There is another MTD in the case at Dkt. 87

This is Dkt. #106

This case revolves around a defamation lawsuit initiated by Wayfarer Studios, Justin Baldoni, and other plaintiffs against The New York Times following its publication of an article discussing a workplace misconduct complaint filed by Blake Lively. The article, titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine”, reported on Lively’s claims that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios retaliated against her after she alleged sexual harassment and other workplace misconduct.

The plaintiffs argue that The New York Times engaged in defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and breach of contract. The New York Times has moved to dismiss the case, primarily relying on legal doctrines that shield journalists from liability when reporting on official proceedings.

The Key Legal Issues in the Case

1. Defamation and the Fair Report Privilege
   The primary defamation claim arises from The New York Times reporting that Baldoni and others orchestrated a smear campaign against Lively. Under New York law, statements made in the context of reporting on official proceedings, such as government investigations and lawsuits, are protected under the fair report privilege (New York Civil Rights Law § 74).To qualify for this privilege, a publication must meet two conditions:
   • It must provide a substantially accurate account of an official proceeding. It must attribute its information to that official proceeding.
   The New York Times argues that its article was based on Lively’s complaint filed with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which is an official government agency responsible for investigating workplace discrimination. Since the article explicitly references the CRD complaint and quotes it extensively, The Times contends that it meets the legal criteria for fair report protection. The plaintiffs counter that The Times improperly collaborated with Lively before she filed the complaint, suggesting that the article was a coordinated attack rather than a neutral report. However, under New York law, a journalist receiving an advance copy of a legal complaint does not negate the fair report privilege. Courts have consistently held that as long as the final published material accurately summarizes an official proceeding, it remains protected.
2. Protected Opinion and Defamation Law
   Another major argument by The Times is that the phrase “smear campaign” is a protected opinion rather than a false factual assertion. Defamation requires a false statement of fact that damages someone’s reputation. New York law distinguishes between factual assertions, which can be defamatory, and opinions, which are protected under the First Amendment. The term “smear campaign” could be interpreted as rhetorical hyperbole rather than a factual claim. Courts have ruled in previous defamation cases that statements using subjective or exaggerated language, such as calling someone corrupt or dishonest in a non-literal sense, often qualify as protected opinion. Furthermore, The Times argues that the phrase “smear campaign” accurately reflects the allegations in Lively’s CRD complaint, which describes efforts by Baldoni and others to damage her reputation in retaliation. Even if The Times used different language than the CRD complaint, New York law allows for some degree of interpretation and paraphrasing, as long as the core message remains accurate.
3. Actual Malice Standard for Public Figures
   Since Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios are public figures, the plaintiffs must prove actual malice to succeed in their defamation claim. This means they must demonstrate that The Times either:
   • Knowingly published false information, or Acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
   The burden of proving actual malice is extremely high, and The Times argues that the plaintiffs have not met it. The newspaper engaged in standard journalistic practices, including reaching out to the plaintiffs for comment before publishing. The plaintiffs provided a response through their attorney, which was included in the article. This effort to verify information and seek input from all sides makes it difficult to argue that The Times acted with actual malice.
4. False Light Invasion of Privacy
   The plaintiffs also claim The Times placed them in a false light, meaning it portrayed them in a misleading way that harmed their reputation. However, New York does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as a separate legal claim. Courts in New York have consistently ruled that plaintiffs must pursue defamation instead. Since the false light claim is essentially duplicative of the defamation claim, The Times argues it should be dismissed outright.
5. Promissory Fraud and Breach of Contract Claims
   The plaintiffs argue that The Times engaged in promissory fraud and breached an implied contract by allegedly making certain promises about how it would handle the information provided to it. In media law, promissory fraud claims typically arise when a journalist promises confidentiality to a source and then breaks that promise. The plaintiffs do not appear to be making that argument here, but rather claiming that The Times misled them in some way about how it would present their statements. The Times argues that there was no legally enforceable contract or specific promise made to the plaintiffs. The newspaper’s normal process of gathering information and publishing an article does not create an implied contract. Courts are typically reluctant to impose legal obligations on journalists that could restrict press freedom.

Strategic Implications for Both Parties

For The New York Times, the strongest arguments for dismissal are the fair report privilege and the lack of actual malice. If the court finds that the article was a fair and accurate report of the CRD complaint, the defamation claim is likely to fail. Additionally, since public figures face an extremely high bar in proving defamation, The Times benefits from the First Amendment’s strong protections for journalistic speech.

