Kinsey, Jr. v. The New York Times Company

Background

Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr. brought a defamation action against The New York Times Company based on a March 31, 2018 article about allegations of favoritism, gender bias, and unwanted groping in the Justice Department’s Capital Case Section. The article reported that colleagues watched Kinsey grope Alyssa tenBroek during a May 24, 2017 work-sanctioned gathering and quoted a declaration by Luke Woolman stating that Kinsey appeared to take “very clearly” unwelcome physical, sexual liberties with tenBroek.

Kinsey alleged that the defamatory falsehood was the statement that the physical contact was “unwelcome.” He acknowledged that the Woolman Declaration had been filed in a civil case in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and that the article quoted the declaration’s language. He argued that the article did not make sufficiently clear that the declaration was filed in a judicial proceeding or explain its significance in that proceeding.

The New York Times moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

Choice of Law

The court found an actual conflict between New York and District of Columbia law concerning the fair-report protection. New York treats the protection as absolute, meaning it is not defeated by malice or bad faith, while the District of Columbia treats it as qualified and potentially defeated by malice.

Applying New York’s choice-of-law rules, the court concluded that New York had the most significant interest in the dispute. The court considered that Kinsey was domiciled in Maryland, The New York Times Company was domiciled in New York, the article emanated from New York, the reported events occurred in the District of Columbia, and the action was filed in New York. The court also gave weight to New York’s interest in establishing standards for news media located there. It therefore applied New York defamation law.

Fair-Report Doctrine

New York Civil Rights Law Section 74 provides immunity from a civil action for publishing a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. A report is fair and true when it is substantially accurate and does not give readers a meaning different from the precise truth, despite minor inaccuracies. The court explained that the article must be read as a whole and from the perspective of an average reader.

The court determined that the article introduced the earlier lawsuit, explained that several people had filed declarations in support of the lawsuit, and then quoted the Woolman Declaration. The quotation was verbatim, appeared in quotation marks, and identified Woolman as the author of a declaration. The online article also displayed a screenshot of part of the declaration and identified it as such.

The court rejected Kinsey’s argument that the article failed to identify the judicial proceeding adequately. It held that an average reader would understand the challenged statement to refer to the Woolman Declaration filed in the earlier lawsuit against the Justice Department. Because Kinsey did not otherwise dispute that the article accurately quoted the declaration, the court found the statement to be a fair and accurate report protected by Section 74.

Disposition

The court held that the challenged statement received absolute immunity under New York’s fair-report rule, which defeated Kinsey’s defamation claim. Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted The New York Times Company’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Document 12 and close the case.