Libel
I am not an attorney or journalist. But I wonder if there is a chance UM and/or RR could sue the Freep, Rosenberg and Snyder for libel and/or some negligence in printing thier half-truths and blatant misleading article.
I'm sure the weasels that are Rosenberg and Snyder chose their words carefully in order to defend such a claim.
Just a thought.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
seen this question asked other places. the lawyers at those places said that it wouldn't be wise to sue as all of Michigan's records would then be available for the Freep. no matter how clean a program is (and UM is clean) there is always something that can be found and blown up. in other words, it's likely not worth the risk.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
They could dig up something deep in those files.
Bur probably not what you think they would find.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
I mentioned this in an earlier post and I was told that it's not lible because the article doesn't contain anything false. It just spins and sensationalizes while guiding the reader to form a negative view of RR. I think lible has to be a lie as well as harmful.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
A journalist (BlueinDC IIRC) has said in a previous thread that it wouldn't stand a chance in US courts.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
...have said the same thing, and I agree.
There is an even higher threshold than usual for public figures, and with most of Rosenberg's statements are "factually supportable" (though TREMENDOUSLY misleading).
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^
Not necessarily true. The key determination would be whether the journalist reported the false information with malice.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
No. For the same reason that it was irresponsible for them to reach the conclusion of "violations" when the distinction between countable/noncountable and mandatory/voluntary is so gray, R/S could easily show that the statements were made in good faith with a reasonable belief that they were true (truth is a defense to libel).
To be clear - saying "truth is a defense to libel" doesn't require that the statement be true, but that the publisher had a reasonable belief that the statements were true. Even if Rosenberg's article represents piss-poor research, he'd be fine in that regard (good faith) if he did have sources suggesting a violation.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to deal with it.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
In order to prove Libel, you have to prove malicious intent, which is the most difficult part of the lawsuit. Just being erroneous in a statement does not constitute libel, malicious intent would also have to be proved.
disclaimer - I am not an attorney, but a bond trader!
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
You're close. For a public figure, you'd have to prove intentional or reckless conduct (more than negligence).
Further, remember - as I said earlier - the reason this article was so shoddy was that it jumped to a conclusion based on a gray area rule (that the writers themselves didn't pretend to understand). However, if you bring a libel suit, YOU must prove the statement was false. Imagine how hard it'd be to prove the statement "Michigan's practices violate NCAA rules" is "false" (hard to prove negatives, particularly with gray areas), and it'd be harder to prove the publishers had no reasonable basis for saying it (i.e., even if you show the paper trail from compliance).
Again - Rosenberg fired a gun with mostly blanks, and the noise has attracted a lot of attention... but a libel case would go nowhere.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
TH - thanks for the clarification!
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
ya, i figured that it would probably be a high hurdle and better to take the high road.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
So, are there other ways to show disapproval for the writers? Can M ban them from the university? I know that sounds childish and petty, but don't they have the obligation to protect their own?
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
laven!
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
If it was limited to libel based on an untrue statement of fact, such as "current players allege rule violations" and that causes harm, then a narrow case that doesn't open up all of Michigan's books would be possible.
The only thing relevant that the Freep could uncover is statements from the current players to see if anyone of them actually alleged rules violations or just said they worked hard.
The damage could be based on damages to RR's professional reputation.
Libel on the other stuff wouldn't go anywhere.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
Try as any attorney might to "limit" the scope of discovery, I disagree 1000% that a "narrow case that doesn't open up all of Michigan's books would be possible." Discovery is mind-numbingly broad and expensive, and the scope is vastly broader than the requirements for admissibility (I don't mean to assume you aren't a lawyer yourself - I'm just surprised that you think any suit on this issue could be "narrow") - it'd be far more trouble than its worth, in my opinion, particularly when it's so unlikely to survive the dismissal stage.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
If the complaint is based only on those untrue statements (i.e., narrow claims based on statements that current players made any allegations of wrongdoing), then I challenge you to explain how "opening up all Michigan's football program books" would possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The fact is the only source for relevant evidence in such a case would be anything to do with statements of the current players. The claims would dictate the scope of the discovery. A good attorney (and competent judge) could limit the discovery accordingly.
As for the other hurdles (intent), that may be more difficult, but it would probably survive summary (especially if there was evidence of Rosenberg's angenda, a judge would allow it to go through discovery).
