Primarily, Pinkleton says, because Erdely didn’t want to put in the necessary work to put out a story she trusted. (RELATED: UVA Jackie May Have Been Caught In Another Big Lie) “Erdely admitted to Pinkleton that she knew she should have rewritten the story but that ‘rewriting the whole story was so much work,'” the court filing says. Friday’s court filing also includes new emails from around the story’s publication that show how Rolling Stone tried to stem the rising tide of bad press against their story. For instance, in a Dec. 5 email, communications professional Kenneth Baer said Rolling Stone should “ID the TV interviewer that will be the most sympathetic” and get Erdely an interview where she could explain herself Said interviewer, Baer said, would probably be at MSNBC. In a reply sent back to Baer, Erdely said she needed to get out a full apology quickly, before a devastating Washington Post takedown was published, or else it would look like Rolling Stone was “shamed” into a retraction. The new documents also reveal that Erdely has been dismissed from Rolling Stone. Until now, her exact fate had been unclear, even though she had written nothing for the magazine since the disastrous UVA article. (RELATED: Court Docs Show Rolling Stone Fired Author Of Debunked Gang Rape Article) Follow Blake on Twitter Send tips to blake@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/23/court-docs-rolling-stone-author-was-too-lazy-to-fix-bogus-gang-rape-article/ |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jul 28 2016, 12:06 PM Post #1382 |
|
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/rolling_stone_uva_rape_report_lawsuit.php?utm_content=buffer3ff44&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Is Rolling Stone about to get throttled in court over UVA rape report? July 28, 2016 2650 words Three libel cases stemming from Rolling Stone’s now infamous “A Rape on Campus” exposé seem poised to go down in the annals of defamation law. It is hard to think of a story so lurid—including a horrifying account of a brutal gang rape of a first-year student at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia—built on journalistic practices so negligent. The 2014 story was quickly debunked as false, but the legal aftershocks are likely to continue for years. Just how vulnerable is Rolling Stone? CJR took a look at the state of libel law, reviewed the pending cases, and talked to legal experts on defamation to find out. Rolling Stone has retracted the story, but it’s not too difficult to imagine a group of outraged Virginia jurors delivering a financial shellacking to the magazine as payback for the unsubstantiated attack on a beloved local institution. Juries elsewhere, including the one that returned an eye-popping $140 million judgment in Hulk Hogan’s invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Gawker, have shown a willingness to punish media companies. Rolling Stone’s story, some 9,000 words long, was published on November 19, 2014. Almost immediately, the reporting, by writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, began to unravel; within a few weeks the story told by a woman the magazine identified only as “Jackie” was revealed to be untrue. While it’s possible something traumatic happened to the student early in her first year at UVA, no evidence has come forward to suggest anything like the violent event described in the story occurred, at the fraternity in question or anywhere else. An investigation by the Columbia Journalism School found that Rolling Stone’s editorial procedures had been flawed virtually across the board. Most importantly, the magazine had largely taken Jackie’s word on what happened that night. It did not speak to her friends for corroboration, or speak to the fraternity forthrightly about what charges the magazine was about to level. And now Rolling Stone is fighting off three defamation cases. The UVA chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity named in the story, filed suit in November, seeking $25 million in damages. Three individual members of the fraternity, who say their reputations were damaged by association, filed suit against the magazine in federal court; that suit has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have not said whether they will appeal. Finally, a UVA administrator, Nicole Eramo, the school’s point person for sexual assault cases, says she was portrayed in an unflattering light in the story and did not say some of the quotes attributed to her. She’s asking for $7.8 million. So how will the magazine defend itself? There are two easy defenses against libel that work to the media’s benefit. One is truth, which is in most cases an absolute defense. Rolling Stone has retracted the story and acknowledges that the assault did not occur, so it will not be using this defense. The other is that the allegedly defamatory statements are a matter of opinion. Since the original Rolling Stone story was built on the factual assertion that a gang rape had occurred, that defense will probably not play a part in the fraternity cases, but the opinion defense will probably arise in the suit from the UVA administrator. But some quirks in the law might provide a way out for the magazine. Libel law is quite plain that a defamatory statement must be shown to be “about” or “of and concerning” the plaintiff. But in the article, no actual members of the fraternity were named. A few nicknames mentioned in the account of the assault—“Armpit” and “Blanket”—are not known to have been used at the fraternity. The fraternity brother who supposedly lured Jackie to a party that night has been shown not to exist; another assailant, whom Jackie had said she’d recognized from a class, has never been identified either. It will likely be difficult for the fraternity to persuade the court that the article was about it—not because it’s an institution, but because a strong argument can be made that the article’s focus was on the actions of a few individuals and not on the fraternity itself. That is why the case from the three individual fraternity members was dismissed last month. Federal Judge P. Kevin Castel wrote: “The article’s details about the attackers are too vague and remote from the plaintiffs’ circumstances to be ‘of and concerning’ them.” The second suit is from the UVA chapter of Phi Kappa Psi as a whole. Here, having zigged in the first case, arguing that it had not defamed any individual members of the fraternity, Rolling Stone now has to zag, and argue that the article was about individual people committing rape, but not the fraternity itself. Virginia libel lawyer Lee Berlik says he isn’t following the case but spoke on Virginia law broadly. “The fraternity … will have to prove that the article was ‘of and concerning’ the fraternity in some defamatory respect,” he writes in an email. “It will likely be difficult for the fraternity to persuade the court that the article was about it—not because it’s an institution, but because a strong argument can be made that the article’s focus was on the actions of a few individuals and not on the fraternity itself. To counter this argument, the fraternity will essentially need to argue that the article stated or implied that a rape took place with the express or implied consent and approval of the fraternity.” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who has written several articles about the case for the Washington Post website, says Phi Kappa Psi will probably argue that the article implied the fraternity is a dangerous place to go. Says Volokh: “If someone said, ‘[There’s this] bar, people routinely get raped in this bar.’ Is that libel of the bar? You’re not accusing the bar of rape, to be sure, but you are accusing the bar of being a dangerous place that maybe allows dangerous patrons or dangerous employees. And the likely consequence of that is that the bar will lose business.” Rolling Stone’s article has at least one passage that suggests the (fictional) rape might indeed have been part of a fraternity activity. In Jackie’s description of the assault, one fraternity member hesitates. One of the other fraternity members is said to say, “Don’t you want to be a brother?” Another alleged comment: “We all had to do it, so you do, too.” Both remarks could be seen to imply that the assault was part of a membership ritual at the house. Additionally, later in the article Jackie is said to have discovered two other women who’d been subjected to group assaults at Phi Kappa Psi. They have never come forward. In its complaint, the fraternity argues that the article implies that such assaults were frequent and perhaps even tolerated there. The various stories Jackie told reverberate throughout “A Rape on Campus.” While the record is somewhat muddled on this point, Jackie seems to have told friends an alternate story about a group assault, this one involving oral sex; this allegation may have made its way to the university as well. When writer Erdely called the fraternity for comment about a gang rape, the chapter president says he knew only of “fourth-hand” allegations that “something of a sexual nature took place.” To a casual reader, this might seem coldly euphemistic about the gang-rape charge, or evidence of yet another assault associated with the fraternity, when in fact it was just another unsubstantiated story from the same unverified source the magazine had built the rest of its report on. “That could be either further evidence,” Volokh says. “That could be further defamation. But simply saying bad things happened there, that itself is potentially defamatory.” * * * The Columbia Journalism School report called the Rolling Stone debacle “a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting ….” Note those emphasized words. Most journalists know about the US Supreme Court case on libel, New York Times v. Sullivan, which has been generally been cited in libel actions since it was handed down in 1964. The Sullivan standard is that a private figure alleging libel has merely to show negligence on the part of the publisher. Public figures, however, have to meet a higher standard, what the court called “actual malice,” which was defined as publishing while knowing something wasn’t true, or publishing with reckless disregard for whether something was true or not. The idea, roughly put, is that a free press will occasionally make mistakes but that, as long as the publication was acting professionally (that is to say, not recklessly) it would, broadly speaking, be free from libel judgments on matters of public import. Less often cited is a caveat: The plaintiff has to show that the publication actually entertained doubts about what it was publishing. Former Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana (left) and Reporter Sabrina Erdely (Twitter and LinkedIn) The reckless disregard standard is generally associated with libel suits from public figures, but the standard also applies when, for example, private figures seek punitive damages on top of basic compensatory damages (i.e., for lost membership fees, a drop in donations and so forth). The fraternity argues that it should be considered a private figure for the purposes of the suit. If the judge agrees, it should have a strong case in proving the lower standard of negligence. The magazine might argue in response that the fraternity is a public figure—perhaps because it is an important institution on campus and that there is a public benefit to having its actions scrutinized. Volokh, in an email, writes, “Generally speaking, small- and modest-sized businesses are treated as private figures, despite their role in the community; the same would apply to a fraternity.” When it comes to damages, the fraternity’s case will be made easier by the concept of “defamation per se,” which is a feature of Virginia law. This refers to allegations that are considered on their face to be damaging, and relieves plaintiffs from having to establish that the defamatory statements caused them actual harm. The traditional examples are accusing the subject of the story of a serious crime, the slightly antiquated notion of acts of “moral turpitude,” allegations of having a serious or contagious disease, a lack of integrity in one’s profession, and the like. The UVA allegation—about a planned group violent sexual assault on a defenseless 18-year-old—would seem to involve a statement that is “defamatory per se.” But a large award against the magazine would come only if the plaintiffs can establish the higher “reckless disregard” standard. That will turn on whether there is evidence that the writer or the magazine’s editors had actual doubts about the truth of the story they were preparing. The failure of “A Rape on Campus” was that the magazine failed to interview virtually anyone who might have buttressed, or contradicted, Jackie’s account. “It’s conceivable that the standard was met here,” Volokh says, “if discovery reveals that some editors did think the story was highly improbable. It’s also possible that Rolling Stone really thought this story was true, and if they really believed the story might well be false, they would have seen what was coming and they would not have published.” Doesn’t that just protect blissful idiots? “Totally,” he replied. “The more of a fool you are, the more immune you are.” That said, as Volokh notes in one piece for the Post, the Supreme Court has also found that, for example, a publication’s decision not to interview a key witness could be the “product of a deliberate decision not to acquire knowledge of facts.” This might give Rolling Stone’s attorneys pause. The failure of “A Rape on Campus” was that the magazine failed to interview virtually anyone who might have buttressed, or contradicted, Jackie’s account. The magazine did not find out the real name of the man Jackie said lured her to the fraternity. It didn’t interview any of her close friends to corroborate what happened when Jackie called them after she left Phi Kappa Psi that night. And while Erdely reached out to the fraternity for comment, she never went over the details of the supposed assault with the house’s president—from whom she might have learned that Phi Kappa Psi hadn’t had a party that night. She didn’t interview any individual members of the fraternity either. Look for the plaintiffs to comb through the magazine’s email and editing materials for evidence that an editor expressed doubts about Jackie’s story. The Columbia Journalism School report, while damning, seems to indicate that writer Erdely felt Jackie’s story was credible, and that the editors, however negligently, sincerely put their trust in Erdely. The third case is from the UVA dean Nicole Eramo. Legally, Eramo is a public official and the matter was something under her professional purview, so she would be considered a public figure. The allegations against her are of course milder than those against the fraternity. Eramo is not portrayed one-dimensionally. UVA students “laud [her] as their best advocate and den mother” and Jackie is said to frequently call her “an asset to the community.” But that doesn’t mean that other parts of the story might not be defamatory. Eramo is said in the Rolling Stone piece to have “discouraged” Jackie from sharing her story. In a discussion about why the school doesn’t collect sexual assault statistics, Eramo is said to have remarked, “Because nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school.” Eramo’s role in “A Rape on Campus” is complicated by the fact that, as a school administrator, she was bound by confidentiality rules and other regulations involving the reporting of sexual assaults on campus. She did not speak to Erdey, the reporter; here again, most of the information in the story about her comes only from Jackie. Eramo’s complaint argues that the magazine was intent on portraying the school negatively: “Defendants’ purpose in publishing the article was to weave a narrative that depicted [UVA] as an institution that is indifferent to rape on campus, and more concerned with