Troy Taylor Sues ESPN for Defamation

[mthoopsfan]

"Former Stanford head coach Troy Taylor is suing ESPN and the writer of the article that led to his dismissal from the school for defamation, according to a lengthy article on Wednesday in the Sacramento Bee.Former Stanford head coach Troy Taylor is suing ESPN and the writer of the article that led to his dismissal from the school for defamation, according to a lengthy article on Wednesday in the Sacramento Bee.

Filed in the Northern District Court of California, Taylor has hired the Los Angeles-based litigation firm Cohen Williams, LLP, to argue not only that ESPN and writer Xuan Thai published false information about Taylor, but that it knowingly published false information with intent to damage Taylor's reputation.

"(ESPN) made, published, and repeated defamatory statements about Taylor, knowing full well that the statements were false, for the purpose of smearing Taylor's reputation and injuring him in profession," the lawsuit reads, according to the Bee.

Taylor argues that ESPN gave him only hours to respond to the claims within its March 19 article, which said Stanford had conducted multiple investigations into allegations that Taylor was a bully in the workplace, particularly in regard to women employees. Taylor was let go by Stanford on March 25."

Former Stanford head coach Troy Taylor suing ESPN for defamation

Former Stanford head coach Troy Taylor is suing ESPN and the writer of the article that led to his dismissal from the school for defamation, according to a lengthy article on Wedne

www.footballscoop.com

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Defamation has historically been hard to prove. As a public figure, Taylor would have to prove actual malice, ie that ESPN knowingly published false information, and the defense usually is that the writer was convinced of the truthfulness of their statements. However, it seems that some people in recent years have been successful with these types of lawsuits so is possible he might have a case but he's not likely to prevail in a trial. It's quite possible that ESPN just settles this case, not necessarily because they believe (or admit) they were wrong but just to avoid the nuisance factor. That seems to happen a lot.

Since Stanford paid out his contract, this is probably less to do with the money aspect than it is with clearing his name. Even if he is able to win, his future in coaching is murky after this type of a firing.

 

[Griz in Texas]

Defamation has historically been hard to prove. As a public figure, Taylor would have to prove actual malice, ie that ESPN knowingly published false information, and the defense usually is that the writer was convinced of the truthfulness of their statements. However, it seems that some people in recent years have been successful with these types of lawsuits so is possible he might have a case but he's not likely to prevail in a trial. It's quite possible that ESPN just settles this case, not necessarily because they believe (or admit) they were wrong but just to avoid the nuisance factor. That seems to happen a lot.

Since Stanford paid out his contract, this is probably less to do with the money aspect than it is with clearing his name. Even if he is able to win, his future in coaching is murky after this type of a firing.

Brings to mind, if you remember this back in the 80's or 90's, the Carol Burnett case against the National Enquirer and I think she had a claim or two she made against them before she won that one. You are so right, winning here is rare, but if you look far enough, there is an attorney out there that will take the case.
Fully agree, ESPN settles this because paying off will be less than the defense expenses.

 

[GrizTexas]

Defamation has historically been hard to prove. As a public figure, Taylor would have to prove actual malice, ie that ESPN knowingly published false information, and the defense usually is that the writer was convinced of the truthfulness of their statements. However, it seems that some people in recent years have been successful with these types of lawsuits so is possible he might have a case but he's not likely to prevail in a trial. It's quite possible that ESPN just settles this case, not necessarily because they believe (or admit) they were wrong but just to avoid the nuisance factor. That seems to happen a lot.

Since Stanford paid out his contract, this is probably less to do with the money aspect than it is with clearing his name. Even if he is able to win, his future in coaching is murky after this type of a firing.

Can't see ESPN rolling over and settling... horrible precedent to set and would certainly handcuff any future reporting. I'd hope out of journalistic integrity they checked everything before they ran the story!

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Can't see ESPN rolling over and settling... horrible precedent to set and would certainly handcuff any future reporting. I'd hope out of journalistic integrity they checked everything before they ran the story!

As Griz in Texas said, it often comes down to the dollars involved. If it costs more to defend a case than it would cost to settle it, usually they settle. (And I'm pretty sure "journalistic integrity" is an oxymoron these days.)

The reality is that no one except the parties directly involved know how true these allegations are, and once made they are hard to refute even when facetious. I guess I'm more curious about what Taylor's end goal is here. Even if they settle he won't get huge money, and it's not going to buy his job back nor clear his name. Maybe the satisfaction of getting a check from them would be enough. It's hard to say.

