Plaintiff Arlene Delgado is a lawyer and former senior advisor to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential marketing campaign. Plaintiff filed this motion on March 1, 2024 alleging that Defendant Chael Sonnen, a retired blended martial arts fighter who beforehand competed within the Final Preventing Championship (“UFC”), defamed her whereas he was a visitor on a podcast referred to as Flagrant…. Plaintiff alleges that in Flagrant‘s March 7, 2023 podcast episode, Defendant Sonnen made false and defamatory remarks concerning Plaintiff’s academic background and employment, and falsely claimed she “stalked” Sonnen such that she was banned from UFC venues. Under are Sonnen’s statements in full context:
A President of the US, of their absolute interior circle, had a phony, and I knew the phony. And I knew the phony as a result of the phony had come after me and it bought all the way in which to the chief authorized officer of the Final Preventing Championship that needed to put a discover at each venue that we went to, to ban this one who was stalking me, and that individual was on the interior circle of a President [elect] of the US. So I’ve to succeed in to the president, of which I do not know, to allow them to know that this human being just isn’t who they’re claiming they’re, they usually’re on the point of set you up. To not point out, you are going to appear to be a idiot when it comes out that this individual just isn’t named, doesn’t have the title, and didn’t go to the varsity that you just’re operating round Hannity and Colmes and telling them that they’re. And I did. I bought it to the president who eliminated this individual ….
Delgado sued, and the court docket concluded that a few of her claims might survive defendants’ movement to dismiss:
First, Sonnen repeats his argument that the character and tone of the Flagrant podcast makes clear that affordable listeners wouldn’t have taken his statements to be factual. Specifically, he reiterates that the tone of the podcast is comedic, jocular, crammed with emotionally charged language, and to not be taken severely. However the R&R appropriately concluded that the podcast episode at subject contained a mixture of overtly severe and hyperbolic commentary. Furthermore, the R&R additionally appropriately famous that Sonnen delivered the alleged defamatory statements in an “unremarkable tone,” prefaced the statements with hesitation, and that referred to himself as a “scumbag.” This is able to recommend, to an affordable listener, that what Sonnen was about to say was meant to be stored confidential, not that it was false.
Second, Sonnen objects to the R&R’s discovering of precise malice, arguing that the Amended Grievance has not met the “excessive customary” required. However the R&R appropriately discovered, and the Court docket adopts the conclusion, that the Amended Grievance plausibly alleges Sonnen knew of the falsity of those statements, given (1) Plaintiff confirmed she went to Harvard the primary time they conversed; (2) Sonnen referred to her as “Harvard” all through their friendship; and (3) Sonnen and Plaintiff had an amicable relationship for a not insignificant time period.
Sonnen subsequent objects to the R&R’s denial of the movement to dismiss by arguing the alleged statements don’t represent defamation per se. Right here, once more, the Court docket finds the R&R to be properly grounded in reality in legislation, as a result of an announcement {that a} lawyer didn’t truly go to legislation college or obtain their diploma will surely injure their skilled repute. Equally, assertions that somebody is a “stalker” (i.e., that they dedicated against the law) additionally qualifies for per se defamation.
Nonetheless, Sonnen tries to object that Plaintiff suffered no particular damages as a result of “[w]right here somebody attends college just isn’t related to their capacity to interact in a profess[ion] or commerce” and that “[t]listed below are numerous individuals on this [c]ountry that didn’t attend Harvard.” This argument can solely be characterised as unserious: in fact, the hurt to Plaintiff lies not in a misstatement of the caliber of the varsity she attended, however the implication that she lied about having gone to Harvard, or any legislation college, in any respect. In different phrases, the injury lies within the suggestion that Plaintiff purportedly misrepresented her expertise and credentials, which might lead an affordable individual to see her as a fraud or as not credible….
The Court docket finds that Podcast Defendants’ [objections] lack advantage for related causes. Podcast Defendants first object to the R&R’s conclusion that “phony,” as used within the context and along side Plaintiff’s figuring out info, qualifies as defamatory. In response to Podcast Defendants, “phony” is an announcement of opinion, not provable reality, and doesn’t develop into provable “merely as a result of that opinion was said alongside allegedly factual statements about Delgado’s identify or tutorial credentials.” The Court docket disagrees …. [A] affordable listener would have understood Sonnen to be claiming Plaintiff is a “phony” with respect to the particular information talked about: her credentials and schooling….
The Court docket rejects Podcast Defendants’ remaining objections concerning precise malice and whether or not “stalking” may be defamatory. Concerning the previous objection, … [there were] enough factual allegations giving rise to the requisite inference, resembling the choice to censor the identify Sonnen used, and a failure to analyze the statements regardless of what Podcast Defendants insist was clear skepticism and non-belief by the podcast contributors. And as to the latter, … within the context of Sonnen’s full assertion, which included the assertion that Plaintiff had been banned from coming into UFC venues, it might point out to an affordable listener she had in reality been stalking Sonnen….
[T]he Court docket agrees with Plaintiff that Sonnen’s assertion she was banned from the UFC could possibly be thought-about defamatory in context. The R&R appropriately concluded that the time period “phony” “alone is probably not libel per se, [but] within the context of this case it’s appropriately grouped with the opposite statements” that Plaintiff “was not utilizing her actual identify, didn’t have a legislation diploma, and didn’t graduate as claimed from Harvard Regulation.” … [And] simply as “phony” could possibly be deemed as defamatory in its context, so can also the assertion that Plaintiff was banned from UFC venues. Sonnen said, in related half, “I knew the phony as a result of the phony had come after me and it bought all the way in which to the chief authorized officer of the Final Preventing Championship that needed to put a discover at each venue that we went to, to ban this one who was stalking me ….” Right here, in context, an affordable listener might imagine Plaintiff had been banned from UFC venues due to the alleged stalking, and a person being “banned” for committing what the R&R appropriately acknowledged as a severe crime can suffice to determine libel per se….
The court docket additionally concludes that plaintiff was a restricted function public determine, due to “her work on the 2016 Trump marketing campaign, frequent media and primetime appearances, and public travels with Donald Trump.” That will likely be related at later phases within the proceedings.
