SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - The publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle wants a failed Congressional candidate who sued it for defamation to pay its attorneys fees.
Hearst Communications on March 2 filed a motion in California federal court seeking to penalize Democrat Shahid Buttar for suing it over two articles that addressed sexual harassment allegations in 2020, while Buttar was seeking to unseat Nancy Pelosi.
Last month, Buttar lost his case when Judge Edward Chen found h could not show the Chronicle defamed him with its second article. He'd reached a similar conclusion almost 10 months earlier with regard to the first article.
Hearst defended itself with an anti-SLAPP motion, which protects defendants who engage in protected speech. It cost $80,000 to bring that motion and the motion for fees, Hearst says, and it wants paid back.
"This lawsuit was a misguided effort to punish a newspaper for its timely and accurate reporting on a public controversy relevant to voters' consideration and evaluation of Plaintiff Shahid Buttar's character and qualifications to hold elected office," the motion for fees says.
"The Buttar Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant directly targeted free speech on matters of public concern, as they arose entirely in the context of news reporting on a matter of public interest related to a candidate seeking elected office."
The anti-SLAPP statute mandates fee-shifting in this case, Hearst says.
Elizabeth Croydon accused him of sexual harassment in 2020 in an essay on Medium.com. The Chronicle published an article the same day, written by Joe Garofoli, who reached out to Buttar's campaign for a response.
That statement by Buttar was included in the article. The campaign told Garofoli it could put him in contact with people who would vouch for Buttar's character and asked for a follow-up.
After an open letter signed by 17 people was published on another site defending Buttar, the Chronicle published an article titled "Longtime activists defend Pelosi foe Shahid Buttar against sex harassment accusations."
The article quoted the open letter and recounted interviews the Chronicle conducted with three of its signatories - "Indeed, the vast majority of the Follow-Up Article is dedicated to interviewing and quoting those supporting Mr. Buttar," the ruling says.
Still, Buttar and his campaign committee sued Hearst, claiming the follow portrayed those who supported Buttar as his friends instead of independent political activists. They also claimed it should have contained an alleged long history of false accusations by Croydon against activists.
Chen wrote the individuals supporting Buttar in the follow article were accurately identified by their backgrounds and professions and that omitting any alleged false accusations wasn't sufficient to state a claim for defamation, as "it is unlikely that unrelated incidents undercut the veracity of the article's contents."
Given a chance to file an amended complaint after last year's ruling, Buttar failed to add any new evidence, Chen wrote.
"SBCC contends Hearst relied on a source known to be unreliable or failed to investigate in light of a source's known lack of reliability," Chen wrote. "While it is true that 'actual malice can be proved by circumstantial evidence, such as 'reliance upon sources known to be unreliable or... failure to investigate,' the plaintiff must nonetheless prove that 'the publisher himself had serious doubts regarding the truth of his publication.'"