Harold Kasselman's Blog - Posts Tagged "defamation"
Former major league pitcher seeks vindication in law suit against MLB network
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Pete Rose sues John Dowd
In yet another interesting law suit involving a baseball star in the last two months, (Mitch Williams won his case against the MLB Network) Pete Rose will face off against John Dowd. Dowd is currently representing President Trump in the Russia collusion probe. But more importantly, Dowd was Special Counsel to former baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti in his investigation of the gambling scandal which led to Rose's banishment from baseball for life. Dowd had led the investigation which resulted in a 225 page report filed in 1989 which Giamatti relied upon.
Yesterday a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that Rose's claim for defamation against Dowd was legally sufficient to move forward. Rose is claiming that his reputation was defamed by Dowd's words during two radio interviews in 2015. In one with Jim Rome, it is alleged that Dowd claimed that a gambling intermediary friend of Rose was also “running young women down in Florida for his(Rose's) satisfaction.” In another radio interview it is alleged that Dowd claimed that this same intermediary was running girls under the statutory age for legal consent; namely that the girls were 12 to 14.
If that were true, each occasion would have been a criminal offense. As such, the words are said to be libelous or defamatory per se. In other words Rose need not prove that Dowd's words would have hurt his reputation; they are presumed to be defamatory by their very nature.
Lawyers for the intermediary have denied as early as August of 2015 that any such "running" of young girls ever took place. They have also denied that the intermediary ever told such things to John Dowd.
No date has been set for trial of the matter. Depositions and other pre-trial matters will take place.
Yesterday a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that Rose's claim for defamation against Dowd was legally sufficient to move forward. Rose is claiming that his reputation was defamed by Dowd's words during two radio interviews in 2015. In one with Jim Rome, it is alleged that Dowd claimed that a gambling intermediary friend of Rose was also “running young women down in Florida for his(Rose's) satisfaction.” In another radio interview it is alleged that Dowd claimed that this same intermediary was running girls under the statutory age for legal consent; namely that the girls were 12 to 14.
If that were true, each occasion would have been a criminal offense. As such, the words are said to be libelous or defamatory per se. In other words Rose need not prove that Dowd's words would have hurt his reputation; they are presumed to be defamatory by their very nature.
Lawyers for the intermediary have denied as early as August of 2015 that any such "running" of young girls ever took place. They have also denied that the intermediary ever told such things to John Dowd.
No date has been set for trial of the matter. Depositions and other pre-trial matters will take place.
Shocking revelation in Pete Rose case
In a shocking revelation Monday in Philadelphia federal court, John Dowd's defense team submitted testimony from a minor who said she had had multiple sexual encounters with Pete Rose. In his defense of the law suit originally filed by Pete Rose against famed attorney John Dowd, Dowd's team introduced testimony from Jane Doe( used for minors or to protect the identity of statutory rape victims) that she was 14 and 15 when the encounters occurred both in Cincinnati, Ohio and outside Ohio. Rose cannot be prosecuted for a crime because the statute of limitations has run out on any charges.
Rose had filed a civil lawsuit against John Dowd, former lead counsel for baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, after Dowd had alleged on radio shows in 2015 that an intermediary for Rose had been "running young girls for Rose" whose ages were 12-14. Now Jane Doe has alleged that in 1973 she began her illicit relationship with Rose.
Rose, through his lawyer, has acknowledged the relationship with Jane Doe but has maintained that she was sixteen at the time. The legal age of consent in Ohio in 1973 was sixteen which would mean that, even if it were morally repugnant to some, it was not a crime. Rose was married with two children at the time and was about thirty four.
Now the Philadelphia Phillies ownership has a dilemma because they have previously scheduled an induction day for Rose to be on the Phillies Wall of Fame on August 13th. That begs the question whether ownership will cancel the money making big payoff for the team. It's anyone's guess, but I think it will be postponed.
Post script: On December 17th 2017 both parties came to an agreement which disposed of the suit by dismissal. It was done right before Rose was to be deposed by Dowd's lawyers. The dismissal was with prejudice which means it cannot be resurrected. The court ordered the terms of the agreement sealed so we will never know the details.
Rose had filed a civil lawsuit against John Dowd, former lead counsel for baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, after Dowd had alleged on radio shows in 2015 that an intermediary for Rose had been "running young girls for Rose" whose ages were 12-14. Now Jane Doe has alleged that in 1973 she began her illicit relationship with Rose.
