Sroufe, Ed.D. v. Scripps Media, Inc., No. 3:2023cv00548 - Document 29 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 4/5/24. (mful, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sroufe, Ed.D. v. Scripps Media, Inc. IN Doc. 29 THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF COURT VIRGINIA Richmond Division WILLIAM D. SROUFE, Ed.D., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. V. SCRIPS MEDIA, 3:23cv548 INC., t/a WTVR and/or CBS6, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the MOTION TO DISMISS No. \\ 10) WTVR, // filed by the Scripps Media, Inc. ("Scripps, // or the "Defendant") , and the supporting, opposing and reply memoranda below, defendant (ECF (ECF Nos. 11, 15 and 16). the MOTION TO DISMISS For (ECF No. 10) the reasons set forth will be denied. BACKGROUND William D. Sroufe, the holder of a doctoral degree in education and formerly the Superintendent of the Colonial Heights Public Schools ("CHPS") filed this action alleging defamation against "Scripps t/a WTVR and/or CBS6. expressed in straightforward. the COMPLAINT In particular, (ECF No. 1) , on February 17, a news story about Sroufe's exit as // a claim of The facts, as are relatively 2023, WTVR aired the Superintendent of CHPS. The Complaint asserts that the story was materially false because Dockets.Justia.com it reported that Sroufe was "ousted" when, it (1) because: falsely implied that in fact, Sroufe he was not and had covered up complaints about improper conduct on the part of the softball coach at Colonial Heights High School which allowed the coach to escape criminal prosecution; and (2) the story falsely suggested that Sroufe was fired for covering up those complaints. It is also alleged that WTVR, Hipolit, that Sroufe had not been resigned from his position. Hipolit knew that: had so (!) "ousted" Moreover, but the sole source of the false narrative which enthusiastically attorney actually had not propagated, in asserted by Hipolit's impeached source to the COMPLAINT, investigative reporter who is {ECF No. story ^ The COMPLAINT 1, 11 26) alleges and fact, {2) had told the School only denied any cover up, that negated the also had provided Hipolit with evidence According had voluntarily according to the COMPLAINT, Hipolit a material falsehood about the story; Board's Melissa knew that the allegedly false statements were false and knew in fact Hipolit through its reporter, {ECF No. 1, Hipolit always bills on the but claims 1 2) .1 herself lookout as an for a great and Hipolit publishes her stories under that, although a number of news outlets covered Sroufe's parting company with the School Board, only WTVR made false claims that he had covered up the misconduct allegations against the high school's softball coach and only WTVR quoted the person as saying that Sroufe was responsible for the softball coach scandal and needed to be accountable. 2 (ECF No. 1, H 3) . Problem WTVR's Solvers Investigation" banner. In sum, the COMPLAINT casts Hipolit as a sensationalist who cared not at all that her source had been impeached and who disregarded evidence that refuted the narrative she wanted to pursue. Taken as a whole, the COMPLAINT thus alleges that Hipolit not only defamed Sroufe but did so knowingly and that she embellished the defamatory words with verbal and written comments laden with emotion, underscoring and symbols, all of which was calculated to exaggerate the significance of the story that Hipolit was touting without regard to whether what was being said was true or not. is also alleged that, It as part of her wrongful, defamatory conduct, Hipolit doctored video material by making an answer given by Sroufe to one question appear to be his response to an entirely different question. A review of the textual material and the recorded presentations given by Hipolit that are identified in the COMPLAINT teaches that a finder of the fact reasonably could conclude that the reporting about Sroufe was laced with text, tone, that presented from his job as a knowingly false Superintendent of The allegations of the COMPLAINT, picture of schools if proved, and innuendo Sroufe's in Colonial departure Heights. also would permit a reasonable inference that Hipolit knew that the key source for her stories blaming Sroufe for a cover up and saying that he had been 3 ousted from his job were just not true. In other words, factual allegations made in the COMPLAINT are proved, if the a reasonable jury could certainly find in Sroufe's favor. Finally, the COMPLAINT alleges that the defamatory statements substantially harmed Sroufe those statements resulted other job offers, {ECF No. in a 1, p. withdrawn 32). job In particular, offer, foreclosed destroyed his previously favorable reputation, and caused continuing reputational and emotional harm. In several support of its MOTION First, arguments. it TO DISMISS, contends that the the Defendant word "ousted" used in the reports is not defamatory as a matter of law. it argues that use of the word "ousted" makes Second, is the expression of an opinion and thus, as a matter of law, it is not actionable. Third, the Defendant argues that the challenged statements were true, substantially true, Finally, the and thus Defendant adequately pled. not argues actionable as that as actual a matter of malice has not or law. been Each of those arguments will be considered in turn. DISCUSSION The parties are in agreement respecting the applicable law. They therefore agree that to prevail on a defamation claim in Virginia, a plaintiff is obligated to prove information concerning the plaintiff 4 that a publication of false tends to defame the plaintiff's reputation. 