Humphries v. Button, 2:21-cv-01412

Six plaintiffs (including Sage Humphries, Gina Menichino, Rosemarie DeAngelo, Danielle Gutiérrez, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2) alleged sexual abuse, sex trafficking, forced labor, battery, and related claims against Mitchell Taylor Button and Dusty Button.
The alleged abuse spanned from 2006 to 2017, involving both minors (then-students of Mr. Button) and adults.
Defendants denied all allegations and counterclaimed for defamation based on plaintiffs' public statements to media outlets.
The defendants sought summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims, primarily arguing statute of limitations and attack on credibility, while the plaintiffs sought summary judgment on defendants’ defamation counterclaims.
The court also addressed several secondary procedural motions related to supplementing the record and admissibility of evidence.
The court denied summary judgment for both sides (except as to some defamation claims) due to factual disputes requiring jury determination, especially concerning equitable tolling/estoppel and credibility of the parties' accounts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations/tolling	Abuse/trauma and misleading statements justify tolling/estoppel for late federal claims	Plaintiffs' claims untimely; no continued threat as contact ended years prior	Factual issues on tolling/estoppel; summary judgment denied, issue proceeds to jury
Contradictory evidence & credibility	Contradictions are for jury to weigh, not for summary judgment	Plaintiff testimony is inconsistent/contradictory, entitling Buttons to summary judgment	Credibility disputes preclude summary judgment; jury will assess
Defamation—public figure/actual malice	Buttons are public figures; no evidence of actual malice in the remaining defamation statements	Are not public figures; statements were false and malicious	Buttons held public figures; factual issues (credibility) on actual malice; summary judgment denied as to one claim
Fair reporting privilege	Some statements are covered as fair reports of official proceedings	Statements were not privileged; outside scope of proceedings	Some statements protected, summary judgment granted for those
Waiver of counterclaims	Defendants' new counterclaims were compulsory and thus waived by not raising earlier	Counterclaims not waived, arose after answer to prior pleading	New counterclaims based on media statements waived; summary judgment granted for plaintiffs on these

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard clarified)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact and jury role on credibility)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for public figure defamation)
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (refining actual malice for public figures)
Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82 (public figure and actual malice in Nevada defamation)
Wynn v. Smith, 117 Nev. 6, 16 P.3d 424 (defamation prima facie elements in Nevada)
Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U.S. 467 (compulsory counterclaim waiver)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public vs. private figures in defamation)
Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246 (defamation compulsory counterclaims in related cases)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (jury role in credibility and summary judgment context)