Deripaska v. Associated Press
Civil Action No. 2017-0913
D.D.C.Oct 17, 2017Background
- Oleg Deripaska, a Russian businessman, sued the Associated Press for defamation based on a March 22, 2017 AP article and accompanying video about Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia and work for Deripaska.
- Deripaska identified three clusters of sentences from the article he says (expressly or by implication) falsely accused him of criminal activity, unregistered foreign-agent lobbying, and involvement in theft of Ukrainian assets tied to the Trump campaign controversy.
- AP moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the passages are nonactionable (questions, opinion, privileged reporting, or not "of and concerning" Deripaska), and alternatively that Deripaska is a limited-purpose public figure who failed to plead actual malice.
- The district court treated the factual allegations as conceded where Deripaska did not dispute them, found the contested article must be read in full context, and evaluated whether the challenged language could reasonably convey defamatory, provably false facts.
- The court concluded Deripaska is a limited-purpose public figure and that he failed to plausibly allege actual malice; separately, each of the three asserted defamatory statements (and the article as a whole) failed as a matter of law to state a defamatory, verifiably false implication "of and concerning" him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deripaska is a limited-purpose public figure | Deripaska: not a public figure regarding the Trump Campaign Controversy | AP: Deripaska has long thrust himself into public controversy about Russian oligarchs and Putin ties | Held: Deripaska is a limited-purpose public figure on these issues |
| Whether actual malice plausibly pleaded | Deripaska: need not plead actual malice at dismissal; AP omitted "crucial background" | AP: complaint lacks factual allegations supporting knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard | Held: Deripaska failed to allege facts permitting inference of actual malice |
| Whether Statement 1 (contract/FARA implication) is defamatory/"of and concerning" Deripaska | Deripaska: AP implied he paid Manafort to act as an unregistered foreign agent and thus criminally liable | AP: the article poses questions about Manafort, not assertions about Deripaska, and associates with Russia are not per se defamatory | Held: Not actionable—language focuses on Manafort; association with Russian government not defamatory per se |
| Whether Statement 2 (Graham quote and House Democrats) is provably false fact or nonactionable opinion/reporting | Deripaska: Quote conveys that Deripaska’s deals merit investigation and imply wrongdoing | AP: the quote is conditional, subjective, and protected as neutral reporting | Held: Not actionable—statement is opinion/conditional and not verifiable false fact |
| Whether Statement 3 (implication of Ukraine asset theft / Trump controversy involvement) is actionable by implication | Deripaska: article implies he stole assets and was tied into Trump controversy | AP: article context negates such implications and contains disclaimers/contradictory facts | Held: Not actionable—implication not reasonably supported when article read as a whole |
| Whether the article as a whole is defamatory even if individual statements fail | Deripaska: overall message accuses him of conspiring to undermine democracies | AP: plaintiff must identify specific false, defamatory statements | Held: Dismissed with prejudice—no particular verifiable false statement or defamatory meaning shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir.) (defamation at motion to dismiss standard; context matters)
- Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 822 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir.) (limited-purpose public-figure test)
- Waldbaum v. Fairchild Pubs., Inc., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.) (definition of limited-purpose public figure)
- Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir.) (actual malice inquiry and evidence that likely supports it)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir.) (questions are generally nonactionable)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statement of opinion actionable only if implying provably false facts)
- Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.) (actual malice standard for public figures)
- Guilford Transp. Indus., Inc. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C.) (opinion vs. verifiable fact; defamatory meaning requirement)