Image 01 Image 03

Palin v NYT Hearing: Editorial Author pleads ignorance, Court weighing what that means legally

Palin v NYT Hearing: Editorial Author pleads ignorance, Court weighing what that means legally

Post-Hearing Briefs: “Plausiblility” Key To Court’s Decision on Motion to Dismiss

As detailed extensively in prior posts, Sarah Palin sued the NY Times for defamation based on an Editorial regarding the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. James Bennet, Editorial Page Editor, was the primary author of the Editorial, working off a draft prepared by a news staffer.

I discussed the suit and the motion to dismiss filed by The Times in a prior post, NY Times defense: Palin Crosshairs Editorial Wasn’t Actually About Sarah Palin. Please read the prior post for background and links to pleadings and motion to dismiss papers.

On August 16, 2017, the Court held an unusual hearing on the NY Times’ motion to dismiss. In anticipation of that hearing, I asked, Can NY Times really win Sarah Palin case by proving Editorial Author didn’t read the NY Times?

After the hearing, until today, we only had news reports to go on as to what happened. In my post, I cautioned against relying on news reports, Palin v. NY Times – Sure looks like a case of “reckless disregard” for the truth:

Unfortunately, as of this writing I only have news reports as to what happened at the hearing and what the testimony was. That’s no substitute for transcripts, or even partial transcripts. At some point the parties will submit further briefs to the Court, at which point we likely will get transcript excerpts.

The problem with news reports about testimony is that such reports focus on what is newsworthy, rather than what is legally significant. That means we are reading what the reporters think their editors will want to publish.

Based on the facts that could be gleaned from the news reports, I concluded:

Assuming the Newsday summary accurately reflects the testimony, WOW.

This seems to me to be a clear case of reckless disregard for the truth:

  1. NY Times own files: Didn’t check.
  2. Hyperlink in Editorial to ABC News article: Didn’t check.
  3. Map That Was Focus of Editorial: Didn’t even look at it.
  4. Reason Didn’t Check Anything: Rushing to meet deadline.

…. At this stage of the proceeding, Palin doesn’t need to prove that the Times recklessly disregarded the truth, she simply needs to show that there are sufficient reasonable inferences that the case can proceed beyond the motion to dismiss.

If and when the parties file post-hearing briefs and transcript excerpts my analysis could change, but based on news reports I don’t see how the Judge dismisses on the “actual malice” standard after evidence that Bennet purposefully avoided doing the basic research necessary to reveal the truth contradicting the Editorial about Palin.

We still don’t have transcripts, but we do have additional briefs submitted by the parties after the hearing, which just became available on the PACER electronic docket:

Palin v. NY Times – Plaintiff Post-Hearing Memo on Context Inferences and Plausibility (pdf.)
Palin v. NY Times – Plaintiff Post-Hearing Afft of Shane Vogt Attaching News Articles (pdf.)
Palin v. NY Times – NYT Post-Hearing Supplemental Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss (pdf.)
Palin v. NY Times – Plaintiff Post-Hearing Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum (pdf.)
Palin v. NY Times – NYT Post-Hearing Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss (pdf.)

The briefs don’t really expand much on the facts of the testimony beyond what the news reports indicated. Transcripts are not available on PACER, and no one attached transcripts to their papers.

One thing becomes clear from reading the post hearing briefs – the issue troubling the court is the issue of “plausibility.”

It is the only issue addressed by the parties in their briefs, which means that’s what the Judge considers significant and likely asked for briefing to be limited to that issue. Here is how the Times described the Judge’s focus in a footnote to its main post-hearing brief:

6 As the Court correctly noted throughout the hearing, see 8/16/17 Tr. 72:15-25, its purpose was not to assess the credibility of Mr. Bennet’s testimony. Rather, it was to determine whether that testimony provided a basis for the Court to conclude that the Complaint could reasonably be read to make plausible allegations of actual malice….

The question of “plausibility” was not one flagged by the Judge in his Order scheduling the hearing. He used the term “reasonableness” (emphasis added):

Pending before the Court is the motion of defendant The New York Times Company (the “Times”) to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the claim of plaintiff Sarah Palin that she was defamed by a Times editorial that appeared on or about June 14, 2017. One close question presented by that motion is whether the Complaint contains sufficient allegations of actual malice, an essential element of the claim. To a large extent, determination of that issue may turn on what inferences favorable to the plaintiff are reasonable given the circumstances alleged in the Complaint. For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statements of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them. This is information peculiarly within the knowledge of defendant; but on it arguably depends the reasonableness vel non of inferring actual malice.

