Christopher Chandler v. Donald Berlin, 998 F.3d 965

In 2003 private investigator Donald Berlin prepared a confidential 134‑page report for Robert Eringer alleging Christopher and Richard Chandler engaged in money‑laundering and ties to Russian intelligence; each page was marked “Confidential.”
Eringer reused those allegations publicly in a 2009 California complaint, a 2014 self‑published book, and a 2015 online article without identifying Berlin or the 2003 report; Chandler knew of Eringer’s public allegations by 2015.
In December 2017–May 2018 British media widely reported similar allegations; a Times document shown to Chandler contained 34 pages of Berlin’s 2003 report—Chandler first learned Berlin authored the report in 2018.
Chandler sued Berlin and Berlin’s firms in September 2018 for libel per se based on the 2003 report and for harm from Eringer’s alleged 2017 republication.
The district court granted summary judgment: held the 2003 claim time‑barred under D.C.’s one‑year libel statute (finding Chandler on inquiry notice from Eringer’s earlier publications) and held Berlin not liable for the 2017 republication because that republication was not reasonably foreseeable in 2003.
The D.C. Circuit reversed as to the 2003 claim (fact issue whether Chandler exercised reasonable diligence / inquiry notice) but affirmed that Berlin cannot be held liable for Eringer’s 2017 republication (not reasonably foreseeable when Berlin delivered a confidential report in 2003).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chandler’s claim from Berlin’s 2003 confidential report is time‑barred under D.C.’s one‑year libel statute given the discovery rule	Chandler: discovery rule tolled limitations until he learned of Berlin (2018); earlier knowledge of Eringer’s publications did not put him on inquiry notice of Berlin	Berlin: Chandler knew of Eringer’s 2009/2014/2015 publications and thus was on inquiry notice more than a year before suing	Reversed district court: accrual (inquiry notice) is a fact question for the jury; Chandler’s earlier knowledge of Eringer did not automatically accrue a claim against Berlin because they were not closely connected defendants
Whether Berlin can be liable for Eringer’s alleged 2017 republication of the 2003 report	Chandler: Berlin should have foreseen that Eringer (a known author/journalist) might later republish the report to the press	Berlin: he sold a confidential report in a one‑off transaction and did not foresee media republication years later; he did not authorize disclosure	Affirmed: no reasonable jury could find the 2017 republication was reasonably foreseeable to Berlin in 2003, so Berlin cannot be held liable for that republication

Tavoulareas v. Piro, 759 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (republication liability requires that republication be reasonably foreseeable)
Diamond v. Davis, 680 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1996) (knowledge of wrongdoing by one defendant does not accrue claim against an unknown defendant unless defendants are closely connected)
Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (accrual and constructive knowledge principles where plaintiff knew of part of a conspiracy)
Mullin v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., 785 A.2d 296 (D.C. 2001) (defamation limitations ordinarily run from date of publication; discovery rule may toll where publication was undiscoverable)
Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (D.C. 2003) (accrual is a factual question; inquiry notice depends on plaintiff's reasonable diligence)
Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (left open whether discovery rule applies where defendant concealed defamatory material)
Capitol Servs. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vesta Corp., 933 F.3d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (context on inquiry notice and constructive knowledge principles)
Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (each republication is a distinct tort)