Milan Jankovic v. International Crisis Group, 422 U.S. App. D.C. 259

Milan Jankovic (aka Philip Zepter), a wealthy Serbian businessman, sued International Crisis Group (ICG) for defamation based on a three-paragraph statement in ICG Report 145 linking him to the Milosevic regime.
This case reached the D.C. Circuit twice before; the court previously held the statement could be defamatory and rejected ICG’s fair-report/fair-comment/opinion defenses.
On remand the district court granted summary judgment for ICG, finding Zepter was a limited-purpose public figure and that he failed to produce clear-and-convincing evidence of actual malice; Zepter appealed.
The contested facts: ICG’s Report 145 relied on prior ICG reports, confidential interviews, Balkan press items, an OFAC frozen-assets list, and other sources; the report did not fully disclose all bases for the allegation.
Procedural problems: Zepter failed to seek timely discovery of author James Lyon’s confidential sources and made other procedural defaults that limited his ability to challenge ICG’s evidence.
District court also excluded certain hearsay declarations and ruled ICG judicially estopped from relying on an OHR report; the appellate court accepted the district court’s rulings and reviewed de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zepter is a limited‑purpose public figure	Zepter: he was a private businessman and mere civic participant, not central to the controversy	ICG: Zepter publicly promoted and financially supported Djindjic’s reform agenda and thus thrust himself into the controversy	Held: Zepter is a limited‑purpose public figure for post‑Milosevic reform controversy
Scope of the public controversy	Zepter: controversy should be narrowly post‑Djindjic assassination (2003 onward)	ICG: controversy includes broader post‑2000 political/economic reform and Serbia’s integration	Held: broader post‑Milosevic reform controversy is proper; report fits within it
Germaneness of the defamatory statement	Zepter: tie to Milosevic unrelated to his pro‑reform role	ICG: alleged Milosevic ties are relevant to evaluating his role and influence	Held: statement was germane to Zepter’s participation in the controversy
Whether evidence permits a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence	Zepter: ICG acted with actual malice — relied on assumptions, unreliable press and OFAC list, inadequate investigation, and Lyon’s alleged extortion motive	ICG: relied in good faith on prior reports, confidential reliable sources, press, OFAC listing, and underwent editorial review; no evidence of subjective doubt	Held: No clear and convincing evidence of actual malice; summary judgment for ICG affirmed

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public‑official defamation claims)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (distinguishes public vs. private figures and limited‑purpose public figure doctrine)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion/fact distinction for defamation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standards and burdens of proof)
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (reckless disregard = serious doubts or high awareness of probable falsity)
Harte‑Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (failure to investigate can support actual malice only when defendant had reasons to doubt its source)
Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 350 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (actual‑malice proof and summary judgment review in defamation suits)
Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (three‑part test for limited‑purpose public figure: public controversy, role, germaneness)
Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court decides public‑figure status as a matter of law and discusses factors)