Rose, through his lawyer, has acknowledged the relationship with Jane Doe but has maintained that she was sixteen at the time. The legal age of consent in Ohio in 1973 was sixteen which would mean that, even if it were morally repugnant to some, it was not a crime. Rose was married with two children at the time and was about thirty four.
Now the Philadelphia Phillies ownership has a dilemma because they have previously scheduled an induction day for Rose to be on the Phillies Wall of Fame on August 13th. That begs the question whether ownership will cancel the money making big payoff for the team. It's anyone's guess, but I think it will be postponed.
Post script: On December 17th 2017 both parties came to an agreement which disposed of the suit by dismissal. It was done right before Rose was to be deposed by Dowd's lawyers. The dismissal was with prejudice which means it cannot be resurrected. The court ordered the terms of the agreement sealed so we will never know the details.
Dykstra vs. Darling
Ron Darling,former major league pitcher and current broadcaster, has just published a book about his time in baseball. Nothing new there, but it has gained some unfavorable notoriety. His book "108 stitches" could lead Darling to defend a defamation law suit brought by former Met and Phillies player Lenny Dykstra. Darling alleged that during game three of the 1986 World Series, Dykstra taunted Red Sox pitcher Dennis "Oil Can Boyd" with the most hateful and disturbing racial epithets that went beyond even what Jackie Robinson endured.
https://nypost.com/…/ron-darlings-tel...
As a result, Dykstra says he will sue Darling and his publisher for defamation. As the above article sets forth, many of Dykstra's teammates denied having heard the slurs or that the incident ever happened. Dykstra has to prove that Darling knew the incident was falsely told or that he did so in reckless disregard for the probability that it was false.But what got me thinking is, even if Darlings statements are false, what kind of damages could Dykstra possibly get if he won. It's no secret that Dykstra has been convicted of grand theft auto, and filing a false financial statement. Dykstra was named in the Mitchell report(named after former Senator George Mitchell) as being named as a steroid user while playing baseball. Wikipedia lists many other incidents of misbehavior including a car crash with an alcohol reading of 0.179 in 1991, a 1999 arrest for sexual harrassment on a seventeen year old(later dropped), In March 2009, press reports alleged that Dykstra's businesses were facing financial ruin and that he had used offensive terms when speaking about blacks, women and homosexuals.
In September 2009, he was banned from both of his foreclosed multimillion-dollar properties in Lake Sherwood, from which security officers were instructed to deny him access. He was accused of vandalizing the properties and not maintaining homeowners' insurance on them, and the court assigned a trustee to manage them.
In December 2010, Dykstra was accused of hiring a female escort and then writing her a bad $1,000 check: adult-entertainment star and escort Monica Foster claimed he had hired her on December 13, 2010 and then wrote her a worthless check. Monica Foster later posted a copy of the check on her blog.
In January 2011, Dykstra was accused of sexual assault by his housekeeper, who alleged that he would force her to give him oral sex on Saturdays. The woman told investigators "she needed the job and the money, so she went along with the suspect's requests rather than lose her job," according to the filing, and "returned to work in the suspect's home with knowledge obtained from the Internet about a claim of sexual assault by another woman."
On April 14, 2011, Dykstra was arrested and charged with bankruptcy fraud. The Los Angeles Police Department Commercial Crimes Division also arrested Dykstra on separate grand theft charges related to the purchase of vehicles. He was held on $500,000 bail
On August 25, 2011, Dykstra was charged with indecent exposure. The Los Angeles City Attorney accused him of placing ads on Craigslist requesting a personal assistant or housekeeping services. The victims alleged that when they arrived, they were informed that the job also required massage service. Dykstra would then disrobe and expose himself.[66]
On May 23, 2018, Dykstra was arrested after uttering terroristic threats and for possession of drugs. He allegedly held a gun to his Uber driver after the driver refused to change destinations.[67] On October 10, 2018 Dykstra was indicted by a New Jersey grand jury for cocaine and methamphetamine possession, and making terroristic threats
So with those things in mind, Dykstar to prevail and win damages must prove that he suffered an injury to his reputation or or which exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to a loss of the good will and confidence felt toward him/her by others. Dykstra has to prove that Darling's conduct was a substantial factor in causing him material, economic or financial losses. Evidence of embarrassment, mental suffering or physical sickness will not, without more, entitle to these damages. So again, what economic damages has Dykstra lost as a result of this book to an already tarnished reputation? Of course there can be emotional damages but ONLY if it was a result of what it did to his reputation.
