Carlo Croce v. New York Times Co.
930 F.3d 787
6th Cir.2019Background
- Dr. Carlo Croce, a prominent Ohio State University cancer researcher, was the subject of a New York Times investigative article reporting allegations and criticisms of his research and OSU’s handling of complaints.
- The article described complaints, corrections and withdrawals affecting some of Croce’s papers, quoted critics (e.g., Dr. Sanders) and supporters, and noted OSU had cleared Croce in multiple investigations.
- Croce sued the New York Times and reporters for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the district court dismissed almost all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Croce appealed limited to certain statements (Statements 1–5, 10–14, and the article as a whole), and stipulated to dismissal of the remaining district-court claim to allow appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo under Ohio law, applying the reasonable-reader standard and the innocent-construction rule, and assessed actual malice and substantial-truth defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the article (and specified statements) are defamatory as a matter of law | Croce: the article and headline convey that he committed scientific misconduct and harmed his reputation | NYT: article reports allegations with qualifying language, presents both sides, and is not reasonably read as asserting proven misconduct | Held: Not defamatory; reasonable reader would view it as reporting allegations and criticism, not asserting guilt |
| Applicability of the innocent-construction rule | Croce: ambiguous meanings should favor his claim (argued rule uncertain) | NYT: Ohio recognizes the rule; if words are susceptible to innocent meaning, adopt it | Held: Ohio has adopted the rule; where two readings exist, adopt innocent construction — applies here |
| Whether publication was made with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) | Croce: allegations and companion coverage show reckless or knowing falsehoods (e.g., quoting critics later disavowing) | NYT: reporters used qualifying language, solicited responses, and critics did not recant the quoted statements | Held: Croce’s actual-malice allegations fail on the pleadings; no adequate showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard |
| Substantial truth of Statement 14 (increase in notices/corrections) | Croce: the statement is misleading or inaccurate in number/implication | NYT: gist/sting is true — multiple corrections/withdrawals and complaints have occurred | Held: Statement 14 is substantially true; minor discrepancies would not change reader’s impression |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Chem. Soc’y v. Leadscope, Inc., 978 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio 2012) (defamation elements and reasonable-reader/context rule)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public-figure libel)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 453 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio 1983) (courts decide defamation as a matter of law; innocent-construction rule)
- Connaughton v. Harte Hanks Commc’ns, Inc., 842 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1988) (context, denials, and malice considerations in defamation analysis)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (substantial-truth/gist standard for alleged inaccuracies)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 779 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2015) (statement not false if it has some truth or is susceptible to different interpretations)