320, 330 (4th elements: (3) (1) 2005) . 1095 (4th Cir. be actionable statement lower must him That publication of the requisite intent. 1087, to \\ Cir. Hatfill V. If 1993) . it must so tend in the concept (2) Chapin v. n New York Times Co.^ devolves an actionable malice because he Sullivan, be both is a public These 254, principles 279-80 guide Inc., false and defamatory; to harm the they agree 376 U.S. three with 993 F.2d They also agree that for a statement estimation of Finally, 1092. into F.3d statement Knight-Ridder, the reputation of community or persons from associating or dealing with him. at 416 that // that the another as to deter Chapin, to third 993 F.2d Sroufe must establish actual figure. New York Times See Co. v. arguments on (1964). the assessment of the which the Defendant bases its request for dismissal. 1. The Word The the February School during "Oust" Can Be Defamatory 17, 2023 board votes to oust emergency meeting. Hipolit Colonial embellished Heights Story that School Colonial (ECF No. the word "oust ft 1, declaration Board Superintendent Dr. William Sroufe. that trumpeted in bold Heights H by 100 The and Exhibit \\ votes Defendant takes C) . Breaking: to the is not susceptible of defaming anyone. 5 that superintendent adding: unanimously // letters oust view That view ignores the fundamental precept that, when assessing whether a word is susceptible to defamatory meaning. is given its ordinary and usual definition. it As the Supreme Court of Virgina long ago put that controlling principle: [I]t is a general rule that allegedly defamatory words are to be taken in their plain and natural meaning and to be understood by courts and juries as other people would understand them, and according to the sense in which they appear to have been used. Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 82 S.E.2d 588, 591-92 (Va. 1954) . As a transitive verb, of property or position by necessity. of compulsion oust means \\ legal u to remove from or dispossess action, by force, by the merriam-webster.com. Oust, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dietionary/oust. The same source lists as synonyms for the word oust the following: banish boot bounce cast chase dismiss drum extrude kick out out rout run turn Another ej ect eject (out) expel throw mean (out) out off out out source (dictionary.com) defines the verb oust" to to expel or remove from a place or position occupied or to or evict or dispossess. 6 // Oust, dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/oust. synonyms for the word dislodge, drive out, oust eject, the tt evict, topple, sack, remove, u Thesaurus.com words: fire, unseat. "depose, force out, ft lists as dethrone, let go, lose. thesaurus.com. Oust, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/oust. Quite clearly, the plain meaning of the word oust \\ negative and connotes an event that is other than voluntary. when "oust is tt that And, law permits a reasonable jury to find statement reasonably would be understood to be a report the forcible, of IS linked with a reported termination of employment, well-established Virginia that the tt termination of Sroufe's and against his will. its use in this case, employment Indeed, involuntary. was considering the context it might be difficult for a jury to reach any other conclusion. The Defendant argues otherwise by citing decisions that say that stating employment defamatory. or or «2 implying \\ terminated Those the COMPLAINT alleges for cause. Thus, the that someone for decisions has cause, simply been terminated without do considerably more not more, apply here than just limiting principle is from not because a termination ("without more") of the 2 Yoho V. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., No. 21-1071, 2022 WL 296637, at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2022) ; see also Estepp v. Johnson Cnty. (Ky. Newspapers, Inc., 578 S.W.3d 740 (Me. 1973). Brennan, 307 A.2d 833, 834 7 Ct. App. 2019); Picard v. decisions on which the Defendant relies operative in assessing the legal sufficiency of the COMPLAINT in this case. In particular, it not IS the COMPLAINT clearly alleges that the Defendant made clear that Sroufe's separation from his employment involuntary because he had engaged in misconduct was (covering up the very wrongful conduct of the softball coach) when, in fact, Sroufe left his employment voluntarily and was not engaged in the alleged cover meaning, word In other words, up. w and reading oust it in the reasonably tt The defamatory. giving could Defendant's "oust" sense be its plain in which found argument to to it be and natural was used, both the the false contrary and fails because it does not recognize the plain and natural meaning of the word used. "oust in tt the Therefore, sense it was the argument used and in the context it was simply does not pass muster under Virginia law. 2 . Oust as Opinion The Defendant next being ousted is the actionable Defendant relative the as the in nature abrupt that expression of a matter takes contends of view use and based on and unexpected Sroufe's of the term that argument, \\ ousted fully disclosed facts termination 8 firing as an opinion and therefore not In support of law. that calling of Sroufe's is the both regarding employment a year before COMPLAINT, his contract absolute and is not factual a relative in its Sroufe's allegations departure (as that Sroufe was having neither To the of the and in its contrary, common from the notion that been ousted) usage. the could it report have been That view ignores the