Nothstein v. USA Cycling
| Decision Date | 05 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1631 |
| Citation | 499 F.Supp.3d 101 |
| Parties | Martin W. NOTHSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. USA CYCLING, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
David P. Heim, Kiersty DeGroote, Bochetto & Lentz PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Sara Anderson Frey, Alexander Nemiroff, Gordon & Rees LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
SMITH, Judge The plaintiff, an Olympic cyclist and local politician, brings defamation, invasion of privacy—false light, and invasion of privacy—intrusion upon seclusion claims against the defendant, the national governing body of cycling in the United States. In 2018, the defendant learned of sexual assault allegations involving the plaintiff. The defendant reported these allegations to the United States Center for SafeSport—a congressionally-established entity tasked with investigating allegations of sexual abuse in Olympic and Paralympic sports. After reporting these allegations to the Center, the defendant disclosed information about the plaintiff, which the plaintiff contends renders the defendant liable in this action. First, the defendant suspended the plaintiff's cycling license, which placed him on a list of suspended riders that was available to some members of the cycling community. Second, the defendant gave a local newspaper a succinct statement confirming that there was an ongoing investigation into sexual misconduct allegations involving the plaintiff.
The defendant has now moved for summary judgment on all the plaintiff's claims. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the complaint, the court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In regard to placing the plaintiff on the list of suspended riders, the court concludes that the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017 ("SSAA"), 36 U.S.C. § 220541, limits the defendant's liability and renders the defendant immune to liability for placing the plaintiff on the list of suspended riders. In regard to making statements to the newspaper, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated there is any genuine issue of material fact that could render the defendant liable for defamation, invasion of privacy—false light, or invasion of privacy—intrusion upon seclusion.
The plaintiff, Martin W. Nothstein, filed a complaint against the defendant, USA Cycling, Inc. ("USAC"), on March 28, 2019, in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. Notice of Removal, Ex. B at 12–28, Doc. No. 1. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he "is the most highly decorated track cycling athlete the United States has ever produced, winning a Silver Medal at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, a Gold Medal at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, and three separate World Championships. Compl. at ¶ 4. He is a Lehigh Valley native, who "has also enjoyed and maintained an impeccable reputation of the highest caliber in the Lehigh Valley and its environs." Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7.
While serving as Chairman of the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners, he "declared his candidacy for the newly formed Seventh Congressional District" on October 19, 2017. Id. at ¶ 10. Approximately 11 days after this declaration, "an ‘anonymous tipster’ contacted [USAC] and apparently accused [the plaintiff] of engaging in sexual misconduct eighteen (18) years ago, in or about 2000 during the Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia." Id. at ¶ 11. The plaintiff asserts that this report was suspicious because (1) it "surfaced over 18 years after the fact and a few days after [he] declared his candidacy for a hotly contested U.S. Congressional seat," and (2) "the report was not made by the victim of the alleged misconduct, but rather came from a third-party who apparently refused to reveal his or her identity." Id. at ¶¶ 14–16. This anonymous report was eventually revealed to be a "total fabrication" because the alleged victim, upon learning of the accusations, submitted an affidavit denying that the plaintiff ever committed the acts alleged by the anonymous reporter. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18.
The plaintiff acknowledges that USAC was obliged to turn over the report of alleged sexual misconduct to the United States Center for SafeSport (the "Center"), which is "a federal entity created by Congress to field and investigate any reports of sexual misconduct levied against any member or affiliate of an Olympic national governing body." Id. at ¶ 19. While the Center was conducting its investigation, the plaintiff claims that USAC defamed him "by leaking information about the report and investigation to the media and falsely reporting on its website that [he] had been suspended for ‘disciplinary’ reasons." Id. at ¶ 20. He also alleges that USAC should have kept the anonymous report confidential as required by the International Olympic Committee's "Framework For Safeguarding Athletes and Other Participants from Harassment and Abuse in Sport."1 Id. at ¶¶ 21–22. In addition, he avers that USAC violated the privacy provisions of the "SafeSport Practices and Procedures for U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement." Id. at ¶ 23.
Based on the aforementioned allegations, the plaintiff asserts three causes of action against USAC: (1) defamation, (2) invasion of privacy—false light, and (3) invasion of privacy—intrusion upon seclusion. Id. at 7, 10–11. On April 15, 2019, USAC removed the case from the Court of Common Pleas to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1446. Notice of Removal at ¶¶ 6, 16.
