Biro v. Condé Nast
807 F.3d 541
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Peter Paul Biro sued The New Yorker (Grann, Condé Nast, Advance) and several republishers for defamation based on a July 2010 New Yorker article questioning Biro’s art-authentication methods.
- The Article included critical interviews, suggested possible profit motives, and left readers with a negative impression of Biro.
- Biro alleged the New Yorker defendants published false statements knowingly or with reckless disregard (actual malice) and pointed to failures to investigate, reliance on anonymous/biased sources, and omission of exculpatory facts.
- Biro made similar actual-malice allegations against republishers (LBM, FAR, Franks, Johnson, YUP), asserting they knew or should have known the statements were false.
- The District Court found some actionable defamatory statements but dismissed for failure to plausibly plead actual malice, applying Rule 8 plausibility standards (Iqbal/Twombly).
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding limited-purpose public figures must plead actual malice plausibly and that Biro’s nonconclusory allegations were insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 8 requires a limited-purpose public figure to plead actual malice plausibly | Biro: Rule 9(b) allows malice to be pleaded generally, so he need not plead detailed facts | Defendants: Iqbal/Twombly apply; Rule 8 plausibility standard governs intent pleading | Held: Rule 8 applies; malice must be pleaded plausibly in accordance with Iqbal/Twombly |
| Whether Biro plausibly pleaded actual malice as to New Yorker defendants | Biro: Alleged failure to investigate, reliance on anonymous/biased sources, omissions, and Grann’s "defamatory propensities" support inference | New Yorker defs: Allegations are conclusory; sources and doubts postdate publication; omissions don’t show subjective doubt | Held: Allegations insufficient; do not raise plausible inference of actual malice |
| Whether Biro plausibly pleaded actual malice as to republishers (LBM, Johnson, YUP, FAR, Franks) | Biro: Republishers knew or should have known statements were false; failed to retract/remove; acted with ill will | Republishers: Allegations are conclusory and lack factual support to infer malice | Held: Nearly all allegations against republishers are conclusory; remaining nonconclusory facts do not plausibly plead malice |
| Whether discovery must be allowed before pleading actual malice plausibly | Biro: Pre-Iqbal precedent (Church of Scientology v. Behar) suggests discovery is typically needed to resolve malice | Defendants: Twombly/Iqbal require plausible pleading to proceed to discovery; plaintiffs must allege facts raising reasonable expectation discovery will reveal malice | Held: Discovery does not excuse the Rule 8 plausibility requirement; plaintiff must plead sufficient factual grounds to justify discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 8 plausibility standard applies to claims including state of mind)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 8)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for defamation of public figures)
- Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) (extension of actual malice to public figures)
- Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Co., 745 F.2d 123 (2d Cir. 1984) (limited-purpose public figure standard in this Circuit)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting actual malice inquiry often requires discovery)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (circumstances from which actual malice may be inferred)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) (courts may infer actual malice from objective facts)
- Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union, 619 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. 1980) (defamation actions treated like other civil actions for procedural purposes)
- Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 208 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussion of discovery versus pleading; court declined to allow discovery to excuse plausibility requirement)