Jankovic v. International Crisis Group
72 F. Supp. 3d 284
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Milan Jankovic, aka Philip Zepter, sues for defamation from International Crisis Group publication Report 145.
- Defendant IC Gp is a non-profit that publishes analyses aimed to influence policy.
- Court previously dismissed several claims; on remand the defamation claim survived initial review but is now before summary judgment.
- Disputed issue is whether plaintiff is a private figure or a limited-purpose public figure in post-Milosevic Serbia.
- Court must determine whether plaintiff’s role in public controversy makes him a limited-purpose public figure, and whether defendant acted with actual malice.
- Key procedural posture: several cross-motions for summary judgment; court grants defendant summary judgment on defamation and false light claims, denies plaintiff’s partial private-figure status motion, and grants/denies hearsay-strike motions as stated in opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Jankovic a limited-purpose public figure? | Jankovic is a private figure with no central role in public controversy. | Jankovic had special prominence and influence in post-Milosevic Serbia public debate. | Yes; Jankovic is a limited-purpose public figure. |
| Did a public controversy exist regarding Serbian reforms post-Milosevic? | Controversy was narrower, centered only on Report 145. | Controversy spanned broader post-Milosevic reforms and Serbia’s integration into international institutions. | There was a public controversy about Serbia’s reforms and integration. |
| Did the defendant publish with actual malice? | There was deliberate falsehood and reckless disregard. | No clear and convincing evidence of malice; reliance on confidential sources and case-specific context undermine malice. | No; no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice; judgment for defendant on defamation. |
| Should the court strike hearsay declarations? | Declarations show malice and extortion evidence against Lyon. | Declarations lack personal knowledge and are inadmissible; some are moot. | Grant in part; Sayad and Mulic declarations struck; Jordan declaration moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (public figures must prove actual malice)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (actual malice standard for false statements)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting in malice cases)
- Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ’ns, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (public controversy and plaintiff's role in it pertinent to public figure status)
- Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 350 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (three-prong test for limited-purpose public figure and evidence standard)
- Tavoulareas v. Exxon Corp., 817 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (malice standard and consideration of aggregate evidence)
- Clyburn v. News World Communications, 705 F. Supp. 635 (D.D.C. 1989) (aggregate evidence and standards for malice)
- McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (circumstantial evidence in malice cases; reliance on sources)