A defamation case against The New York Times and one of its former journalists is moving to discovery after a judge rejected the paper’s bid to have the litigation dismissed.
“Right before we parted ways she leaked my nudes and sent them to business partners, people in my house and potential investors to slander my name, saying I was unprofessional,” the influencer, Devion Young, was quoted as saying.
“He said that she used nude photos of his to shame him,” Lorenz wrote.
In Jacob’s lawsuit, she said the allegation was false, and both the paper and Lorenz knew so.
The photographs in question had already been circulating before Young and Jacob parted ways, according to the suit. Jacob merely took screenshots of the photographs and forwarded them to a few people, including a person who was managing the influencer house at which Young resided, it said.
Text messages between Young and Jacob showed that Young believed the photographs were posted online by another person, not Jacob. Lorenz herself wrote in an email before the article was published that Young was alleging Jacob “privatley [sic] distributed Mr. Young’s illicit photos to others.” And she also said, “No one is alleging that she publicly leaked them.”
The communications “show that Lorenz called into question the truth of the assertion that Jacob ‘leaked’ the photos, and she nevertheless published the statement saying as much,” Ramos, an Obama appointee, ruled.
“Lorenz laid out her understanding—prior to the Article’s publication—that (1) ‘leaking’ connotes sharing something with a broad audience rather than privately, and that (2) ‘no one’ alleged that Jacob had leaked Young’s photos. Nonetheless, the Article included a quote from Young which stated that ‘right before we parted ways [Jacob] leaked my nudes and sent them to business partners, people in my house, and potential investors.’”
The disconnection between the article and the email means the case can proceed to discovery to test the defamation claim on the matter, the judge said.
“We are pleased with the courts allowing this case to move forward, agreeing that we sufficiently alleged defamation against the defendants,” Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer representing Jacob, said in a statement. “This ruling reaffirms our belief in the strength of our case, and the importance of holding media outlets accountable for publishing materially false hit pieces.”
Joe Sibley, another lawyer working for Jacob, said that Lorenz will be deposed.
“Gratitude overflows as we take one step closer to justice,” Jacob, CEO of the company Influences, wrote on Twitter. “Standing up against the NYT and an influencer ‘journalist’ hasn’t been easy, but I believe it will make a difference. Remember, when they say doing the right thing is impossible, never listen. Stay resilient and fight for what’s right!”
Other Statements
The judge said there wasn’t enough evidence to delve further into other challenged statements from the article.Jacob, for instance, said that a quote that said she and her company “promised brand deals, money, and opportunities” and that “everyone was promised income, but that never happened” was defamatory because the person quoted was never even represented by the company and because Jacob did score deals for multiple influencers she managed.
“Defendants could have easily confirmed this fact by reviewing the social media accounts of the influencers,” the complaint stated, noting that Jacob even alerted Lorenz of a trip organized by her company and sponsored through a brand deal that dozens of influencers, including the person who was quoted, were preparing to take.
The New York Times did not defend not reviewing the social media accounts, but instead pointed to a prior case dismissed against VICE that found information existing online is not enough to prove actual malice absent of evidence showing an outlet knew the information existed.
Ramos agreed.
Plaintiffs “have not alleged that Lorenz entertained ’serious doubts as to the truth' of the statement,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ alternate argument—that actual malice is established merely through the allegation ’that Lorenz published the Article without once consulting the influencers’ social media pages’—is simply unsupported by the caselaw.”
While Lorenz was made aware of one alleged deal, one trip “does not demonstrate that Lorenz knew that Influences had secured actual brand deals and business opportunities for its clients,” he added, quoting the New York Times.
Defamation cases can survive a motion to dismiss if they present “plausible grounds to infer actual malice by alleging enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of actual malice,” according to a prior ruling. Actual malice is defined as an action “made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.”
Another statement, alleging people living in an influencer house managed by Jacob did not consent to a camera being installed in the kitchen, was defamatory because of facts including everyone who entered the house signed a waiver that noted the existence of cameras in all public spaces and stated the people gave their consent to being under video surveillance, Jacob said.
That information sheds light upon cameras in the house but does not “contradict the assertion that a specific camera was installed in the kitchen of the house without the knowledge or approval of the influencers that were already living or spending time there,” the judge said.
Lorenz, now with the Washington Post, did not respond to a request for comment.
“We are pleased that the court recognized that almost all of Ms. Jacob’s claims had no legal merit,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email. “For the one remaining claim, we are prepared to go forward with the litigation and will continue to put up a vigorous defense.”
