Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC
209 F.Supp.3d 862, 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2616, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129392 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who voluntarily assumes a role of special prominence in a public controversy and seeks to influence its outcome is a limited-purpose public figure who must prove actual malice in a defamation claim. Sufficient circumstantial evidence of a preconceived story, failure to investigate in the face of red flags, and disregard for contradictory information can create a triable issue of fact on actual malice.
Facts:
- Nicole Eramo was an Associate Dean of Students at the University of Virginia (UVA) whose duties included handling sexual assault complaints and supporting victims.
- Eramo was known on campus as the 'point person' for sexual misconduct reports and had previously given interviews to student media and local news channels about UVA's policies.
- Rolling Stone magazine commissioned and published an article by reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely titled 'A Rape on Campus,' which centered on a UVA student identified as 'Jackie' who alleged a gang-rape at a fraternity party.
- The article depicted Eramo's interactions with Jackie in a negative light, suggesting she was indifferent and discouraged Jackie from reporting the assault to protect the university's reputation.
- In her reporting, Erdely relied almost exclusively on Jackie's account, failing to contact the alleged assailants, key corroborating witnesses, or obtain documents Jackie claimed to possess.
- Prior to publication, several students who spoke with Erdely expressed concerns that her portrayal of Eramo was inaccurate.
- After the article's publication, investigations by police and other media outlets revealed that key elements of Jackie's story could not be substantiated and that there was no evidence the party where the alleged assault occurred ever took place.
- Rolling Stone eventually retracted the article after a Columbia Journalism Review report detailed its 'journalistic failure.'
Procedural Posture:
- Nicole Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, LLC, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and Wenner Media LLC in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, a state trial court.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, a federal trial court.
- After the discovery phase concluded, plaintiff Eramo filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a university administrator who is the designated 'point person' for sexual assault reports and has engaged with media on the topic, a limited-purpose public figure for a defamation claim arising from an article about the university's response to sexual assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Glen E. Conrad
Yes, a university administrator in such a role is a limited-purpose public figure. To determine if a plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, the court applies a five-factor test: (1) access to effective communication; (2) voluntary assumption of a prominent role in the public controversy; (3) seeking to influence the controversy's outcome; (4) the controversy's pre-existence; and (5) retention of public-figure status at the time of defamation. The court found Eramo met these criteria because the controversy over UVA's handling of sexual assault existed before the article, and Eramo, as the designated 'point person,' had voluntarily assumed a prominent role and used her media access to influence the discussion. Therefore, she must prove 'actual malice.' The court also held that Eramo presented sufficient cumulative circumstantial evidence—including Erdely's preconceived story-line, failure to investigate obvious red flags, and disregard for information that contradicted her narrative—to create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide whether the defendants acted with actual malice.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the application of the limited-purpose public figure doctrine to institutional officials who become the face of a public controversy. It establishes that a person's professional role and engagement with the media, even at a local level, can be sufficient to thrust them into public-figure status for defamation law purposes. Furthermore, the opinion provides a clear roadmap for how a plaintiff can overcome a summary judgment motion on actual malice by aggregating various pieces of circumstantial evidence. This reinforces the principle that while no single journalistic failure may prove actual malice, a pattern of reckless conduct and biased reporting can be legally sufficient for a jury to infer a reckless disregard for the truth.