protecting its reputation than with assisting the victims of sexual assault.” Eramo’s suit argues that, since she is largely the face of UVA in the story, passages like this reflect negatively on her as well: “In the meantime, having presumably judged there to be no threat to public safety, the UVA administration took no action to warn the campus that an allegation of gang rape had been made against an active fraternity.” Ironically, there is some suggestion that, having looked into the allegations that Jackie had made to her originally, Eramo herself had found inconsistencies in the student’s story; another ironic aspect of the Rolling Stone piece is that Erdely was holding UVA’s feet to the fire about its handling of some number of sexual attacks that didn’t, in the end, exist. Being a public figure, Eramo has a high bar to clear to win her case; her lawyers will be looking for evidence that the magazine’s staff had reservations about the story to establish recklessness. Rolling Stone will argue that Erdely’s ultimate contention in the piece—that UVA wasn’t doing enough to combat sexual assaults on campus—is in the end a matter of opinion, not a factual assertion. Could Rolling Stone be trying to settle either or both of the cases? Sources tell CJR that attempts to do so in the Eramo case failed; they may be ongoing in the Phi Kappa Psi case. A spokesperson for Rolling Stone declined to comment on whether the magazine had libel insurance and, if so, whether the insurance company was taking an active role in its legal strategy. Bill Wyman is the former arts editor of NPR and Salon.com. Follow him @hitsville. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jul 29 2016, 04:40 AM Post #1383 |
|
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28291/ UVA fraternity has good libel case against ‘Rolling Stone’ in gang-rape story, law prof says College Fix Staff •July 28, 2016 Rolling Stone may come to regret that it chose a university in Virginia to portray as indifferent to rape victims. Columbia Journalism Review, which published the official autopsy of the magazine’s willful ignorance in pursuing a sensational story about a violent gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity, has a new feature on the three libel cases filed against Rolling Stone stemming from Jackie Coakley’s discredited allegations. Though one has been dismissed already – by individual members of the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi – because they couldn’t show the nameless allegations were “of and concerning them,” the fraternity itself has a surprisingly solid case. MORE: Jackie Coakley not covered by patient-counselor privilege First Amendment Law Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA notes that Sabrina Erdely’s narrative portrays the fraternity itself as a threat to women, based on passages that suggest gang rape is expected of members: “If someone said, ‘[There’s this] bar, people routinely get raped in this bar.’ Is that libel of the bar? You’re not accusing the bar of rape, to be sure, but you are accusing the bar of being a dangerous place that maybe allows dangerous patrons or dangerous employees. And the likely consequence of that is that the bar will lose business.” Author Sabrina Erdely also gave the fraternity so little information about the allegation against it that Phi Kappa Psi’s answer may have been to an entirely different (perceived) question: “That could be either further evidence,” Volokh says. “That could be further defamation. But simply saying bad things happened there, that itself is potentially defamatory.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jul 29 2016, 04:46 AM Post #1384 |
|
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/feds-open-new-probe-of-uva-over-sex-assault-handling/article_2e65b22a-5511-11e6-b8ab-7b44d719d0e0.html Feds open new probe of UVa over sex assault handling BY DEAN SEAL The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened a new sexual assault investigation at the University of Virginia, according to a report obtained Thursday. Department’s spokeswoman Dorie Turner Nolt confirmed Thursday that the office had opened a Title IX investigation at UVa on July 22. Nolt said the investigation involves facts that were not covered as part of the office’s investigation into Title IX violations at UVa that was launched in 2011 and ended in September. Title IX is a federal law, enacted in 1972, that prohibits discrimination in educational institutions based on gender. Nolt said she could not provide details about the investigation, but a spokesman for UVa said Thursday that the university was aware that a former male student had filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights “alleging that he was discriminated against in the Title IX investigation process based on his gender and disability.” Officials would not say whether the male was an alleged victim or perpetrator. The spokesman did not provide more details, but said UVa is fully cooperating with the investigation. The Office for Civil Rights’ previous, multiyear investigation into UVa’s Title IX violations ended in September after UVa overhauled its policies for handling cases of sexual assault. According to the office, the university made satisfactory changes, including the creation of a designated Title IX coordinator position to ensure that UVa was in compliance with the law. UVa alumna Kelley B. Hodge was hired to that position last year, but resigned from the post in May. Catherine Spear, the assistant vice president for equal opportunity programs, has served in her stead since. Other policy changes included new measures to protect accusers at the beginning of an investigation by hiring a full-time sexual assault investigator and a review panel made up entirely of trained staff and faculty. The university also implemented new training programs and reached out to students for feedback on the school’s policies. UVa received about 600 student comments after the new policies were posted. “These important efforts are commendable and speak to a university commitment to embrace its Title IX responsibilities and promote a safe learning environment,” read a letter from the Office for Civil Rights last September. UVa’s old policies for handling sexual misconduct complaints had been sharply criticized for failing to “eliminate a hostile environment” and provide a “prompt and equitable” response. For instance, one case took nine months to reach a resolution, leading UVa to institute a new policy that strives to resolve complaints within 60 days unless there is “good cause” to delay it. In recent years, campus sexual assault has become a hot-button issue across the country. At the time of the original investigation, UVa was one of 130 institutions around the country under review for Title IX investigations. Those institutions were accused of mishandling cases of sexual assault, harassment, stalking and intimate partner violence. As of Wednesday, 202 postsecondary institutions, including several elite universities, are now under investigation for 260 different cases of sexual violence. From Virginia, that list includes the College of William & Mary, James Madison University, the University of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University and Washington and Lee University, in addition to UVa. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 12 2016, 02:41 PM Post #1385 |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/we-will-learn-friday-if-u.va.