Article in Judges’ Journal is opinion, not actionable under defamation or false advertising law

Board of Forensic Document Document Examiners, Inc. v. American
Bar Ass’n, No. 17 C 01130, 2018 WL 1014510 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2018)
The Board of Forensic Document Examiners, and seven of its
members, alleged defamation by an article appearing in The Judges’ Journal,
published by the ABA. Members of the Judicial Division of the ABA receive a
complimentary subscription to the Journal. In August 2015, a special issue titled
Forensic Sciences – Judges as Gatekeepers focused on various subjects of
forensic science that judges might encounter when qualifying experts. One
article, Forensic Handwriting Comparison Examination in the Courtroom, was
written by defendant Thomas Vastrick, who is a forensic document examiner
certified by a different board, namely, defendant American Board of Forensic
Document Examiners. Vastrick also sits on the board of the American Board and
is one of its past presidents. The court commented that he really should have
disclosed that affiliation, but still there was no viable cause of action.
The plaintiffs challenged four statements as
defamatory/false light invasion of privacy/false advertising under state and
federal law:
An appropriately trained forensic
document examiner will have completed a full-time, in-residence training
program lasting a minimum of 24 months per the professional published standard
for training. Judges need to be vigilant of this issue. There are large numbers
of practitioners who do not meet the training standard.
The American Board of Forensic
Document Examiners … is the only certification board recognized by the broader
forensic science community, law enforcement, and courts for maintaining
principles and training requirements concurrent with the published training
standards. Be wary of other certifying bodies.
In a section captioned, “What to
look out for,” the statements, “Certified by board other than the American
Board of Forensic Document Examiners” and “Member of American Academy of
Forensic Sciences but not the Questioned Document Section.”
Plaintiffs challenged these statements as false based on the
required training standards for certification, their specific backgrounds, and
the courts’ previous acceptance of practitioners certified by the Board. The
author and editor allegedly knew that the statements in the article were false,
because both knew that the Board and the American Board were each certified by
the same accrediting entity, and that the Board abided by published training
standards for certification.
Defamation: An actionable statement must sufficiently
identify the person who is being criticized to a “reasonable individual”
reading the statement. If “extrinsic facts and circumstances” are needed to
show that a statement refers to a particular plaintiff, it’s not defamation per
se. The challenged statements didn’t identify any particular person by name,
let alone any of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued that this was group defamation:
a statement can identify the persons in the group if the group is “sufficiently
small and the words may reasonably be understood to have personal reference and
application to any member of the group.” Plaintiffs’ group was around 12
diplomates certified by the Board.  But
that wasn’t enough, because the first challenged statement could reasonably be
interpreted to refer to any forensic document practitioner who has not
completed the specified training program—not just the twelve examiners
certified by the Board. It even says, “There are large numbers of practitioners
who do not meet the training standard.”
So too with the second and third statements, which promoted
the American Board without explicitly naming the Board.  Plaintiff Sulner claimed that he was the
specific target of the fourth statement, “look out for” someone who is a “Member
of American Academy of Forensic Sciences but not the Questioned Documents
Section.” Sulner alleged that he was the only certified forensic document
examiner “known to be” a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
but not a member of the Questioned Documents Section (because members can only
be in one section and as an attorney he was in the Jurisprudence section). But anyone who is a member of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences but not the Questioned Documents Section fit into
the statement.  Also, Sulner didn’t
allege that a reasonable reader somehow has access to all the relevant
information and thus would interpret the statement to target him. “Even if some
extraordinarily enterprising reader of The Judges’ Journal pieced all of that
together, where a ‘speaker is meticulous enough to preserve the anonymity of an
individual … the speaker should not be exposed to liability for defamation
because someone ferrets out the identity of the individual.’”
Separately, the statements constituted non-actionable
opinion.  The court first framed the
overall context: it’s a “scholarly” journal, setting the stage for the article
to be received as opinion, “because reasonable readers (especially judges) know
that scholarly journals often present one side or the other in opinionated
debates.” And the relevant article explicitly presented itself as offering
suggestions for judges to consider in evaluating the expertise of document
examiners. The intro for “What to look for” and “What to look out for” “employs
the language of opinion, not hard facts”: “While judges are responsible for
being court gatekeepers, I, as a practicing forensic document examiner, would
like to respectfully suggest ways to differentiate between the true
professional and the lesser-qualified practitioners.” The entire section of the
article was called, “Gatekeeping Tips from a Practitioner,” indicating that
this is the author’s viewpoint.  
The individual statements also used the language of opinion,
such as “appropriately trained
forensic document examiner” (emphasis added), and “recognized by the broader
forensic science community, law enforcement, and courts ….”  There was no way to verify the American
Board’s “recognition” in the community, and the sweeping breadth of the
statement made it even less fact-like/verifiable.  The third and fourth statements were part of
the section “What to look out for,” which already spoke in the language of an
opinion. And the intro sentence says that the author “suggests” that judges
look for certain things to distinguish between a “true” professional and “lesser”-qualified
practitioners. “Suggests,” “true,” and “lesser” “all signify that Vastrick is expressing
his opinions in offering the lists.”
Without a factual statement, the false light and state-law
false advertising claims also failed, as did the Lanham Act claim–without even needing to address the question of whether the article constituted “commercial advertising or promotion.”

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s