AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline) – A former Dallas Cowboy can continue his defamation lawsuit against TMZ for publishing an article that cited allegations he threatened to make someone “disappear” for refusing to kill a sports agent.
The Texas Supreme Court on May 8 ruled in favor of Robert Jones, a linebacker for the Cowboys during their dominant run in the early 1990s who also played for the St. Louis Rams, Miami Dolphins and Washington Redskins.
The court ruled 5-3 that Jones has complied with a pre-suit requirement that he request a correction, allowing his case to survive a motion to dismiss from defendants TMZ and Warner Bros.
Since his retirement, Jones, a former Pro Bowler and three-time Super Bowl champion, has run a business in Austin. His cousin, who has a lengthy criminal history including arson and insurance fraud charges, attempted to extort Jones after being granted parole in 2014, the opinion says.
That cousin, Theodore Watson, also called TMZ with allegations Jones threatened to harm him for refusing to murder Jones’ former agent, the opinion says. Watson filed a police report, though the sides dispute whether he did this on his own or if he was instructed to by a TMZ reporter, Liz McKernan.
McKernan messaged Jones on Twitter. He referred her to his lawyer, who says he never heard from her. She says she left a voicemail.
Shortly after obtaining Watson’s police report, TMZ published a story with the headline “Ex-Super Bowl Champ Suspect in Police Investigation; Allegedly Tried to Hire Hit Man.”
After an email exchange with McKernan, Bressi sent a press release to TMZ that called the allegations untrue. TMZ updated the story.
Just before the one-year statute of limitations was going to expire, Jones filed his defamation case, alleging TMZ ignored major red flags with the informant, Watson. TMZ argued the Defamation Mitigation Act barred the case because he failed to request a correction, clarification or retraction of the story before the statute of limitations expired.
“TMZ focuses on Jones’ press release as if it were an out-of-the-blue missive devoid of any context,” wrote Justice Eva Guzman. “But the communications between (Bressi and McKernan) tell a different story and establish Jones’ compliance with (the DMA).
“Those communications did not include the words ‘I request a correction, clarification or retraction,’ but the statute does not require such formality.”
Jones’ desire that the allegations be removed or revised was obvious, the court ruled, and McKernan understood that when she asked Bressi to delay issuing the press release until after she could include it in the updated story.
Chief Justice Nathan Hecht issued a dissenting opinion that worried restrictions under the DMA, designed to prevent superfluous defamation litigation, will be eased under the majority’s decision.
“This would be wrong enough if the court had merely changed a common law duty, but it gutted a Legislative enactment,” Hecht wrote.
“In the constantly refreshed news cycle of today, under the court’s standards – or lack of standards – any Twitter message complaining of a story will be a Request, any response by the publisher a Change, and a plaintiff can proceed without further effort.”