-deans-defamation-lawsuit-will-be-dismissed/article/2599225 We will learn Friday if U.Va. dean's defamation lawsuit will be dismissed By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 8/12/16 3:24 PM On Friday afternoon, a Charlottesville, Va., federal judge will decide whether a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone Magazine will proceed. The lawsuit, brought by University of Virginia Dean Nicole Eramo, alleges the magazine defamed her when it published a later-retracted article about an alleged gang-rape on campus. A young woman, referred to only as "Jackie" claimed that seven men gang-raped her as part of a fraternity initiation ceremony. The magazine portrayed Eramo as unsupportive of women who made sexual assault accusations, even though it was her job to help accusers and investigate claims. The article was published in November 2014, and Eramo brought her lawsuit in May 2015. The article became an international sensation but quickly unraveled when questions arose as to why Rolling Stone never questioned the man who allegedly lured Jackie to a party where the gang-rape took place. It was soon discovered that this man didn't exist, that Jackie had made him up to win the affections of another man on campus (it didn't work). Jackie had used a text-messaging service to send her friends texts allegedly from this young man, who she said was named Haven Monahan (no one by that name has ever attended U.Va or even appears to live in the U.S.). Pictures she showed her friends of this man were actually of a former high school classmate who barely knew Jackie. Rolling Stone didn't bother to check any of this, instead adhering to the "listen and believe" mantra of sex assault activists. It had to retract the story and issue an apology, but it has been fighting Eramo in court ever since. Eramo and Rolling Stone have asked U.S. District Court Judge Glen E. Conrad to rule on whether the case will proceed, according to the Washington Post's T. Rees Shapiro, who unraveled the whole Rolling Stone story. Rolling Stone, Shapiro wrote, has countered Eramo's claim of defamation by citing the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, which found U.Va. in violation of Title IX for creating a "hostile environment" for those making campus sexual assault accusations. What Rolling Stone ignores is the fact that any school under investigation by OCR will be found in violation, even if the department has to make determinations that contradict victim's advocacy groups and past rulings. The magazine's lawyers also, amusingly, defend Rolling Stone's actions by claiming the reporter and editors believed Jackie was telling the truth. Whether that helps Eramo or not, it is a sad commentary on Rolling Stone's journalism, as it put all its trust in a sick woman without bothering to verify her story — all because the magazine wanted to jump on the hysteria surrounding campus sexual assault with a story so sensational it couldn't possibly be true (and wasn't). Even as (former?) Rolling Stone author Sabrina Rubin Erdely and her editors claimed they believed Jackie, notes and correspondence proved inconsistencies in the accuser's story throughout the interview process. Jackie even mentioned a "Law and Order: SVU" plotline that was suspiciously similar to her own story. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 12 2016, 02:44 PM Post #1386 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/12/federal-judge-to-decide-if-u-va-deans-defamation-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-will-proceed/ Federal judge to decide if U-Va. dean’s defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone will proceed By T. Rees Shapiro August 12 at 1:13 PM A federal judge in Charlottesville is slated to decide Friday if a lawsuit filed by a University of Virginia associate dean against Rolling Stone magazine will proceed to trial in a $10 million defamation case that began last year. Nicole Eramo, who formerly served as the top U-Va. administrator on sexual violence issues, filed the lawsuit in May 2015, claiming that Rolling Stone portrayed her as callous and indifferent to allegations of a gang rape publicized by the magazine in a 9,000-word story called “A Rape on Campus.” The article, published online in November 2014, described the brutal and harrowing account of a student named Jackie, who described being gang raped in a fraternity house during the fall of 2012, her freshman year. She told a Rolling Stone reporter that seven men took turns assaulting her while two others watched, purportedly as part of a sadistic hazing ritual. Written by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the account of Jackie’s gang-rape soon became a rallying cry nationwide for sexual assault prevention advocates. Activists held demonstrations in Charlottesville in front of the fraternity house named in the article, Phi Kappa Psi, which was vandalized with spray paint labeling the brick mansion as a “center for rape.” But Jackie’s allegations unraveled in the days after the Rolling Stone article published. A subsequent investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department and the Columbia University journalism school ultimately showed that Jackie’s allegations were false. Rolling Stone retracted Erdely’s story the following April. A month later, Eramo filed the lawsuit against Rolling Stone. As the face of the administration for adjudicating sexual assault cases, she claimed in court documents that the article defamed her and caused irreparable harm to her reputation. Both Eramo and Rolling Stone filed motions for summary judgment in July; both parties have asked U.S. District Court Judge Glen E. Conrad to decide whether or not the case should move to trial in the fall. In court documents, lawyers for Rolling Stone have countered by noting that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has concluded that U-Va. had what it considered to be a “hostile environment” for sexual assault survivors during the period Eramo oversaw the adjudication process. The magazine’s lawyers also assert that the associate dean was a public figure at the time the article was published, meaning that Eramo’s lawyers have to meet a higher standard to prove the defamation claim. Rolling Stone’s lawyers also wrote that the magazine’s reporter and editors believed Jackie was telling them the truth, writing in court papers that “up until the early morning hours of December 5, 2014, Rolling Stone and Erdely believed wholeheartedly that the Article and each challenged statement was true, and that Jackie was a credible and reliable source.” But Erdely’s cache of notes, made public in court filings for the lawsuit, show a number of inconsistencies and weaknesses in Jackie’s account prior to the story being published, including that the tale of her assault closely mirrored the plot line from a Law and Order: SVU episode in which the protagonist is gang-raped in a fraternity house. The magazine’s lawyers wrote that one of the issues was that Rolling Stone learned about Jackie from U-Va.: “In significant ways, Jackie’s story came with the imprimatur of U-Va.: Emily Renda, a U-Va. employee, who worked closely with Eramo, brought Jackie’s case to Erdely’s attention.” Erdely’s notes point out that Renda, a 2014 U-Va. graduate, had referred to Jackie’s assault claims in testimony on Capitol Hill. But according to transcripts of Renda’s sworn testimony, she specifically noted that Jackie had been attacked by five men — not a total of nine, seven who participated and two who watched, as Jackie told the magazine — a discrepancy that indicated Jackie’s story had changed over time. Conrad is slated to decide Friday afternoon what aspects of Eramo’s case, if any, merit a jury trial. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 13 2016, 03:57 AM Post #1387 |
|