For Wayfarer Studios and Baldoni, the best path forward would be to argue that The Times went beyond fair reporting and knowingly distorted facts to fit a predetermined narrative. They could attempt to uncover internal communications between Lively and The Times to suggest collusion. However, even if they prove coordination, they still need to show actual malice, which is an extremely high standard.

Potential Broader Impact

This case highlights the growing tension between media organizations and high-profile individuals who feel they are being unfairly targeted. It also reflects a larger legal battle over how courts should handle journalism about ongoing investigations, particularly in the #MeToo era.

If The New York Times prevails, it will reinforce existing legal protections for the media, ensuring that journalists can report on government complaints without fear of being sued. If the court allows the case to proceed, it could signal increased scrutiny of how the press covers sensitive allegations, especially when the reporting may influence public opinion before a formal legal resolution.

Comparison of The New York Times’ MTD vs. Vision PR, Inc./Leslie Sloane’s MTD

Category	The New York Times’ Motion to Dismiss	Vision PR, Inc./Leslie Sloane’s Motion to Dismiss
Primary Defense Strategy	Asserts Fair Report Privilege under NY Civil Rights Law § 74 and protected opinion defenses to argue that their reporting was based on official legal complaints and not defamatory.	Argues impermissible group pleading, failure to state claims for defamation, false light, and civil extortion, and seeks attorney’s fees under anti-SLAPP laws.
Defamation Claim Defense	Argues that the article was a fair and accurate report of Blake Lively’s California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint, making it protected under fair report privilege. Also asserts that phrases like “smear campaign” are protected opinion.	Contends that plaintiffs fail to specify defamatory statements attributable to Leslie Sloane, and that any alleged statements were either opinion or substantially true. Also argues that special damages are not adequately pled.
Actual Malice Argument	Emphasizes that Wayfarer and Baldoni must prove actual malice since they are public figures, and no evidence of intentional falsehood exists. The article incorporated their side of the story.	Asserts that Wayfarer fails to plead actual malice, as no factual allegations suggest that Sloane knowingly spread falsehoods.
False Light Claim Defense	New York does not recognize false light as a claim, so it should be dismissed outright.	Also argues false light is not recognized in New York and is duplicative of defamation.
Civil Extortion Claim	The Times was not sued for extortion.	Contends civil extortion is not a valid claim under New York law, and even if California law applies, the claim fails for lack of specificity and does not allege how Vision PR “obtained property” via threats.
Breach of Contract / Promissory Fraud	Plaintiffs failed to establish any contractual obligation between The Times and Wayfarer Studios.	No contract claims alleged against Vision PR.
Impermissible Group Pleading Argument	Not a focus in The Times’ motion.	Argues plaintiffs lump all defendants together without specifying actions of each party, making the complaint legally deficient.
Anti-SLAPP Defense / Attorney’s Fees	Does not explicitly raise anti-SLAPP defenses.	Moves for dismissal under anti-SLAPP laws and requests attorney’s fees for defending against a meritless lawsuit.
Key Legal Precedents Cited	New York Civil Rights Law § 74, cases establishing fair report privilege and First Amendment protections for journalism.	Cases on group pleading, defamation defenses, and anti-SLAPP protections under New York law.
Relief Sought	Dismissal of all claims against The New York Times.	Dismissal of all claims against Leslie Sloane and Vision PR, Inc., plus attorneys’ fees.

Key Insights:

1. The New York Times relies heavily on the fair report privilege, arguing that it was simply reporting on an official complaint and therefore cannot be held liable for defamation.
2. Vision PR focuses more on procedural and substantive deficiencies, such as group pleading issues, lack of specificity, and failure to meet legal standards for defamation and extortion.
3. Both defendants argue actual malice is not sufficiently pled, making the defamation claims unlikely to survive under First Amendment protections.
4. Vision PR raises anti-SLAPP defenses, which could entitle them to attorney’s fees if the court finds the claims frivolous.
5. The false light claims are weak in both cases, as New York does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as a valid cause of action.

Final Assessment

Based on the legal precedents, The New York Times has a strong case for dismissal. The fair report privilege is well-established, the actual malice standard is difficult to overcome, and the false light claim is not recognized in New York. Unless the plaintiffs can present new evidence showing The Times deliberately published false information, their case is likely to be dismissed or significantly narrowed.