After removing the case, USAC filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on April 22, 2019. Doc. No. 2. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion on May 16, 2019. Doc. No. 5. USAC filed a reply to the response to the motion on May 31, 2019. Doc. No. 8. The court held oral argument on the motion on June 4, 2019. Doc. No. 10. On the same date, the court denied the motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 11.
The discovery process was particularly robust in this case. The court referred all discovery disputes to United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley as discovery master. Doc. Nos. 42, 69, 79. The most contentious discovery disputes between the parties centered around whether the plaintiff could have access to unredacted documents that bore the names of alleged reporters and victims of sexual abuse and around whether USAC could claw back one of the names it had inadvertently disclosed to the plaintiff during a deposition. See Doc. Nos. 63, 66, 75, 77, 81; see also Oct. 19, 2020 Mem. Op., Doc. No. 98. This dispute resulted in the plaintiff filing a motion to compel, which USAC opposed. See Doc. Nos. 63, 75.
On June 5, 2020, Judge Heffley issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion to compel the production of the unredacted documents and finding USAC properly clawed back the inadvertently disclosed name, and, therefore, the plaintiff could not reference the name in this litigation. Doc. No. 82. The plaintiff objected to these portions of Judge Heffley's decision on June 19, 2020. Doc. No. 85. USAC responded in opposition to these objections on July 6, 2020. Doc. No. 91. The plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of the objections on July 31, 2020. Doc. No. 95. The court heard oral argument on the objections on August 4, 2020. Doc. No. 96. On October 7, 2020, the court upheld Judge Heffley's decision that USAC need not turn over the unredacted documents, but determined that USAC's claw back was improper. See Mem. Op. at 30; Order at 2, Doc. No. 99.
The parties litigated the instant motion for summary judgment in the midst of this lengthy discovery dispute. USAC filed the motion for summary judgment on April 13, 2020. Doc. No. 51. The Center filed a motion to file an amicus brief on April 17, 2020. Doc. No. 55. The court granted the motion, Doc. No. 56, and the Center submitted an amicus brief to the court on April 20, 2020. Doc. No. 57. After receiving an extension, the plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on May 11, 2020. Doc. Nos. 58, 61. The defendant filed a reply brief in support of the motion for summary judgment on May 18, 2020. Doc. No. 67. The court held oral argument on the motion for summary judgment with counsel for the parties and counsel for the Center on June 22, 2020. The motion is ripe for disposition.
The uncontested facts are as follows. The plaintiff is a well-known celebrity, public figure, public official, and decorated two-time Olympic track cycling athlete. Def. USA Cycling's Statement of Facts Not in Dispute ("Def.’s Facts") at ¶¶ 1–2, Doc. No. 51-1; Pl. Martin W. Nothstein's Resp. to Def. USA Cycling's Statement of Facts Not in Dispute and Counter-Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ("Pl.’s Resp.") at ¶¶ 1–2, Doc. No. 61.2 After he retired from racing, the plaintiff began working for the Valley Preferred Cycling Center, formerly known as the Lehigh Valley Velodrome ("Velodrome"), and eventually rose through the ranks to become the Executive Director of the Velodrome. Def.’s Facts at ¶ 3; Pl.’s Resp. at ¶ 3.
The plaintiff ventured beyond the cycling track and into the political arena when he won a seat on the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners 2015 and was named Chairman of the Board in 2017. Def.’s Facts at ¶¶ 5–6; Pl.’s Resp. at ¶¶ 5–6. On October 19, 2017, the plaintiff declared his candidacy for the United States House of Representatives, seeking to represent the newly formed Seventh Congressional District of Pennsylvania and to fill a seat previously held by long-time Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. Def.’s Facts at ¶ 7; Pl.’s Resp. at ¶ 7; Pl.’s Counter-Statement of Material Facts ("Pl.’s Counter-Statement") at ¶ 6;3 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Counter-Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ("Def.’s Resp.") at ¶ 6, Doc. No. 67-1. The election was hotly contested. Pl.’s Counter-Statement at ¶ 6; Def.’s Resp. at ¶ 6. Although the plaintiff won the primary election, he lost the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Newchops Rest. Comcast LLC v. Admiral Indem. Co.
- Boscov's Dep't Store, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co.
- Moody v. Hartford Fin. Grp., Inc.
- Mareik Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.