Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc.

Background

John P. “Jack” Flynn and Leslie A. Flynn sued Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN), asserting defamation and false-light claims based on a CNN report that allegedly portrayed them as QAnon followers. CNN moved to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended granting that motion. In the earlier round of this case, the court dismissed the defamation claim but held that the Flynns had plausibly alleged false light.

CNN then moved for reconsideration of that ruling and alternatively asked the court to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier order based on an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Certification of an interlocutory appeal requires, among other things, a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that immediate review would advance the end of the case.

False-Light Claim

CNN argued that the court had applied the wrong standard when it held that the Flynns plausibly alleged that CNN’s statement was false. The court disagreed. It explained that it had applied the substantial-truth standard: a statement is not materially false when its substance, gist, or sting is true.

The court also rejected CNN’s argument that the Flynns’ social-media activity established, as a matter of law, that they were QAnon followers. The court interpreted “QAnon follower” in the context of CNN’s report, where a reasonable viewer could understand the term to mean an adherent to the QAnon belief system, rather than someone who merely read, forwarded, or agreed with selected statements associated with QAnon.

The Flynns alleged that they did not share QAnon’s beliefs. Their tweets expressed support for principles such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and equal justice under the law, but did not state that they accepted all QAnon beliefs. The court further held that a retweet is not necessarily an endorsement of the original tweet or of the original author’s broader belief system. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court had to accept the Flynns’ allegations as true and could not weigh the evidence. It therefore denied reconsideration on the false-light issue.

CNN also raised, for the first time on reconsideration, an argument that the Flynns had to plead actual malice because the false-light claim concerned a matter of public concern. The court denied reconsideration on that ground because a party generally may not raise a new argument in a reconsideration motion that it failed to raise earlier.

Negligence and Defamation

CNN separately sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier conclusion that the Flynns plausibly alleged negligence for purposes of their defamation claim. The court said that this was a complex issue under Rhode Island law and that it had not needed to decide it earlier because the defamation claim had been dismissed on alternative grounds, including the failure to plausibly allege special damages or defamation per se.

The court declined to resolve the negligence issue and granted CNN’s motion for reconsideration in part. It voided the portion of the earlier ruling holding that the Flynns plausibly alleged negligence. The court stated that this did not affect the ultimate dismissal of the defamation claim.

Interlocutory Appeal

The court denied CNN’s request to certify an interlocutory appeal. It held that CNN had not shown the required substantial ground for disagreement about the legal standard. The court explained that merely asserting that the earlier decision was incorrect was not enough.

Disposition

The court’s order states that CNN’s motion for reconsideration was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court voided the earlier negligence finding, denied reconsideration of the ruling that the Flynns plausibly alleged false light, and denied CNN’s motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The clerk was directed to terminate CNN’s pending motion.