Accordingly, to help inform the Court of what inferences are reasonable or unreasonable in this context, the Court, pursuant to Rule 43(c), will convene an evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, August 16 at 2:00 PM EST. At the hearing, defense counsel must produce the author(s) of the editorial, who (or each of whom, if there is more than one author) will be examined under oath by defense counsel for no more than thirty (30) minutes, to be followed by cross-examination of plaintiff’s counsel of no more than forty-five (45) minutes, to be followed by no more than fifteen (15) minutes of redirect by defense counsel. The Court also may question each such witness.

The lawyers got pretty deep in the weeds on the case law as to what “plausibility” means in this context of a motion to dismiss.

Here is the short version of Palin’s argument:

On their face, these allegations [in the Complaint] must be taken as true and plausibly establish actual malice. 17 The additional facts developed through and in connection with the Court’s efforts to examine the context of the publication only solidified Mrs. Palin’s case. The draft of the offending article, the explanation of how and why the article was written, the other editorials gathered by and available to the authors when it was written, and the circumstances surrounding the author who penned the defamatory statements about Mrs. Palin, all confirmed what Mrs. Palin has already alleged: “when it comes to Mrs. Palin, The Times is willing to operate with a purposeful avoidance of the truth marked by a deliberate decision not to acknowledge facts confirming the falsity of its charges against Mrs. Palin.”18

* * *

Mr. Bennet claitns that he did not review the Palin Map, the hyperlinked ABC article, nor The Times’ editorials and column compiled by his research staff, and did not recall The Atlantic’s numerous writings on the subject-all of which raised serious doubts about the veracity of the charge Mr. Bennet was making about Mrs. Palin. Even if this were true, actual malice can be inferred because Mr. Bennet was willfully blind to all of the available information refuting the sole “fact”33 upon which his theory rested.34 (Ex. 34 48:4-24; 49:1-16) At best, Mr. Bennet engaged in selective reporting35 to support his pre-determined conclusions, which also constitutes actual malice.

Here’s the short version of the Times argument:

The significance of the Rule 43(c) hearing for the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion lies entirely in what did not take place: Not a single fact adduced through the testimony of Editorial Page Editor James Bennet, or in any of the documents produced by The Times at the Court’s request, moved the Complaint’s allegations of actual malice across the line from the merely possible to the plausible. Actually, the reverse is true.

The Court conducted the evidentiary hearing for the narrow purpose of establishing context for evaluating the plausibility of the Complaint’s allegations of actual malice. Specifically, the hearing was convened to determine who authored the Editorial, and whether the author(s) had knowledge of earlier or contemporaneous publications that, according to Mrs. Palin, directly contradicted the challenged statements. See, e.g., 8/16/17 Tr. at 76:2-14; 8/10/17 Order at 1. In effect, the hearing afforded Mrs. Palin an additional opportunity to develop a factual predicate for a plausible allegation of actual malice.

The hearing, however, served only to underscore that the Complaint’s allegation of a deliberate lie is as implausible as it appears from the face of the pleading itself. Mr. Bennet’s uncontroverted testimony established that he was the sole author of the statements in the Editorial referring to a “link” between “political incitement” and the attack on Rep. Giffords, and that, at the time he authored them, he had not read and was not aware of any of the purportedly conflicting reports on which the Complaint relies to establish knowledge of falsity. 08/16/17 Tr. at 20:23-21:9, 21:19-22:5, 26:1-9, 26:17-22.2 Mr. Bennet’s testimony demonstrates that any effort to amend the Complaint to address the author’s state of mind rather than continuing to rely improperly on the Complaint’s allegations about The Times’s institutional knowledge would be futile.3

What does this focus on “plausibility” mean?

I could make the argument either way.  From the negative view, even if Palin alleged facts giving rise to reasonable inferences of actual malice, Palin has to jump through the additional hoop of the inferences being “plausible.” From the positive view, arguing over plausibility presumes that there are otherwise reasonable inferences.

If — and it’s a big if — this is the crucial issue to the Judge, we are in fairly narrow legal territory.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Parsing nothing. He knew, he wanted to run with a Democratic talking point to keep the meme alive.