http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/lawyers-in-rolling-stone-case-debate-details-of-defamation-claims/article_a5a6fd09-23b0-5879-9cad-08fbd20b2195.html Lawyers in Rolling Stone case debate details of defamation claims Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 9:23 pm By Dean Seal The Daily Progress Former University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo was present in federal court Friday as her attorneys continued the fierce squabble with Rolling Stone magazine over details in her multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit. In May 2015, Eramo filed a $10 million lawsuit against author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the magazine and its publisher over her portrayal as an uncaring and indifferent associate dean in “A Rape on Campus,” the now-retracted November 2014 article intended to be an expose on sexual assault at elite universities. At the heart of the article was the story of “Jackie,” a UVa student who claimed she was gang raped at a fraternity party during her first year at the school. Jackie’s harrowing tale detailed not only her alleged assault but the steps she took to bring her attackers to justice which ultimately went nowhere due to, according to Erdely’s article, tactics by Eramo and the university to suppress her. While the article’s publication sparked campus-wide protests and the suspension of UVa’s Greek life for the fall semester, the story fell apart within weeks. News outlets found holes in Jackie’s account, an investigation by Charlottesville police found no evidence to support Jackie’s claims and a review by the Columbia Journalism School found the article to be a “journalistic failure that was avoidable.” As a UVa administrator that directly deals with students who come forward with allegations of sexual assault, Eramo was frequently referenced in the article and, after it was published, became the target of intense scrutiny and condemnation from the public. The story was officially retracted in April 2015, and a month later, Eramo filed suit, claiming she was unduly maligned by the debunked article. She says she was made out to be the chief villain, causing irreparable damage to her career. In the 14 months since the lawsuit was filed, attorneys for Eramo, Rolling Stone and Jackie, who is named as a third party in the suit, have been engaged in a contentious war of words, mostly regarding Jackie’s participation in the case. Eramo has sought Jackie’s cooperation with her discovery efforts while Jackie’s attorneys have repeatedly asked for her to be excused from the matter. That said, Jackie’s compliance was not at issue Friday during a five-hour slog over recent motions from both Eramo and Rolling Stone. Eramo has asked for certain matters in the case to receive swift legal determinations from a judge, known as summary judgments. Those matters include the determination of whether Eramo should be treated as a public or private figure and whether the actions that Rolling Stone took constitute actual malice, a pillar of defamation claims that establishes whether an entity published libelous content with specific knowledge that the information was false. Eramo’s attorneys argue that the UVa administrator was a private figure when the article was published, while Rolling Stone is classifying her as a limited purpose public figure, due to her former position as the chair of UVa’s Sexual Misconduct Board. Elizabeth McNamara, a lawyer for Rolling Stone, argues that in that position, Eramo was responsible for the informal resolution of complaints, and therefore had a role of prominence in the supposed controversy about which Erdely’s article was based. Eramo’s lawyers responded that their client never brought the controversy into a public spotlight. Judge Glen Conrad eventually said that the matter would require more delicate analysis. Friday’s proceedings discussed the question of actual malice. Eramo’s attorneys presented evidence on several aspects of Erdely’s reporting process that they believe show a reckless disregard for the truth. For one, they state that Erdely had a preconceived notion of what her article was going to be about, long before she began investigating Jackie’s claims. They noted that Erdely had a long history of reporting on institutional indifference to rape allegations by organizations as large as the military and the Catholic Church. In pitching the now-retracted story, Erdely said she intended to seek out a top-tier university that showed a similar style of indifference. Eramo’s attorneys also showed that a fact checker had taken issue with several aspects of the published story but was often overlooked. The fact checker questioned characterizations of Eramo and the wording of certain excerpts, but those hesitations were not taken to heart, Eramo’s attorneys said. One of the biggest talking points of Friday’s hearing was Erdely’s trust in Jackie, which seems to have wavered at times in the reporting process. Evidence shows that Jackie’s account shifted several times and that Erdely was aware of the discrepancies, but may have attributed them to the emotional trauma suffered by survivors of sexual assault. Erdely herself noted that Jackie had an odd insistence on “controlling her narrative” and that aspects of her story were questionable — for instance, Jackie stated that she had scars from being pinned down atop a shattered glass table during her assault. Erdely never actually saw the scars, nor had anyone else that Erdely spoke to. On Dec. 5, 2014, Erdely wrote an email to her editors titled “our worst nightmare,” in which she stated that she no longer believed Jackie’s story, asking that the article be retracted. Instead, the article was published again, this time with an editor’s note acknowledging the article’s inconsistencies. McNamara rejected those assertions, stating that Eramo’s attorneys had “mischaracterized” facts as they are presented in the court record. The fact checker in the story eventually agreed with the editor’s decisions, she said, and while Jackie may have been in a “fragile” state, she was not “mentally unstable,” as depicted by Eramo. The inconsistencies in her account did not dismiss the possibility that she was telling the truth, and neither the magazine nor Erdely had reason to believe she was being untruthful. For those reasons and more, McNamara made it clear that the magazine wants Eramo’s suit to be dismissed. By the end of the hearing, Conrad said that he would take a few weeks to contemplate the motions but indicated that many of the questions brought forth Friday should ultimately be decided by a jury. A two-week trial in the matter is set for Oct. 11. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 16 2016, 03:21 AM Post #1388 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/12/federal-judge-to-decide-if-u-va-deans-defamation-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-will-proceed/ Federal judge leans toward jury trial in Rolling Stone defamation lawsuit over U-Va. rape article By T. Rees Shapiro August 13 A federal judge in Charlottesville said in court Friday that a multi-million-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by a University of Virginia administrator against Rolling Stone magazine likely will proceed to trial later this year. Nicole Eramo, who formerly served as an associate dean for U-Va. on sexual violence issues, filed the lawsuit in May 2015, claiming that Rolling Stone portrayed her as callous and indifferent to allegations of a gang rape publicized by the magazine in a 9,000-word story called “A Rape on Campus.” The article, published online in November 2014, described the brutal and harrowing account of a student named Jackie, who described being gang raped in a fraternity house during the fall of 2012, her freshman year. She told a Rolling Stone reporter that seven men took turns assaulting her while two others watched, purportedly as part of a sadistic hazing ritual. Written by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the account of Jackie’s gang-rape soon became a rallying cry nationwide for sexual assault prevention advocates. Activists held demonstrations in Charlottesville in front of the fraternity house named in the article, Phi Kappa Psi, which was vandalized with spray paint labeling the brick mansion as a “center for rape.” But Jackie’s allegations unraveled in the days after the Rolling Stone article published. A subsequent investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department and the Columbia University journalism school ultimately showed that Jackie’s allegations were false. Rolling Stone retracted Erdely’s story the following April. A month later, Eramo filed the lawsuit