Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 1 of 21 - Page ID#: 2331

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20CV23 (WOB)

NICHOLAS SANDMANN PLAINTIFF

VS.

THE NEW YORK TIMES CO. DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20CV24 (WOB)

NICHOLAS SANDMANN PLAINTIFF

VS.

CBS NEWS, INC., ET

AL. DEFENDANTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20CV25 (WOB)

NICHOLAS SANDMANN PLAINTIFF

VS.

ABC NEWS, INC.,

1
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 2 of 21 - Page ID#: 2332

ET AL. DEFENDANTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20CV26 (WOB)

NICHOLAS SANDMANN PLAINTIFF

VS.

GANNETT CO., INC. DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20CV27 (WOB)

NICHOLAS SANDMANN PLAINTIFF

VS.

ROLLING STONE, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

These five libel cases arise out of events that occurred in

Washington, D.C. on January 18, 2019 and the ensuing extensive

media coverage of plaintiff Nicholas Sandmann’s encounter with

Nathan Phillips.

The cases are now before the Court on motions filed in all

2
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 3 of 21 - Page ID#: 2333

five pending cases: plaintiff’s motions for partial summary

judgment on the issue of falsity 1; defendants’ joint motion for

summary judgment 2; defendants’ supplemental memoranda in support

of summary judgment 3; and defendants’ motions to strike 4.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court has previously set forth the general factual

background of these cases, and this Opinion assumes the reader’s

familiarity therewith. See Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 27; Case No.

20cv24, Doc. 33; Case No. 20cv25, Doc. 36; Case No. 20cv26, Doc.

39; Case No. 20cv27, Doc. 35. For purposes of the present motions,

however, some review of the procedural history of these and related

cases is warranted.

The first case filed by Nicholas Sandmann against media

defendants based on their coverage of the encounter between

1Sandmann v. New York Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 52); Sandmann v. CBS News, No.
20cv24 (Doc. 58); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25 (Doc. 64); Sandmann
v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26 (Doc. 65); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC
(Doc. 59).

2Sandmann v. New York Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 53); Sandmann v. CBS News, No.

20cv24 (Doc. 59); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25 (Doc. 65); Sandmann
v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26 (Doc. 66); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC
(Doc. 60).

3Sandmann v. New York Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 54); Sandmann v. CBS News, No.
20cv24 (Doc. 60); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25 (Doc. 66); Sandmann
v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26 (Doc. 67); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC
(Doc. 61).

4Sandmann v. New York Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 64); Sandmann v. CBS News, No.
20cv24 (Doc. 72); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25 (Doc. 78); Sandmann
v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26 (Doc. 78); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC
(Doc. 72).

3
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 4 of 21 - Page ID#: 2334

Sandmann and Phillips was Sandmann v. The Washington Post, Case

No. 19cv19, which was filed in this Court on February 19, 2019.

Sandmann alleged that The Post defamed him by publishing seven

articles and three Tweets containing a total of thirty-three

allegedly libelous statements.

Sandmann filed similar complaints against Cable News Network,

Inc. (“CNN”) and NBCUniversal Media, LLC (“NBC”) on March 31, 2019

and May 1, 2019, respectively. (Case Nos. 19cv31 and 19cv56).

The Post filed an early motion to dismiss which the Court

granted, after oral argument, in an opinion issued on July 26,

2019. (Case No. 19cv19, Doc. 47). In that opinion, the Court held

that none of the statements were actionable for various reasons:

some were not “about” Sandmann; some were statements of opinion;

and/or some were not subject to a defamatory meaning. (Id.).

Sandmann filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for

leave to file an amended complaint. After oral argument, the Court

entered an order on October 28, 2019, partially granting the motion

to reconsider and allowing Sandmann to amend his complaint. (Case

No. 19cv19, Doc. 64). The Court’s ruling was narrow, however. It

allowed only one group of statements to proceed as a basis for the

defamation claim: Phillips’s statements that Sandmann had

“blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.” Id. at 2.

The Court stated that justice required that discovery be

conducted as to the context of those statements, noting that the

4
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 5 of 21 - Page ID#: 2335

“Court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.” (Id.).

The Court reiterated this point at the end of its order, stating

that while the allegations of the amended complaint passed the

requirement of “plausibility,” they would be subject to summary

judgment practice after discovery. (Id. at 3). 5

The Court called the three pending cases for a scheduling

conference in January 2020. During that conference, counsel

informed the Court that Sandmann and CNN had settled, and that

Sandmann intended to file additional suits against other media

defendants. See Case No. 19cv19, Doc. 72. With the parties’

agreement, the Court thus deferred completion of a discovery plan

until the new suits were filed and any preliminary motions

resolved. Id.

