Isaly v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLP

Background

Samuel D. Isaly brought a defamation action against Boston Globe Media Partners LLC based on a December 5, 2017 article published on STAT, the defendant’s online news website covering health, medicine, and biotechnology. The article reported allegations from five former OrbiMed Advisors employees that Isaly had created a sexually hostile workplace, demeaned and verbally abused female employees, exposed employees to pornography and lewd jokes, and engaged in other misconduct.

Isaly alleged that the statements were false. He also alleged that his quadriplegia made it impossible or highly improbable for him to perform some of the physical actions described in the article, including operating electronic devices. He argued that the publisher and its reporter, Damian Garde, should have investigated those issues more thoroughly before publishing.

The article reported that Garde interviewed Isaly and included his repeated denials. It also included statements from OrbiMed partners who denied knowing about misconduct or described some allegations as normal workplace behavior. The article further reported that Garde relied on accounts from five former employees, reviewed contemporaneous emails that supported Delilah Burke’s account, and spoke with another person who confirmed that Burke had discussed some incidents over the years.

Legal standard

The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not have to accept conclusory assertions lacking factual support.

Under New York law, a defamation plaintiff must allege a defamatory written statement about the plaintiff, publication to a third party, fault, falsity, and either special damages or a statement actionable without proof of specific financial loss. Because the article involved a matter of legitimate public concern, Isaly had to allege facts supporting a finding that the publisher acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the information-gathering and publication practices ordinarily followed by responsible parties.

The court identified relevant considerations including whether sound journalistic practices and normal review procedures were followed, whether there was reason to doubt the sources requiring further inquiry, and whether the truth was easily accessible.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Isaly’s allegations did not plausibly show gross irresponsibility. It emphasized that the article relied on five former employees who purported to describe personal experiences, included Isaly’s denials, included comments from colleagues, and described corroboration of Burke’s account through emails and another person’s statements.

The court rejected Isaly’s argument that his physical condition made the reporting obviously unreliable. It explained that several challenged statements—such as statements that Isaly verbally abused employees or sexualized the workplace—did not require him to perform physical actions. The court also found that other allegations did not specifically assert that Isaly himself performed the physical tasks necessary to operate the relevant devices.

As to the allegation that Isaly handled breast implants like stress balls, the court found that the complaint and interview transcript acknowledged the implants, discussed Isaly’s ability to feel their texture, and showed him using his hands and arms to manipulate a fork while eating. The court therefore did not accept the complaint’s conclusory assertion that touching an implant in the described manner was impossible.

The court also rejected Isaly’s argument that general denials from some colleagues made reliance on the five former employees unreasonable. According to the court, those statements did not identify particular reasons to doubt the sources. The court noted that some interviewees acknowledged receiving complaints, acknowledged the presence of breast implants on Isaly’s desk, or made statements that did not categorically deny that the reported conduct occurred.

Finally, the court rejected Isaly’s argument that he should be allowed to proceed to discovery because information about the reporters’ state of mind was primarily in the defendant’s possession. The court stated that the rules require a plaintiff to plead enough facts showing entitlement to relief before discovery.

Disposition

The court granted Boston Globe Media Partners LLC’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.