against Rolling Stone. As the face of the administration for adjudicating sexual assault cases, she claimed in court documents that the article defamed her and caused irreparable harm to her reputation. Eramo is seeking $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages from Rolling Stone, according to the court complaint. Both Eramo and Rolling Stone filed motions for summary judgment in July; both parties have asked U.S. District Court Judge Glen E. Conrad to decide whether or not the case should move to trial in the fall. After five hours of court proceedings on Friday, Conrad said that aspects of the case likely will move forward to a jury trial. Elizabeth McNamara, who is representing Rolling Stone, told reporters outside of the courthouse that she believes the case should be dismissed. McNamara argued in court that the burden falls on Eramo’s lawyers to prove that Erdely and the magazine’s editors acted with “actual malice” — meaning with a reckless disregard for the truth — when they published the allegedly defamatory claims. McNamara said that up until Dec. 5, 2014, when the magazine published an editor’s note notifying readers about the article’s numerous inconsistencies, the staff had complete confidence in the account and believed Jackie’s allegations. Libby Locke, who is representing Eramo, told reporters on Friday that Rolling Stone made a number of errors and missteps that constitute actual malice, including that the magazine ignored red flags in Jackie’s account and published the article anyway. In court filings, lawyers for Rolling Stone have argued that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has concluded that U-Va. had what it considered to be a “hostile environment” for sexual assault survivors during the period Eramo oversaw the adjudication process, bolstering the article’s claims about U-Va.’s general approach to the issue. The magazine’s lawyers also assert that the associate dean was a public figure at the time the article was published, meaning that Eramo’s lawyers have to meet a higher standard to prove the defamation claim. Conrad said that he will write an opinion based on Friday’s hearing that will settle several issues, including whether or not Eramo was a “public official” at the time the article was published, determinations that could possibly narrow the scope of the lawsuit. Rolling Stone’s lawyers have written in court documents that the magazine’s reporter and editors believed Jackie was telling them the truth “and that Jackie was a credible and reliable source.” But Erdely’s cache of notes, made public in court filings for the lawsuit, show a number of inconsistencies and weaknesses in Jackie’s account prior to the story being published, including that the tale of her assault closely mirrored the plot line from a Law and Order: SVU episode in which the protagonist is gang-raped in a fraternity house. The magazine’s lawyers wrote that one of the issues was that Rolling Stone learned about Jackie from U-Va.: “In significant ways, Jackie’s story came with the imprimatur of U-Va.: Emily Renda, a U-Va. employee, who worked closely with Eramo, brought Jackie’s case to Erdely’s attention.” Erdely’s notes point out that Renda, a 2014 U-Va. graduate, had referred to Jackie’s assault claims in testimony on Capitol Hill. But according to transcripts of Renda’s sworn testimony, she specifically noted that Jackie had been attacked by five men — not a total of nine, seven who participated and two who watched, as Jackie told the magazine — a discrepancy that indicated Jackie’s story had changed over time. Conrad said in court that he will issue an opinion soon but indicated that he is likely to side with Eramo on certain issues and will leave it up to a jury to decide the outcome. Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the amount of the lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Though online court records indicate the lawsuit is for $10 million, Nicole Eramo is seeking $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages, according to the complaint. The story has been updated. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 22 2016, 03:23 AM Post #1389 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/at-u-va-block-party-continues-despite-administrations-warnings/2016/08/21/a1adb18a-67ca-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html At U-Va., Block Party continues despite administration’s warnings By T. Rees Shapiro August 21 at 5:28 PM CHARLOTTESVILLE — Thousands of University of Virginia students, cups in hand, swarmed across the blacktop as the raucous party reached its peak Saturday night, the crowds stretching a quarter mile down Wertland Street under a near-full August moon. Dance music blared from open doorways. Broken glass beer bottles crunched underfoot as students spilled off the sidewalks and into the road. By the time the crowd dissipated about 2 a.m., there were arrests for public drunkenness, ambulance calls for unresponsive party-goers limp and shoeless on the grass, and crinkled red plastic cups strewn in the gutters like early autumn leaves. Block Party — the off-campus, unsanctioned bash that is the unofficial start to the school year for many students — was alive and well this past weekend, despite U-Va. administration efforts to discourage freshmen and athletes from attending following persistent problems with underage drinking, rowdy behavior and sexual assaults. Although many participated, some said the administration’s push did make a dent. Josh Bicer, a senior who hosted guests at his Wertland Street house Saturday night, said Block Party was much tamer than the year before. Bicer said that the crowd was significantly smaller and more orderly. “The effort worked, unfortunately,” Bicer said. “None of us like to hear that because what we want is a good party.” The crackdown comes amid a moment of reflection for U-Va. The prestigious public flagship university has garnered national headlines in recent years as the administration struggles to address its reputation as a party school, including the prevalence of campus sexual assault and the excessive consumption of alcohol. One year ago, U-Va. volleyball player Haley Lind said she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student athlete in a stranger’s house on Wertland Street during Block Party, an incident that rocked the athletic department and drew fresh scrutiny of the problem on this elite campus. As a result, the university’s top officials commenced an unprecedented outreach exercise this summer to warn parents and students, particularly incoming freshmen, of the risks that lurk camouflaged in the pulsing Block Party crowd. On Saturday night, Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas was among the 36 officers who patrolled the streets specifically monitoring Block Party. “The university has been really aggressive this year,” Thomas said, noting that his department had partnered with the administration to redouble the enforcement of alcohol-related offenses this year. “This is the first time many of these students are away from home. We will treat them as young adults, and when you become an adult there are consequences for your actions and poor decisions.” For example, Thomas said, the officers gave tickets for alcohol violations this year when in the past they had handed out warnings. The popularity of Block Party, and its resilience in the face of opposition, has flummoxed the administration, said U-Va. Dean of Students Allen Groves. Because the festivities transpire beyond university property and inside private residences — and often includes people from other schools and local residents — it has been difficult for the university to take concrete action. A woman is arrestedduring Block Party in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday, Aug. 20, 2016. The university administration discouraged students from going, and police stepped up their presence. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Cups and trash are seen in front of houses after Block Party, an off-campus bash at the University of Virginia. Some said this year’s party was “tamer” as a result of university counter-programming. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Groves said preparations for this year’s Block Party began three months ago, when he met with local landlords and encouraged the rental property owners to revise their leasing contracts to include provisions that would discourage students from hosting big parties. Groves said the university also distributed flyers warning tenants about their legal liability when serving alcohol to party guests. The university also organized counter-programming this year, including a concert featuring the popular hip hop artist J. Cole, with free pizza and alcohol-free activities at the campus recreation center. Ellie Atherton, a 19-year-old sophomore who attended the J. Cole performance Saturday night, said the concert provided a welcome distraction from Block Party. “I think a lot of things happen at Block Party that are really dangerous, especially for freshmen who are inexperienced at the party scene,” Atherton said. “The university really made an effort to make campus safer.” Groves also acknowledged that Block Party’s surging attendance each fall is partly of the university’s own making. Groves said that for the past decade he helped negotiate an agreement with the university’s fraternity chapters to refrain from hosting parties on the weekend before classes. Block Party arose organically in the vacuum, he said. In a thinly veiled reference to Lind’s allegations of a sex assault from last year, the school’s athletic department warned athletes to avoid Block Party, and President Teresa Sullivan asked families to speak with their children about the potential hazards of drinking to excess, specifically warning about sexual assault. “We know that the most dangerous time for sexual assault is the first few weeks of the academic year, the period known as the Red Zone,” Sullivan wrote. “More than 50 percent of all reported sexual assaults on college campuses take place during this period. . . . Please remind your sons and daughters that we do not tolerate any type of sexual misconduct at UVA, and ask them to make safety a top priority — their own safety as well as the safety of their classmates.” On Saturday, droopy-eyed students in collared shirts staggered down Wertland, including a young man who was unable to stand unassisted and leaned into a female friend like a listing ship taking on water in rough seas. A couple kissed sloppily against a telephone pole amid the crush of partiers, a student lay passed out on the concrete steps in front of a brick residence, another vomited off a porch railing. Typical sights for Block Party. For Lind, last year’s Block Party was one of the worst nights of her life. Lind, then in the first days of her sophomore year, attended the party with teammates. She said she blacked out during a party on Wertland after drinking a potent liquor concoction and woke up the next morning unaware that she’d had a sexual encounter with another athlete at the party. That athlete, who also was drinking at the party, has maintained he did nothing wrong, and a university investigation found there wasn’t enough evidence to hold him responsible for any violation of school rules. The experience continues to haunt Lind. She said she spent Saturday night at her apartment watching movies, while her friends went out to party. “It’s an anniversary of a transformation of myself that wasn’t good,” Lind said. “It’s been a year, and I feel like I’m a lot older than I am, and I’ve lost a part of my youth and myself that I’ll never get back.” Lind said that she now views Block Party as the most dangerous night for students at U-Va. She said she speaks to younger female students about the risks of drinking at such parties, when one can be surrounded by strangers. “It’s crazy that it’s one night that people are willing to risk their lives over,” Lind said. “It’s one night that can change your whole life. It’s not worth one night of partying to risk your entire career and your entire life.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Aug 30 2016, 04:08 AM Post #1390 |
|
http://www.nbc29.com/story/32870462/lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-article-delayed Lawsuit Against Rolling Stone Article Delayed Posted: Aug 29, 2016 8:03 PM CST Updated: Aug 29, 2016 8:04 PM CST CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) - The trial for a federal defamation case against Rolling Stone magazine over a now retracted article about rape at the University of Virginia has been delayed. In November 2014, the magazine published "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. In the article, a student referred to as "Jackie" described being gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia in September of 2012. Rolling Stone Magazine has redacted and apologized for the article. UVA Associate Dean Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone, its publisher, and Erdely in a $7.5 million defamation lawsuit for casting her as a villain. The jury trial was supposed to happen October 11, but has been delayed a few days. The trial is now scheduled for October 17. There is no word from attorneys on why there is a delay in the trial. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 2 2016, 04:10 AM Post #1391 |
|
http://wtvr.com/2016/09/01/virginia-judge-rejects-rolling-stones-bid-throw-out-uva-frats-lawsuit/ Virginia judge rejects Rolling Stone’s bid throw out UVA frat’s lawsuit Posted 7:33 pm, September 1, 2016, by Vernon Freeman Jr. CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. – A Virginia judge has rejected a motion from Rolling Stone magazine to throw out a $25 million defamation lawsuit filed by the fraternity at the center of an article about rape allegations which were later determined to be false, according to the Associated Press. The Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi filed the lawsuit last year against Rolling Stone and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the writer and Contributing Editor of an article entitled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” which was featured in the Nov. 19, 2014 issue. In the decision released Thursday, Charlottesville Circuit Judge Richard E. Moore said that the statements made about the fraternity in the story could reasonably be considered defamatory. The article centered on claims from a woman identified only as “Jackie” who claimed she had been the victim of a horrific gang rape that went on for hours in a bedroom of the Phi Kappa Psi during a fraternity party. After it was published, questions were raised about its veracity. Following an investigation, Rolling Stone admitted that the rape never took place. The suit alleges that in the aftermath of the article, Phi Kappa Psi and its members became the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 2 2016, 07:44 AM Post #1392 |
|
