Yeager v. Nat'l Pub. Radio
| Decision Date | 10 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-cv-00755 (RC) |
| Parties | WILLIAM YEAGER, II, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss and memorandum in support (“MTD Mem.”) collectively ECF No. 12. The court will grant the motion and dismiss the complaint with prejudice for the reasons discussed herein.
Plaintiff a resident of Cottonwood Falls, Kansas, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed the complaint in this matter on March 17, 2020. See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, at p. 1; see also Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2; Min. Ord. (Apr. 14, 2020) (granting IFP application). Plaintiff identifies as a “songwriter/musician, independent filmmaker, humanitarian[, ] and media activist.” Compl. ¶¶ 9, 194. He describes this matter as “a case concerning a serious Tort of Negligence against National Public Radio (NPR) and members of [] NPR's journalistic staff, management/corporate team, legal counsel and board of directors.” Id. ¶¶ 1, 56-62. He names as defendants: National Public Radio (“NPR”), Andrew Flanagan (NPR journalist), Jacob Ganz (NPR journalist), Elizabeth Jensen (NPR journalist and “Ombudsman”), Michael Oreskes (former NPR journalist and former “VP of News and Editorial”), David Sweeney (former NPR journalist and “former chief news editor”), Edith Chapin (NPR journalist and “Executive Editor/ Senior Manager”), Mark Memmott (NPR journalist and “Senior Editor of Standards and Ethics”), Carline Watson (NPR's “Executive Producer” of “All Things Considered”), Ashley Messenger (NPR attorney), Jonathan Hart (NPR attorney), Terri Minatra (NPR attorney), Gregory A. Lewis (NPR attorney), John Lansing (“CEO of NPR”), Paul Haaga (former “NPR Board Chairman"), and finally, Christopher Turpin (NPR's “Vice [P]resident of News”). Id. at p. 2; see also id. ¶¶ 27, 47, 50, 56, 82, 85-6, 105, 113, 117-18, 126, 131, 146, 149, 151-52, 162-63, 165, 167, 180, 183, 204.
At root, this case arises from an article, published by NPR on its own website on March 23, 2017, entitled: “The Most Expensive Record Never Sold, Discogs, Billy Yeager and the $18, 000 Hoax that Almost Was.” MTD Mem. at p. 2; see also Decl. of David J. Bodney, ECF No. 12-1, ¶ 2; MTD Ex. 1 (), ECF 12-2. Flanagan authored the article. See id; see also Compl. ¶ 47. On March 24, 2017, the article was then discussed as a topic on NPR's radioshow, “All Things Considered.” Compl. ¶ 19. Flanagan and Ganz both participated in the broadcast. See id. ¶ 162.
The article and broadcast covered the intended sale of plaintiff's copy of a 1989 vinyl record, "301 Jackson Street." Id. ¶ 11. The record was offered for sale in January 2017 on Discogs, an online marketplace for music collectors. Id. The transaction was going to set a record as Discogs's most expensive ever. Id. ¶¶ 11, 45. On March 22, 2017, Discogs sent a press release to NPR regarding the sale, but the following day, Discogs cancelled the sale because they believed it was fraudulent. Id. ¶¶ 12, 45, 128. Notwithstanding, plaintiff insists on the validity of the sale, noting that he has never been charged with any crime; he believes that Discogs was falsely influenced by NPR. See id. ¶¶ 16, 20, 25.
Plaintiff contends that both the article and the broadcast, which he purports was heard by millions, contained intentional, malicious, and biased “defamatory accusations and malicious falsehoods[, ]” that were never properly verified. See id. ¶¶ 14, 19, 22, 26, 45-6. He alleges that he was never “contacted and offered the opportunity to reply and defend himself against the attacks on his character and reputation.” Id. ¶ 19. NPR contends, to the contrary, that the article and its contents were well-researched and properly vetted. See MTD Mem. at pp. 1-2.
Plaintiff alleges that he was depicted as a corrupt and dishonest individual with a “hunger for fame, or infamy[, ]” who enjoyed “the chase of pulling the wool over people's eyes” and that the article claimed that he “repeatedly poured more of his creative energy into being a tricksterbooster than he has as an artist[, ]” due to a life "of purposeless obfuscation[.]” See Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27, 167, 182. In response to the article and broadcast, NPR listeners allegedly sent plaintiff messages that were “extremely offensive, insulting, [and] contemptuous[.]” Id. ¶¶ 24, 45.
