Deripaska v. Associated Press
282 F. Supp. 3d 133
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Oleg Deripaska, a Russian businessman, sued the Associated Press for defamation arising from a March 22, 2017 AP article and accompanying video about Paul Manafort's ties to Russia and Deripaska.
- Deripaska identified three clusters of allegedly defamatory material: (1) language linking Manafort’s 2005 strategy plan and possible FARA violations to Deripaska; (2) a quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham and a statement about House Democrats investigating; and (3) passages implying Deripaska’s involvement in Ukraine-related wrongdoing and links to the Trump campaign controversy.
- AP moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (and filed an Anti‑SLAPP motion addressed separately), arguing the passages were nonactionable opinion, not "of and concerning" Deripaska, and not reasonably read to convey the alleged defamatory implications; AP alternatively argued Deripaska is a limited‑purpose public figure and failed to plead actual malice.
- The district court treated judicially noticeable background (Deripaska’s public profile and prior coverage) as undisputed and evaluated whether the challenged statements were verifiably false and defamatory in context.
- The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, holding the challenged language—read in full context—was not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings Deripaska alleged and that he failed to plausibly allege actual malice as a limited‑purpose public figure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements were false, defamatory, and "of and concerning" Deripaska | Article falsely charged Deripaska with contracting Manafort to act as an unregistered foreign agent and to engage in criminal activity | Article reported facts about Manafort and posed questions about FARA as to Manafort; any implications about Deripaska were speculative | Dismissed: statements did not reasonably convey the criminal implications alleged and were not actionable as to Deripaska |
| Whether Deripaska is a limited‑purpose public figure requiring actual malice | Deripaska: not a public figure for the Trump campaign controversy; pleading actual malice unnecessary at motion stage | AP: Deripaska is a limited‑purpose public figure on Russia/oligarch issues and must plead actual malice | Held: Deripaska is a limited‑purpose public figure and failed to plausibly allege actual malice |
| Whether quoted statements (e.g., Sen. Graham) are actionable fact or protected opinion/privilege | Such quotations and committee statements convey that Deripaska’s deals warrant investigation and have criminal implications | Those are subjective assessments or neutral reporting of others’ statements and thus nonactionable | Held: Graham’s conditional language and committee inquiry are nonverifiable opinion/neutral reporting and not defamatory |
| Whether article as a whole implies defamatory facts (defamation by implication) | Selectively strung sentences imply Deripaska stole Ukrainian assets and was tied to the Trump campaign controversy | Article, read in full, contains disclaimers, alternative facts, and context negating the alleged implications | Held: context defeats the asserted defamatory inferences; implication claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (test for whether article contains verifiably false statements of fact)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (limited‑purpose public figure doctrine)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion vs. fact analysis)
- Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (actual malice requirement for public figures)
- Jankovic v. Int'l Crisis Grp., 822 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (three‑part test for limited‑purpose public figure)
- Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (courts decide public‑figure status; standards for actual malice review)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (questions are generally non‑actionable)