Rolling Stone should have tried to get Judge Beaty to adjudicate...(sarc/off) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 2 2016, 11:04 AM Post #1393 |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fraternitys-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-will-move-forward/article/2600874 Fraternity's lawsuit against Rolling Stone will move forward By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 9/2/16 10:25 AM A judge has ruled that a fraternity's lawsuit against Rolling Stone, filed nearly a year ago, will move forward, denying the magazine's motion to dismiss the case. The fraternity, the University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, was accused by the magazine in a now-retracted article of requiring new pledges to take part in a gang rape. A young woman, identified only as "Jackie," claimed she had been lured to a party at the Phi Psi house by one of its members, who then orchestrated a violent gang-rape against her atop a pile of broken glass. But her story quickly fell apart once people began to question the logic of her story, and after Washington Post reporter T. Rees Shapiro discovered that Jackie made up the story in order to gain the affections of a man she had a crush on. It was discovered that no party took place at the fraternity house on the night of the alleged incident, and that pledging doesn't even take place until the spring. Nearly a year after the story fell apart, Phi Psi filed a lawsuit against Rolling Stone for defamation. On Thursday, Charlottesville Circuit Judge Richard E. Moore ruled that the accusations against the fraternity made by Rolling Stone could be seen as defamatory, and will allow the lawsuit to continue. This is good news for the fraternity. In June, a federal district court judge had dismissed a lawsuit from three individual fraternity members who claimed they were easily identifiable from information contained in the Rolling Stone article. The judge in that case oddly claimed as part of his reasoning to dismiss that the brothers' "defamation claims are directed toward a report about events that simply did not happen." Yes, that's exactly why they were suing and what defamation is. That judge also said the men weren't identifiable from the article because they weren't named or physically described. Another big lawsuit against Rolling Stone is by U.Va. dean Nicole Eramo, who was named in the article and portrayed as callous and indifferent toward women who make accusations of sexual assault — even though her job is to help them. In mid-August, a judge said that her defamation case against the magazine would likely proceed to trial. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 16 2016, 04:12 AM Post #1394 |
|
http://www.fredericksburg.com/judge-makes-rulings-ahead-of-rolling-stone-lawsuit-trial/article_27a6cdbc-22a0-5b80-b6eb-e05c78aaac01.html Judge makes rulings ahead of Rolling Stone lawsuit trial By DEAN SEAL The Daily Progress | Posted: Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:33 pm Just a month before the case goes to trial, a federal judge made several rulings Thursday in the multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit filed by former University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo. In May 2015, Eramo sued writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Rolling Stone magazine and its publisher for $7.85 million, claiming she was unduly maligned by the publishing of “A Rape on Campus,” an article published by Rolling Stone in November 2014 that was intended to expose the culture of sexual assault on college campuses. The article’s centerpiece was the story of “Jackie,” a former UVa student who said she was gang raped at a fraternity party during her first year, and offered details of how the university supposedly suppressed her claims. Eramo, the administrator charged with aiding survivors of sexual assault, was explicitly mentioned several times in the article, and was even portrayed in a photo illustration that accompanied the publication. The article created a firestorm of controversy, but quickly unraveled under scrutiny—particularly Jackie’s story. An investigation by Charlottesville police turned over no evidence that could support her claims, and a review by the Columbia Journalism School dubbed the article a “journalistic failure.” In her lawsuit, Eramo derides the magazine and Erdely for portraying her as callous and indifferent to Jackie’s claims, and states that the fallout from the article damaged her reputation, career and health. Since her original filing, attorneys for Eramo, Rolling Stone and Jackie, who’s been named as a third party in the case, have fiercely battled over a variety of issues in the case—Jackie’s level of participation, Eramo’s status as a public figure, the merits of her defamation claim—but on Thursday, Judge Glen Conrad resolved some key differences before the case goes to trial next month. Addressing the “public figure” argument, Conrad sided with the magazine in classifying Eramo as a “limited purpose public figure,” meaning that she was involved in a public controversy within a narrow area of interest. Because the article in question dealt with sexual assault, Eramo could be viewed as having a public position within that controversy as the chair of U.Va.’s Sexual Misconduct Board. Eramo’s attorneys had previously argued that their client would not fit this classification, because she never attempted to bring the controversy into the public spotlight. In a hearing that took place a month ago, attorneys for Rolling Stone further argued that the article and Erdely’s process of writing it did not constitute actual malice, or a reckless disregard for the truth. Conrad said Thursday that 100 people will be contacted to serve on what will be a seven-person jury, with no alternates. He added that for the sake of fairness, no employees of U.Va. will be permitted to serve, but that anyone who has attended the university may be considered. Finally, Conrad said that while some aspects of the article could be considered hyperbole, quotes and other factual statements made in the article were actionable in the defamation suit. The case will have one more motions hearing on Oct. 4. The trial is set to begin on Oct. 17 and run through Oct. 28. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 16 2016, 04:14 AM Post #1395 |
|
http://www.nbc29.com/story/33103405/judge-issues-pretrial-rulings-in-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-magazine Judge Issues Pretrial Rulings in Lawsuit Against Rolling Stone Magazine Posted: Sep 15, 2016 10:59 AM CST Libby Locke CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) - A federal judge says a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone Magazine over a now retracted article about the rape of a University of Virginia student will move forward. Judge Glen Conrad made several key rulings Thursday, September 15, including rules for the potential jury. In November 2014, the magazine published "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. In the article, a student referred to as "Jackie" described being gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia in September of 2012. Rolling Stone Magazine has redacted and apologized for the article. UVA Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo is suing the magazine, its publisher, and Erdely because she claims the article cast her as the chief villain. She is seeking $7.5 million in damages. Judge Conrad ruled Thursday that Eramo is to be considered a public figure, which means her legal team needs to prove malice on behalf of Rolling Stone and the other defendants. The judge said malice is a question left up to the jury. Additionally, Conrad ruled that statements made in the retracted article can be taken as fact, and therefore are capable of causing damage. As for the jury, the judge determined that 100 people will be contacted to potentially serve. Seven jurors will be seated, with no alternates. UVA employees will be not be allowed to be jurors, as attorneys for some of the defendant's argued those employees have an obvious bias. "The judge ruled that University of Virginia employees, current employees will not be on the jury but he did not make that same ruling with respects to students at the university or former employees or former students. So I think that the jury process is going to shake out," said Libby Locke, Eramo’s attorney. People who attended the university will be considered on a case-by-case basis during jury selection. Eramo’s legal team will call on her medical bills during the trial, as she claims to have suffered from stress and an infection as a result of all this. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said they will be filing a slew of motions Friday, September 16, dealing with the jury selection process.. The judge still has one more ruling to make in the case. The 10-day trial is scheduled to start October 17. |
![]() |
|
| 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