Bauer v. Baud

Background

Trevor Bauer sued Chris Baud and G/O Media, Inc., alleging one defamation claim under New York law. Baud had published a Deadspin article about a California petition for a temporary restraining order filed by a third party identified as L.H. The article discussed L.H.’s allegations, cited reporting by The Athletic, and addressed statements made on Bauer’s behalf by his representative.

Bauer challenged three statements: a statement that nothing in his reported actions or his lawyer’s statement showed an attempt to deny responsibility; a statement that readers did not need an investigation or trial to know that L.H. did not consent to having her face beaten and her skull fractured; and a statement that Bauer’s legal team’s defense was that only an initial computed tomography scan showed a fracture. Bauer alleged that the latter two statements were false because he did not fracture L.H.’s skull and no scan showed a fracture. The article was later modified to refer to head trauma and to state that a computed tomography scan found no acute fracture.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but it did not have to accept legal conclusions presented as facts. The court took judicial notice of the petition and certain articles because the complaint referred to, quoted, and relied on them.

Defamation Analysis

The court applied New York law. It explained that a defamation claim generally requires 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 special damages. Because Bauer was a public figure, he also had to allege actual malice—knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false.

The court did not reach the defendants’ additional arguments concerning harm, actual malice, or damages because it dismissed the claim on other grounds.

Substantial Truth

The court held that the Responsibility Statement was substantially true when read in the context of the entire article. It concluded that the article conveyed that Bauer did not deny the sexual encounters occurred, while maintaining that the physical conduct was requested and consensual. The court found this to be an accurate summary of the statement made on Bauer’s behalf.

The court treated the Fracture Statement and CT Scan Statement as a closer question. It found that no initial computed tomography scan showed a skull fracture and, for purposes of the motion, assumed that L.H. had not suffered a fracture. The statements were therefore technically inaccurate. But the court held that the inaccuracies were minor because the medical records described serious facial and head injuries and a doctor had initially observed symptoms associated with a possible skull fracture. The court concluded that the statements’ overall meaning, or “gist,” was substantially the same as the facts shown by the records. Accordingly, all three statements were nonactionable as defamation.

Fair-Reporting Privilege

The court separately held that the statements were protected by New York’s fair-reporting privilege. That privilege protects a substantially accurate report of a judicial proceeding. The court found that the article clearly presented the allegations as accusations arising from a court proceeding, quoted the allegations from The Athletic’s report, and linked to that report.

The court rejected Bauer’s argument that the privilege was unavailable because the defendants relied on The Athletic’s account rather than the petition itself. It explained that the privilege can apply when a reporter relies on an intermediary that reported on the proceeding. The court also held that the challenged statements were substantially accurate summaries of the petition and Bauer’s response. The difference between reporting a skull fracture and reporting serious head and facial trauma with symptoms of a possible fracture did not change the nature or effect of the accusations.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Crotty granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice because they were based on nonactionable statements. The court declined to decide the defendants’ remaining arguments and did not decide at that time whether the defendants were entitled to costs or attorney’s fees under New York law.