Colonel Travis | August 23, 2017 at 10:01 pm

I don’t understand where “plausibility” applies. The NYT editorial stated that “the link to political incitement was clear.”

OK, clear to whom? Jared Loughner? The leftist editorial writer? Your average gullible reader?

Editorial writers don’t write words for the heck of it. They are trying to persuade. If the editorial writer thought there was no link to incitement, why write in clear and simple language that there was?

It seems to me that when you are a professional at some level of endeavour, there is an implied competence that the public assumes that you have while holding that position. To then produce a product because of your esteemed position, where the product is neither professional nor accurate, how then do you claim innocence based on your own incompetence? Since doing so undermines your entire standing as a professional and invalidates the position that you used to offer the tainted product. I could buy his claim if he had written a “Letter to the editor” because no one would assume that he had the credentials to be held accountable. But my God! He is the editor!

Joseph Goebbels was a professional, too. So was Soviet Minister of propaganda (remember: the Soviets actually had a department called “Agiprop” (agitation and propoganda.))

Considering the now-horribly smelly diaper the ny times had put on obama all too long long ago (a hate-monger as malignant as Goebbels) the ny times fits right in with the above.

How people in the know still buy that rag is beyond comprehension. Maybe they need it to line their bird cages, or to train their dogs. Who knows.

So, basically, it boils down to:

1. The NYT editors were malicious, or
2. The NYT editors were incompetent

Either way, the NYT loses.

Works for me.

They seem to be using Obama’s strategy for everything evil perpetrated by his administration – Gollleeejeee— I didn’t know about it until I read it in the paper. I’m as surprised as you are to learn my administration sold guns to drug dealers in mexico.

If McCain were not such a pathetically worthless cuckservative, we’d been spared eight years of Obamunism and President Palin would be in office.

caseoftheblues | August 24, 2017 at 5:43 am

So according to this argument if a surgeon causes damage to a patient all they have to do is claim ignorance… they had no idea how to perform the operation and they get off….?

    snopercod in reply to caseoftheblues. | August 24, 2017 at 7:51 am

    That defense worked for Jon Corzine. “I had no idea my company was misappropriating clients’ money!”

    Milhouse in reply to caseoftheblues. | August 24, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Um, no. Surgeons who are unfamiliar with a procedure have no right to perform it. People who are unfamiliar with the facts about a public figure have every right to write about her anyway, even if they get it wrong; it’s not defamation unless they know it’s wrong, or didn’t care whether it was right or wrong. The allegation here is that the NYT as an institution knew the story was wrong, and that Mr Bennet must surely also have known it, or would have known had he an ordinary regard for the truth of what he wrote. The defence seems to be that his disregard for the truth didn’t rise to recklessness.

The only way this stands is if the judge sides with the times that they were merely incompetent in that they should have known better but didn’t.

Don’t fool yourselves, the NYT will use ignorance as a victory and will completely gloss over the fact that they SHOULD have known the facts for the story.

Then if course the rest if the democrat propaganda machine will like in defence of the NYT that they were innocent and suddenly ignorance becomes a badge of honour for the left.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | August 24, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    Well, it was the NY Times that first got the Supreme Court to recognize this defense in NY Times v Sullivan, so it comes by it honestly.

Blatantly ignored checking their facts to establish plausible deniability later?

    Milhouse in reply to scaulen. | August 24, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Doing that on purpose would be reckless disregard for the truth, which means Palin wins. They have to claim it wasn’t on purpose.

casualobserver | August 24, 2017 at 8:47 am

Is the judge signaling anything by shifting focus from plausibility to reasonableness?

    Milhouse in reply to casualobserver. | August 24, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    No, read it again. It’s the complaint that must be plausible, in order not to be dismissed. To determine whether it is plausible, the judge must decide what inferences in its favor he may reasonably make.

‘For people who think they think!!!’ I love it. Thanks for the laugh!

He wanted to write his editorial based on ideology and independent of facts.

Henry Hawkins | August 24, 2017 at 5:33 pm

Some journalists seem to believe they enjoy the same general immunity from civil and crimal law as does their partner in propaganda, the mainstream media. Then again, they also seem to believe they can diagnose mental illness without a medical degree, psychiatric training, nor any experience in the field, so…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 24, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    That should read…. “as does their partner in propaganda, the Democrat Party.”

    My foot caught on fire while typing and distracted me.