It's definitely possible, worthwhile is another issue....
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
Sorry ThWard, but its Law 101 that "discovery is broad," but it is a little more complicated than that. There are limits. I have repeatedly kept discovery narrow for my clients when others thought we would be hemorrhaging paper. It just takes a little work... you have to look at the standard.
Once again, there may be a narrow libel action available, but the question is whether it is worth the hassle.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
Tone it down. I appreciate the "Law 101" crack (and I'll hold back from making the same re: "fishing expedition" - it's a bit more "complicated than that"), and I'm not sure I need to cite case law re: discovery standards in a simple question on an mgoblog board. If you think you could keep discovery narrowly tailored in a libel suit involving Rich Rod and the Freep, make your pitch to him, not me. But no need to be a dick.
I'm well aware of the various standards governing discovery (whether you're referring to the Fed Rules, states (at least Illinois, Michigan, and New York), ARIAS arbitrations, and AAA arbitrations). Congrats on your ability to "keep the discovery narrow" for your clients.
In a debate about a hypothetical discovery dispute in a hypothetical libel suit between RichRod and the Freep, you're really going to go with "that's Law 101, but it's more complicated than that?" Ugh. I was trying to tone down the lawyer-condenscension, not ramp it up, man.
To the extent that this is merely all about "Michigan's books", sure, the vague category here is hypothetical as we're dealing with a hypothetical case. The point that I thought was clear (guess not?) was that discovery would bring out a lot more than RichRod/UM would want, no matter how aggressively they try to narrow the issues and fight motions to compel.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
I didn't mean to come off....mean. But, I think you ramped up the lawyer-condescension when you were "1000% sure" and presumed that an attorney wouldn't be able to narrow discovery. Re-read your post. You even presumed an attorney would know better. It seems like a little condescending to reject the idea of appropriately-limited discovery out of hand.
On the other hand, my first post was informative and based upon reasonable possibilities. Your first post was an outright rejection of that (presumably layperson) possibility... something only someone very very intelligent can do.
In the end, I don't care. I just wanted to let you know that there are other people on here who can play the role of dismissive and/or know-it-all attorney. Some of us just chose to be a little more measured and open.
Let's call it a truce.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
I didn't realize I wasn't being measured with my comments. I'm not kidding. True, I said "1000%" but I added "it'd be far more trouble than its worth, in my opinion, particularly when it's so unlikely to survive the dismissal stage." If I "started" it, my apologies.
Yes, I really didn't think you were serious that a libel suit was plausible (for a variety of reasons, not just the discovery issues) and I didn't think you were a lawyer (i.e., I was trying to inform, not condescend), but fair enough, I was (and admittedly am) a bit dismissive of that take, but certainly didn't intend to be a dick myself (and 1000% was a bit strong). We can agree to disagree and as you said, it doesn't really matter.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
as a lawyer i can assure you this is not a case of libel. a detailed discussion of possible libel suits is not warranted.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
U.S. libel/slander laws exist the way they are to protect speech as much as possible. Thus, as ThWard says in more detail, it's very difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit in the States...This is different in the UK, which is why you see a lot of famous people successfully sue tabloids over there...As ThWard and Obes say, it's not worth it for Coach Rod in this instance.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
To see the answers on the next 400 threads about suing the Freep!
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
The answer is not a lawsuit.
We must wage our own press offensive. That is the solution to our woes.
Getting some Ws will make the press offensive a whole lot easier.
So cheer for your Wolverines on Saturday!
And voice your opinion as far and wide as possible.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
... in the sense that some current and former players said X.
It could be, and likely is, that X does not equal NCAA violations.
Poorly investigated, written and edited, yes.
Lack of context (like if you included MSU, CMU, WMU or ND) in comparing it to other programs, hell yes.
Totally irresponsible to run it on the front page the Sunday before the home opener, ab-so-effing-lutely yes.
But libel? No way...
(like someone else said, it's not even close enough for a 30,000 ft level analysis)
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
These days everyone wants to run to the law and sue over everything. I say we take a more traditional route: getting an unruly mob together and marching down to the Free Press building while carrying torches and pitch forks.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
It was somewhere in the back.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
You beat me to it. +1.