Isaly v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLP
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-09620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Isaly v. Boston Globe Media, Judge Swain denied Isaly’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his defamation claims for failure to state a claim.
Samuel D. Isaly’s defamation claims against Boston Globe Media Partners LLC.
What happened
In Isaly v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC, Samuel D. Isaly asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his second amended complaint. The earlier order dismissed his defamation claims for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Isaly argued that the court had overlooked the difference between the article’s description of him as “partially paralyzed” and his quadriplegia. He said that a correct understanding of his physical limitations would make the article’s allegations about sexually explicit emails, text messages, and calls implausible. The court disagreed, explaining that those allegations did not describe physical actions that his condition made impossible and that Isaly’s motion repeated arguments previously presented.
Judge Swain denied the motion in its entirety. She held that Isaly had not identified facts the court overlooked or shown that its earlier conclusion was clearly wrong. The court also stated that the second amended complaint did not identify the article’s descriptions of his paralysis as defamatory statements.
The detailed version
- Isaly v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLP · No. 1:18-cv-09620
- Laura Swain
- May 13, 2021
Background
Samuel D. Isaly moved for reconsideration of the court’s September 23, 2020 memorandum order. That earlier order dismissed his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The reconsideration motion challenged the dismissal of Isaly’s defamation claims against Boston Globe Media Partners LLC.
The challenged article described Isaly as “partially paralyzed” after an accident that “left him without the use of his legs.” Isaly argued that this description inaccurately portrayed his quadriplegia. He also argued that, if the court correctly understood the extent of his paralysis, it would see that the article’s allegations that he sent sexually explicit emails and text messages to female employees were physically impossible or sufficiently doubtful to support a finding that the reporter acted with gross irresponsibility.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a means to relitigate old issues or present arguments already made.
The court concluded that it had not overlooked Isaly’s quadriplegia or the physical limitations alleged in the second amended complaint. The earlier decision recognized that Isaly required assistance to operate a telephone, computer keyboard, and computer mouse. But the court had also determined that the allegations about sexually explicit emails, texts, and calls did not describe first-hand physical actions that quadriplegia would have made impossible.
The court further held that the complaint still did not plausibly show that Damien Garde, the article’s reporter, had a reason to doubt the accuracy of those allegations. Garde had been told about and had witnessed Isaly’s need for assistance with daily tasks, including eating and operating electronic equipment. Those facts did not establish that Garde acted with gross irresponsibility by publishing allegations about emails, texts, and calls, which did not themselves assert that Isaly performed a physical activity.
The court also noted that the second amended complaint did not identify the article’s statements that Isaly was “partially paralyzed” or had been left “without the use of his legs” as defamatory. Under New York law, a defamation complaint must set out the particular words claimed to be defamatory. The court therefore stated that the complaint could not support a defamation claim based on those descriptions.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Isaly’s motion to reconsider in its entirety. The order resolved docket entry number 76.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.