Around June 2017, plaintiff contacted Messenger to request removal of the article and broadcast. He alleges that her response was unsympathetic and contained implicit admissions that NPR had failed to do its due diligence, and sometime thereafter, the article was removed from the website. See id. ¶¶ 28-31, 49, 178. Both parties agree that plaintiff declined to provide some of the information sought by Messenger during these exchanges. See id. ¶ 31; MTD Mem. at p. 3. Plaintiff states that, in addition to the article's removal, he wanted, and still wants, “a true apology, a public statement to the audience explaining what NPR had done wrong, a new article and broadcast telling the truth about his and his wife's work and mission and benefit concerts, and recompense for damages to his work and health.” Compl. ¶ 33. At the time, NPR offered plaintiff an opportunity to “write his own story[, ]” with the caveat that it reserved the right not to publish his statement if such publication would create liability for NPR. See id. ¶¶ 39-41; MTD Mem. at pp. 3-4. According to plaintiff, NPR eventually reposted to the article to its site, and it has since remained accessible to the public. See Compl. ¶¶ 128, 185.
Plaintiff alleges that all of these actions, namely, “[p]ublishing and broadcasting accusations of fact that had not been verified and for which there was no evidence[, ]” id. ¶ 124, and defendants' alleged continued failure to correct their actions and make proper amends, constitute professional negligence and malpractice, see id. ¶¶ 1, 21, 38, 43, 56-66, 78, 105, 118, 120, 128, 131, 144-7, 154-61, 167-68, 174, 182, 200, 202; see also Pl.'s Opposition (“Opp'n”), ECF No. 20, ¶¶ 68-70, 73, 91, 97 ().
He contends that “National Public Radio . . . and members of NPR's programming staff, corporate/legal teams and board of directors[] are expected, the same as any other professional in the United States of America, to exercise . . . reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.” Compl. ¶ 60. He advocates that defendants should be held to a higher standard of care because “as part of the 'public media' system in the USA, [they] not only have a bigger responsibility than other media outlets in the country to serve the public (by informing, educating, enlightening and enriching the public and helping inform civil discourse essential to American society), but they also have Duty of Care (a legal obligation that requires they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others) to all American citizens” because of NPR's receipt of federal funding. See id. ¶¶ 61, 67, 72, 119, 199; Opp'n ¶¶ 55, 97. He further alleges that the individual defendants are either directly or vicariously liable based on their knowing failures to follow NPR's own “Handbook” and “Codes of Rules, Standards and Ethics, ” as well as the standards set forth in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's “Mission Statement, ” and other standards espoused by the “American Society of News Editors, ” and the “Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi.” See id. ¶¶ 13, 17, 20, 24, 32, 39, 44, 62-5, 69, 73-6, 78, 90, 102, 113-14, 116-18, 124, 127-29, 131, 133-46, 149, 153-4, 161-66, 169, 180, 188-9, 196-200; Compl. Ex. A (NPR Handbook), ECF No. 1-1; see also Opp'n ¶¶ 16-19, 22, 25-7, 2937, 57, 74-88, 92.
As a result of the alleged reputational damage, plaintiff states that he suffers from severe depression and suicidal ideations, and other emotional and physical distress. See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 29, 52, 45, 54-5, 173, 207-09. He further alleges that he and his wife have suffered economic damages, for example, potential business partners in their charitable endeavors withdrew from scheduled events, see id. ¶ 37, 45, 173, 183. He demands unspecified compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages. Id. at 57.
On December 14, 2020, defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), on one or more of three total bases, specifically: (1) res judicata and collateral estoppel; (2) failure to comply with the statute of limitations, [1] and; (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See MTD Mem. at pp. 12-20. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 18, 2021, and on January 25, 2021, Defendants filed a reply (“Reply”), ECF No. 21, in response to the opposition. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply, ECF No. 26, with the intended surreply (“Surreply”) contained therein, ECF No. 26-1, and leave to file the surreply was granted by court order, ECF No. 28, the following day. Consequently, this matter is now fully briefed for the court's consideration.[2]
a. The “Kansas Case”
Plaintiff has filed other lawsuits against NPR, among other defendants regarding the same circumstances raised...
To continue reading
Request your trial