From Friday’s decision by Judge Raymond Patricco (D. Idaho) in Scofield v. Guillard:
This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She alleges that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted numerous TikTok (and later YouTube) videos falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light….
Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s involvement with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.
On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment …. On the issue of liability for Plaintiff’s two defamation claims against Defendant, the Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact relating to the falsity of Defendant’s statements about her. Id. (after citing evidence, stating: “This is powerful evidence at the summary judgment stage. It not only substantiates Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s statements about her are false, it also highlights the complete lack of any corroborating support for Defendant’s statements.”).
Under Rule 56, this shifted the burden to Defendant to dispute that claim by setting forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial relating to whether her statements about Plaintiff are true. In relying only on her spiritual investigation into the murders, however, the Court concluded that Defendant did not satisfy her burden. Id. (“As a result, Defendant’s psychic intuition, without more, cannot establish a genuine dispute of material fact to oppose Plaintiff’s summary judgment efforts.”). The Court therefore concluded that “the totality of the evidence reveals that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant defamed Plaintiff.”
Also on June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Punitive Damages. In permitting a claim for punitive damages, the Court concluded that Plaintiff “established a reasonable likelihood of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant’s conduct in accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before ordering that student’s and three other students’ murders was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, and/or outrageous.” The extent of Plaintiff’s damages, if any, remains an issue for trial.
Defendant moved to reconsider, but the court said no:
Defendant claims that newly discovered evidence (in the form of filings in a related state court criminal proceeding) “provides factual support that substantiates the Tik-Tok videos [Defendant] posted regarding the murder of the four University of Idaho students ….” Defendant maintains that she cannot be found liable for defamation because this newly discovered evidence proves that she was telling the truth in these Tik-Tok videos, or otherwise highlights outstanding issues of material fact that precludes summary judgment…..
Defendant argues that newly discovered evidence—revealed in a parallel criminal proceeding in state court—tracks statements made in her earlier Tik Tok videos about various circumstances surrounding the murders. For example, Defendant claims that newly discovered evidence confirms her statements about (i) how the surviving roommates were afraid the night of the murders; (ii) a dog being in the house at the time of the murders; (iii) a break-up involving one of the victims and her boyfriend; (iv) the four victims being located in two different rooms; and (v) the imminence of an arrest. From this, Defendant contends that the perceived synergy between her psychic intuition and the newly discovered evidence not only validates her separate statements about Plaintiff’s role in the murders and relationship with one of the victims, but also highlights how her theories about the murders have never been proven false, and therefore her absolute defense of truth against Plaintiff’s defamation claims remains plausible….
[But] the evidence does not change the disposition of the case. Absolutely nothing about this evidence suggests that Defendants’ statements about Plaintiff are true. That certain of Defendant’s psychic insights may have randomly coincided with banal aspects of notorious and well-publicized murders is hardly surprising. But this happenstance alone does not legitimize Defendant’s perceived clairvoyance, nor can it bridge the gap between Defendant’s intuition and the truth—a crucial aspect of Plaintiff’s defamation claims against Defendant. Ultimately, the cited evidence is wholly unrelated to Plaintiff; if anything, it underscores that there continues to be no evidence that Plaintiff had an affair with a student or orchestrated the murders to keep that affair secret.
Defendant’s insistence about how her theories surrounding the murders have never been proven false is likewise unavailing. She claims that evidence pertaining to three sets of DNA under M.M.’s fingernails, the victims’ defensive wounds, and blood at the crime scene from two unidentified males, is not inconsistent with her underlying theory that Plaintiff orchestrated the murders and framed Brian Kohberger (the defendant in the state criminal action) by planting a knife sheath at the crime scene. But this misses the point. As the Court already stated, this case is not about whether Mr. Kohberger committed the murders…. “Though the Court’s consideration of those issues may have touched upon a matter of criminal concern in a parallel criminal proceeding in state court, the Court never endeavored to apply the elements of murder and adjudge Plaintiff “innocent” and Mr. Kohberger “guilty.” ….
Rather, this case is about whether Defendant defamed Plaintiff by repeatedly accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before ordering that student’s and three other students’ murders. On that lynchpin point, the Court concluded that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant did so, regardless of whether Mr. Kohberger—or anyone else—committed the murders. The evidence that Defendant cites in support of her Motion does not change this conclusion because there continues to be no corroborating support for Defendant’s statements about Plaintiff.
Cory Michael Carone and Wendy Olson (Stoel Rives, LLP) represent Schofield.
The post Plaintiff's Idaho Murder Libel Claim Continues to Beat Defendant's "Psychic Intuition" appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/o59dnYp
via IFTTT