Lastly, there is always a chance for punitive damages. Those are imposed by a jury as a deterrence-to punish the publisher and Darling for their conduct and to deter others from that conduct. But the mere act of (making) (publishing) the defamatory statement is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. The evidence must establish ill feeling, personal hostility or spite, or an actual desire to hurt Dykstra without belief or without any reasonable grounds to believe in the truth of the defamatory statements.
In conclusion, I doubt seriously that Dykstra will sue. It is my opinion that even if he does, he will not get a monetary reward.
https://nypost.com/…/ron-darlings-tel...
As a result, Dykstra says he will sue Darling and his publisher for defamation. As the above article sets forth, many of Dykstra's teammates denied having heard the slurs or that the incident ever happened. Dykstra has to prove that Darling knew the incident was falsely told or that he did so in reckless disregard for the probability that it was false.But what got me thinking is, even if Darlings statements are false, what kind of damages could Dykstra possibly get if he won. It's no secret that Dykstra has been convicted of grand theft auto, and filing a false financial statement. Dykstra was named in the Mitchell report(named after former Senator George Mitchell) as being named as a steroid user while playing baseball. Wikipedia lists many other incidents of misbehavior including a car crash with an alcohol reading of 0.179 in 1991, a 1999 arrest for sexual harrassment on a seventeen year old(later dropped), In March 2009, press reports alleged that Dykstra's businesses were facing financial ruin and that he had used offensive terms when speaking about blacks, women and homosexuals.
In September 2009, he was banned from both of his foreclosed multimillion-dollar properties in Lake Sherwood, from which security officers were instructed to deny him access. He was accused of vandalizing the properties and not maintaining homeowners' insurance on them, and the court assigned a trustee to manage them.
In December 2010, Dykstra was accused of hiring a female escort and then writing her a bad $1,000 check: adult-entertainment star and escort Monica Foster claimed he had hired her on December 13, 2010 and then wrote her a worthless check. Monica Foster later posted a copy of the check on her blog.
In January 2011, Dykstra was accused of sexual assault by his housekeeper, who alleged that he would force her to give him oral sex on Saturdays. The woman told investigators "she needed the job and the money, so she went along with the suspect's requests rather than lose her job," according to the filing, and "returned to work in the suspect's home with knowledge obtained from the Internet about a claim of sexual assault by another woman."
On April 14, 2011, Dykstra was arrested and charged with bankruptcy fraud. The Los Angeles Police Department Commercial Crimes Division also arrested Dykstra on separate grand theft charges related to the purchase of vehicles. He was held on $500,000 bail
On August 25, 2011, Dykstra was charged with indecent exposure. The Los Angeles City Attorney accused him of placing ads on Craigslist requesting a personal assistant or housekeeping services. The victims alleged that when they arrived, they were informed that the job also required massage service. Dykstra would then disrobe and expose himself.[66]
On May 23, 2018, Dykstra was arrested after uttering terroristic threats and for possession of drugs. He allegedly held a gun to his Uber driver after the driver refused to change destinations.[67] On October 10, 2018 Dykstra was indicted by a New Jersey grand jury for cocaine and methamphetamine possession, and making terroristic threats
So with those things in mind, Dykstar to prevail and win damages must prove that he suffered an injury to his reputation or or which exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to a loss of the good will and confidence felt toward him/her by others. Dykstra has to prove that Darling's conduct was a substantial factor in causing him material, economic or financial losses. Evidence of embarrassment, mental suffering or physical sickness will not, without more, entitle to these damages. So again, what economic damages has Dykstra lost as a result of this book to an already tarnished reputation? Of course there can be emotional damages but ONLY if it was a result of what it did to his reputation.
Lastly, there is always a chance for punitive damages. Those are imposed by a jury as a deterrence-to punish the publisher and Darling for their conduct and to deter others from that conduct. But the mere act of (making) (publishing) the defamatory statement is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. The evidence must establish ill feeling, personal hostility or spite, or an actual desire to hurt Dykstra without belief or without any reasonable grounds to believe in the truth of the defamatory statements.
In conclusion, I doubt seriously that Dykstra will sue. It is my opinion that even if he does, he will not get a monetary reward.