 

[GrizTexas]

As Griz in Texas said, it often comes down to the dollars involved. If it costs more to defend a case than it would cost to settle it, usually they settle. (And I'm pretty sure "journalistic integrity" is an oxymoron these days.)

The reality is that no one except the parties directly involved know how true these allegations are, and once made they are hard to refute even when facetious. I guess I'm more curious about what Taylor's end goal is here. Even if they settle he won't get huge money, and it's not going to buy his job back nor clear his name. Maybe the satisfaction of getting a check from them would be enough. It's hard to say.

While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard.

As far as dollars are concerned I've got to think they are more concerned about long term vs what the short term legal costs are... If in the long term this results in brand deterioration it will be well worth engaging in an active defense strategy and not rolling over because it's too much trouble.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard.

As far as dollars are concerned I've got to think they are more concerned about long term vs what the short term legal costs are... If in the long term this results in brand deterioration it will be well worth engaging in an active defense strategy and not rolling over because it's too much trouble.

I hear what you're saying and I completely agree in principle. First amendment rights notwithstanding, there are a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to predict what a large corporation such as ESPN will do.

 

[Ut-Grizfan]

I hear what you're saying and I completely agree in principle. First amendment rights notwithstanding, there are a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to predict what a large corporation such as ESPN will do.

Seems like he would try and get a settlement outcome as perspective wise it would "clear" his name and he could coach again. He is a great offensive coach, honestly win or lose I could see someone snagging him in a few years regardless after the heat has worn off a bit.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

journalistic integrity

That’s hilarious!

 

[Griz in Texas]

While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard.

As far as dollars are concerned I've got to think they are more concerned about long term vs what the short term legal costs are... If in the long term this results in brand deterioration it will be well worth engaging in an active defense strategy and not rolling over because it's too much trouble.

Seems like he would try and get a settlement outcome as perspective wise it would "clear" his name and he could coach again. He is a great offensive coach, honestly win or lose I could see someone snagging him in a few years regardless after the heat has worn off a bit.

I hear what you're saying and I completely agree in principle. First amendment rights notwithstanding, there are a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to predict what a large corporation such as ESPN will do.

It's not that simple though y'all. As Da Boyz Mom said in her first post, concise and to the point as she normally is, the fact that he is designated as a public figure is what complicates this. In that instance, a judge can agree that the story reaches a degree that would be a settlement to you. However, since he is a public figure, the burden falls on him to prove that it rose to a level that affected him and now we get into the reason he was let go. As a good attorney would, I hope he has been advised by his counsel, 'it's not what you know about the case, it's what I can prove.'
This is why I mentioned the Inquirer case because we have seen all those weekly rags at the checkout counter. Who's getting divorced this week? Who had an affair with an alien?
There is where journalism was made great!
This is a very deep topic though for this thread. What you feel should happen, you can research similar cases, some win, more lose, others reach a settlement.
I said I agree with the comments made in her fist post, ESPN will probably settle, it will save them money in the end but note this as well. The attorneys for Taylor want that too because they rake out their 38% (or whatever they agreed to in their agreement with him) off the top and add in some other fees and quickly move on to the next one case. Litigation in civil cases is nothing more than an assembly line.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Defendants sometimes settle to save on rising fees and costs of litigation, but that usually doesn't happen early on and sometimes doesn't happen at all. Some defendants will fight on principle and because they feel they are right, and want to make it tough on the plaintiff and his lawyers who also have rising costs as well as large investments of time. Some defendants are known and want to be known as being likely to defend hard and keep the case going. I don't know anything in particular about what is done or usually done in defamation cases like this. I would guess that ESPN would not want to settle easily on this one, unless they feel the plaintiff has a stronger case.

Contingency fee agreements are often set up so that the percentage for the lawyers is lower for settlements and higher for cases that go to trial. I haven't looked at the complaint, but I assume it's about how the story was told and what the plaintiff told them (and whether that was right) regarding what investigation and action Stanford was taking, as opposed to the underlying facts of what happened with the women. However, those underlying facts may be part of the case.

If he was paid out by Stanford as someone said, then it would seem his damages would have decreased. He's only 57. I saw this in Wiki: "He finished his collegiate career as Cal's all-time leading passer (8,126 yds.) and total offense leader (8,236 yds.), records that stood until they were broken by Jared Goff in 2015. His 51 career touchdown passes stood as a school record until surpassed by Pat Barnes in 1996." He was drafted in 4th round by the Jets.