pleaded construed by a reader as voluntary. facts the word. nature The relativity argument proceeds of From tt that argument quite clearly lacks merit. Oust certainly is expired. forced to resign nor to sign a Separation Agreement and that both decisions were made of Sroufe's own free will allegations argument cited is law and must the nor his be choice taken as and reasonable The true. naked argument a without of Defendant's of Those relativity supported by neither counsel reading compulsion. the COMPLAINT. And, as explained above, the relativity argument ignores the plain meaning of the word "oust" and The doctrine of an alleged sense in which it was "fully disclosed facts" defamatory lacking in merit. the That statement. used. operates to insulate argument The alleged false implication is likewise (that Sroufe was ousted or fired because he was involved in covering up allegations of misconduct against the disclosed facts themselves defamatory and the COMPLAINT. doctrine coach) is because not the protected disclosed false according to the Enigma Software Grp. USA, 9 by the fully facts allegations are of LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC, 194 F. Holdings, Supp. Inc., 3d 23 F. 263, Supp. 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2d 348, 377 2016); {S.D.N.Y. Jewell 1998). v. NYP Of equal importance here is that the facts were not fully disclosed because. according to the COMPLAINT, the Separation Agreement made known to the reader with the contested version of Nor story. was screen during the the Separation Agreement telling of the story. ever As a was never the reported displayed result, on the those who watched the sensational story that aired on February 17, 2023 would not have had access to the facts respecting the Separation Agreement and what it said pertaining to Sroufe's departure. Thus, the false and missing information (if proved to be false and preclude missing) application of the fully disclosed facts doctrine. 3. The Argument That The Stories Are Not "Of And Concerning // Sroufe For reasons Defendant asserts neither that explained nor readily apparent, the the alleged defamatory statements are not of and concerning Sroufe. That simply does not withstand scrutiny. One cannot read the in December, February 17 report, or the related reporting and fail to conclude that the reporter is saying that Sroufe covered up the charges against the softball coach and was fired because Sroufe. of it. By any measure, that is of and concerning Considering the allegations of the COMPLAINT and giving 10 them their reasonable inferences, defamatory statements and the reasonable jury could reliance those statements on Actual 4 . and considering the alleged context in which they were made, find that were the of Defendant's and about a defamatory Sroufe. Malice The COMPLAINT recognizes that it is plaintiff's obligation to plead and prove actual malice, Harte-Hanks defendant actually thought. Connaughton, News, 491 Inc., 925 U.S. 657, F.2d 703, a subjective measure of 666 715 n.7 Communications, (1989); (4th Cir. what Reuber v. Inc, Food the v. Chem. 1991). As the Supreme Court of the United States held in St. Amant V . Thompson, found that if there the truth U.S. is \\ Defendant of reckless 390 his 727, 731-32 sufficient in fact for evidence entertained actual to permit serious Publishing publication. disregard (1968), with malice the doubts truth or falsity and demonstrates that the entire story was based on a highly unreliable who was topic. known to have made materially false to the shows actual on notice source, statements on one the It is also alleged that, with that knowledge, the Defendant repeatedly alleged as The COMPLAINT alleges that the Defendant was malice. be conclusion doubts such can published cover up probable falsity. \\ the with statements the high Garrison v. of degree Louisiana, 11 that of source about awareness of 379 U.S. 64, 75 the their (1964). In that regard, news story, material (a) Hipolit: 1, only t 74) ; denied (b) the by the time of the February 17 knew that issue involving the (ECF No. not it is alleged that, Allen had lied investigation of (c) the her about a softball coach knew that Sroufe and the school system had cover up accusations objective factual basis for the denial, and to possessed a Virginia State but had provided an (ECF No. 1, HH 60, 79-80); Police interview report that cast doubt on the source's claims that she had previously reported specific misconduct complaints about the coach to the school system, (ECF No. 1, HH 65-66, 74-75). alleges (and provides documentary support for the allegations by Additionally, way of FOIA requests and third-party emails) the COMPLAINT that Hipolit had a preconceived narrative about Sroufe and his role that she intended to foster no matter Those allegations, element 3 The of what if the real proven, facts are were. sufficient (ECF No. to 1, H 38). establish the actual malice.^ Defendant asserts, as a defense to actual malice, that it published Sroufe's claims of innocence and his denials. Although, if proven, those asserted facts could be submitted to a jury as probative of the lack of actual malice. However, the allegation of those facts in a Motion to Dismiss is establish a lack of malice as a matter of law. 12 not sufficient to CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, filed by the defendant. will be denied. It is so the MOTION TO DISMISS Media Scripps, Inc. (ECF No. 10) t/a WTVR and/or CBS6 ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virg^ia Date: April p , 2024 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
