Honorable Paula Patrick v. The Daily Beast Co. and Laura Bradley
Plaintiff filed this amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting one count of False Light, arising from publication of an article, authored by Bradley and published on the website The Daily Beast.
Beyond the pleading, you have the following information:
Published News Reports (bullet points indicate statements made in the stories):
Daily Beast, October 9, 2021 (this is the story at issue and was attached to the Amended Complaint).
Q’Anon Linked Judge Rules in Unhinged War Over Philly Columbus Statute; After a lawyer threatened to tear down a plywood box covering the statute itself Judge Paula Patrick ruled that it must remain visible to the public.
• Paula Patrick is a state trial court judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and an unsuccessful candidate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
• During her unsuccessful Supreme Court bid, Judge Patrick participated in many campaign events. One event was a 40-minute video interview on Up Front in the Prophetic with QAnon supporter Prophetess Francine Fodsick. During the interview, Patrick was asked whether she was considering appearing at a Q-Anon-associated conference later that year; she said she had not ruled it out.
• QAnon supporters believe, without evidence, in many conspiracies. One is that Donald Trump was elected President to defeat a cabal of cannibalistic pedophiles working in the government.
• Judge Patrick’s name appeared on a list of speakers for the conference.
• Judge Patrick has denied that she ever planned to attend a QAnon-affiliated event and had no idea why she was listed as a speaker.
• In September 2021, Judge Patrick issued a decision in a lawsuit about efforts to take down a statue of Christopher Columbus in South Philadelphia. She ruled that the statute must remain up and visible, rejecting suggestions that it could be covered up by boards.
• This story cites reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC6 (a Philadelphia TV station), and CBS Philadelphia (same).
Philadelphia Inquirer, April 30, 2021
Judge Denies Link to Q’Anon
• Judge Paula A. Patrick denied any link to QAnon.
• Judge Patrick did not attend a scheduled conference associated with QAnon.
Substantive Legal Principles:
Graboff: False light imposes liability on a person who publishes material that is not true, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its falsity.
McCafferty: Actual malice focuses on the defendant’s attitude towards the truth, not towards the plaintiff. Actual malice does not mean the defendant acted with malice, ill will, or bad motive towards the plaintiff or with intent to harm the plaintiff. It means defendant did not care whether the published statements were true—the defendant knew they were false or was reckless as to whether they were false.
Tucker: Actual malice requires that defendant doubt the truth of his statements. Failure to investigate or confirm statements does not constitute actual malice, absent some indication a journalist subjectively doubted the veracity of the story. Reporters do not act with actual malice in relying on prior news reports, absent facts showing they subjectively doubted the truth of those prior reports.
Harte-Hankes: The press need not accept a person’s denials, however vehement; such denials are so commonplace in the world of charge and countercharge that they do not alert the conscientious reporter to the likelihood that his statements are false or in error.
Procedural Background:
• This is the third complaint Judge Patrick has filed. She filed in state court, then withdrew the complaint. She refiled in federal court and the court dismissed her original federal complaint.
You are counsel for Daily Beast and Bradley. You file a Joint Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint fails to sufficiently plead the element of actual malice. You attach copy of the April 30, 2021 Philadelphia Inquirer article and ask the court to consider the article as part of the motion to dismiss.
For defendants, argue in support of the motion, including why the court can consider the Inquirer article and the appropriate terms of any dismissal.