 

[Griz in Texas]

Defendants sometimes settle to save on rising fees and costs of litigation, but that usually doesn't happen early on and sometimes doesn't happen at all. Some defendants will fight on principle and because they feel they are right, and want to make it tough on the plaintiff and his lawyers who also have rising costs as well as large investments of time. Some defendants are known and want to be known as being likely to defend hard and keep the case going. I don't know anything in particular about what is done or usually done in defamation cases like this. I would guess that ESPN would not want to settle easily on this one, unless they feel the plaintiff has a stronger case.

Contingency fee agreements are often set up so that the percentage for the lawyers is lower for settlements and higher for cases that go to trial. I haven't looked at the complaint, but I assume it's about how the story was told and what the plaintiff told them (and whether that was right) regarding what investigation and action Stanford was taking, as opposed to the underlying facts of what happened with the women. However, those underlying facts may be part of the case.

If he was paid out by Stanford as someone said, then it would seem his damages would have decreased. He's only 57. I saw this in Wiki: "He finished his collegiate career as Cal's all-time leading passer (8,126 yds.) and total offense leader (8,236 yds.), records that stood until they were broken by Jared Goff in 2015. His 51 career touchdown passes stood as a school record until surpassed by Pat Barnes in 1996." He was drafted in 4th round by the Jets.

Very true. Most of the time it goes through the discovery phase, at least up to depositions. They will want to see some of the cards in Taylor's hands before they fold theirs.
Interesting too, I just saw the post that Shannon Sharpe settled on his case he was so adamant about and will not return to ESPN.

 

[kemajic]

While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard.

I don't know why you would believe that. I have no respect for ESPN.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I don't know why you would believe that. I have no respect for ESPN.

They are no Fox News...amirite.

 

[GrizTexas]

I don't know why you would believe that. I have no respect for ESPN.

GrizTexas said:
"While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard."

Respect or personal feelings aside I base that primarily on their dominance in the space that includes general scope and influence.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

GrizTexas said:
"While I agree in the this world of unchecked podcasts the ultimate contradiction in terms might just be journalistic integrity however I've got to believe ESPN has or is held to a higher standard."

Respect or personal feelings aside I base that primarily on their dominance in the space that includes general scope and influence.

And no competition to keep them in check.

 

[mthoopsfan]

1. "ESPN covered his denial in an April 16 story entitled “Ex-Stanford coach Troy Taylor takes issue with investigation.” The lawsuit claims that in this story, ESPN “finally—and grudgingly—acknowledged key facts that contradicted their earlier reporting.” That claim centers around the following paragraph:

“While the investigation was initially launched in response to a single complainant who alleged gender bias and ‘a culture problem in football,’ the investigation ultimately included interviews with at least 20 Stanford athletic department staffers regarding four allegations against Taylor. Three of the allegations regarding belittling and inappropriate behavior toward multiple women were deemed to have merit. The investigator did find ‘insufficient evidence’ regarding the original complaint.”
2. "A lawyer for Taylor told the Sacramento Bee that ESPN “repeatedly made false statements about the investigatory findings to paint Troy as a misogynistic bully” and that they filed the suit so Taylor could return to coaching."

Ex-Stanford Coach Troy Taylor Sues ESPN for Defamation

Taylor, who was fired after a pair of 3–9 seasons, alleges that ESPN articles about his workplace conduct led to his firing this spring.

frontofficesports.com

3. "Troy Taylor has stated that he never saw the final reports of the Stanford investigations regarding his conduct. While he cooperated with the investigations and accepted their conclusions, he maintains that he was not provided with the written reports." AI.

 

[griz4life]

I'll wait to see if this goes to court or settles for an underwhelming amount.

 

[Copper Griz]

What is more amazing in this whole situation is Stanford hiring him in the first place. What an absolute blunder and so many other good coaches they could have selected from. A cautionary tale about hiring someone who had a hot streak, but could never really push the program to the next level.

 

[mthoopsfan]

What is more amazing in this whole situation is Stanford hiring him in the first place. What an absolute blunder and so many other good coaches they could have selected from. A cautionary tale about hiring someone who had a hot streak, but could never really push the program to the next level.

I agree and said so at the time. I follow Stanford a bit because I sent to law school there. He was a weak hire and then things got worse.