991 N.W.2d 803
Mich. Ct. App.2022Background
- Jerry Reighard, longtime CMU women’s gymnastics coach, was placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation; news reports and CMU confirmed the investigation was not related to Larry Nassar or sexual misconduct.
- ESPN reporter Daniel Murphy tweeted a two-part thread on Feb 21, 2019 juxtaposing (1) the Michigan AG taking over an investigation into coach John Geddert (linked to Nassar) and (2) CMU placing Reighard on leave while noting Reighard’s long personal/professional relationship with Geddert.
- Murphy later learned and was told by CMU that the Reighard inquiry was not connected to Nassar/sexual misconduct but did not retract the initial tweets; he later posted an update stating CMU said there was no connection.
- Reighard sued for defamation (including defamation by implication) and false light; defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, concluding the tweets were substantially true and, alternatively, that Reighard (a stipulated limited-purpose public figure) could not show actual malice. Reighard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Reighard's Argument | ESPN/Murphy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tweets were capable of defamatory meaning (including by implication) | Tweets implied Reighard was connected to Geddert’s alleged physical/mental abuse and to Nassar/sexual-abuse allegations | Tweets were factual, posed only a question or were not reasonably read as accusing Reighard of abuse | Court: Tweets, read together, could reasonably be read to imply both connections and are capable of defamatory meaning (jury question) |
| Whether the alleged defamatory implications were materially false | The implication connecting Reighard to Nassar/sexual-abuse allegations was false (CMU had said no connection) | The “gist” or substantial truth of the tweets insulated defendants; at least one implication was not shown false | Court: The implication linking Reighard to Nassar/sexual abuse was false and not cured by substantial-truth defense; the implication linking Reighard to Geddert’s physical/mental-abuse investigation was not shown false on the record |
| Whether Reighard is a limited-purpose public figure | Argued he was not | Defendants argued he was; plaintiff ultimately stipulated to limited-purpose public figure status on appeal | Court: Reighard stipulated to limited-purpose public figure status; plaintiff must prove actual malice |
| Whether Murphy acted with actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard) regarding the defamatory implication | Murphy knew or recklessly disregarded the probable falsity/implication by juxtaposing tweets and failing to verify despite available confirming information | Murphy relied on public press release and sources; failure to investigate alone is insufficient to show actual malice | Court: There is sufficient circumstantial evidence (juxtaposition, use of “but,” and failure to do basic due diligence despite ability to verify) that a reasonable factfinder could conclude actual malice as to the Nassar/sexual-abuse implication; summary disposition reversed on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual-malice standard for public officials)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (distinguishes private vs. public-figure standards; defines limited-purpose public figures)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (opinion vs. fact; some opinions are actionable if implying false facts)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (proof that purposeful avoidance of the truth can support actual-malice finding)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (substantial-truth standard for falsity)
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (plaintiff bears burden to prove falsity for matters of public concern)
- Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 440 Mich. 238 (Michigan on substantial truth and falsity burden)
- Ireland v. Edwards, 230 Mich. App. 607 (defamation standards and First Amendment limits in Michigan)
- Hawkins v. Mercy Health Servs., 230 Mich. App. 315 (defamation by implication requires materially false implication)
- Locricchio v. Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich. 84 (discusses constitutional hurdles for implication claims)