The five cases now pending before the Court were all filed on

March 2, 2020. However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes

in Sandmann’s representation, and resolution of Rule 12 motions in

the newly filed cases slowed the progress of these matters until

early 2021. 6

In March 2021, the Court adopted the parties’ proposed

“phased” discovery plan in all cases, with “Phase 1” being “limited

5
The Court made similar rulings in the CNN and NBC Cases. See Case No. 19cv31,
Doc. 43, Case No. 19cv56, Doc. 43.

6
The Court denied motions to dismiss in the five new cases consistent with its
rulings in the first three cases. See Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 27; Case No. 20cv24,
Doc. 33; Case No. 20cv25, Doc. 36; Case No. 20cv26, Doc. 39; Case No. 20cv27,
Doc. 35).

5
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 6 of 21 - Page ID#: 2336

to the facts pertaining to the encounter between Plaintiff and Mr.

Phillips.” (Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 36 at 2). 7 The parties’ joint

planning report explained:

Plaintiff’s case against each Defendant then would

be ripe for an early motion for summary judgment
[on] whether Nathan Phillips’ statements that
Plaintiff “blocked” him or “prevented him from
retreating” (the “Blocking Statements”) are true or
substantially true or otherwise not actionable
based on the undisputed facts developed during
initial discovery and the issues defined in the
Court’s prior decisions.

The limited scope of Phase 1 discovery would allow

the parties to present summary judgment arguments
to the Court without engaging in the costly
expensive discovery that many of the legal issues
in this case would require.

. . .

The parties agree that phased discovery is the best

way to focus the resources of the parties and limit
the burdens on the Court. Most importantly, it will
permit this Court to rule at an earlier stage on
the threshold issues discussed above.

(Id. at 2-3) (emphasis added).

Although Phase 1 discovery has been completed, the only

evidence filed in the record consists of: (1) Sandmann’s

deposition; (2) a declaration under oath by Phillips; (3) seven

declarations under oath by persons in attendance at the incident;

and (4) a collection of video recordings taken at the National

Mall that day. This evidence will be briefly summarized.

7 By then, both The Post and CNN had settled with Sandmann. Sandmann and NBC
settled at the end of 2021.

6
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 7 of 21 - Page ID#: 2337

A. Sandmann’s Deposition

Although lengthy, Sandmann’s deposition contains relatively

little testimony pertinent to the issues at hand:

• Sandmann observed as Phillips moved toward and then through

the group of students. Some students moved out of
Phillips’s way as he walked forward. Sandmann felt that
Phillips was trying to intimidate the students by walking
right up to them when he could have taken several other
routes around them, so Sandmann felt like he wanted to
stand up for his school. At the time, he did not know that
Phillips’s intent was to get up to the Lincoln Memorial;

• Phillips stood so close to Sandmann that his drum touched

Sandmann’s shoulder, his spit was getting on Sandmann’s
face, and Sandmann could smell Phillips’s breath;

• The steps were icy and Sandmann was concerned that if he

moved he might slip and fall.

• Sandmann felt he was being mature by remaining calm and

standing his ground in a tense situation;

• Sandmann can see how Phillips might have perceived that

Sandmann was trying to block his path;

• There was room for Phillips to keep walking if that is what

he wanted to do. Sandmann did not feel that he was blocking
Phillips because Phillips gave no indication that he wanted
to move forward. Instead, he locked eyes with Sandmann when
he was still several feet away from him and then “planted”
himself directly in front of Sandmann. Phillips did not
take even the slightest step in any direction in an attempt
to move;

• Sandmann is not sure if he moved a little to the left as

Phillips approached; he either adjusted his footing and/or
the people around him shifted as well;

• At one point, Sandmann felt that he was blocked from moving

because of the crowd around him, although he has no reason
to believe that they would not have moved if he had asked
them to do so.

7
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 8 of 21 - Page ID#: 2338

(Sandmann Dep. 158-59, 180-84, 193, 199, 206, 218, 221, 223-25,

246-48, 263-67, 276-80, 283-84, 340).

B. Phillips’s Declaration

Phillips’s declaration, submitted by defendants in support of

their joint motion for summary judgment, avers:

• Other than a woman named Ashley Bell, Phillips did not know
any of the individuals who joined him in walking towards
the group of students;

• As he approached the students, Phillips “felt that the

crowd was swarming and surrounding me;”

• As Phillips began to move towards the Lincoln Memorial,

students moved out of his way. However, Sandmann “appeared”
to position himself in front of Phillips;

• Phillips declares: “It was very much my experience that

Mr. Sandmann was blocking me from exiting the situation.
It was very much my experience that he intentionally stood
in my way in order to stop me from moving forward;”

• Further: “I felt surrounded in that space, and I believed

Mr. Sandmann did not want to let me pass. It seemed to me
that Mr. Sandmann felt that he needed to stand there and
block my way.” 8

C. Other Declarations

Six of the seven other declarations are by individuals who

had attended the Indigenous Peoples March that day, which Phillips

also attended. (Case No. 20cv23, Docs. 53-3 — 53-7). Only one,

Ashley Bell, knew Phillips from prior events. There was no planning

among these people in advance of the incident in question. Rather,

8
The Court notes that Phillips’s declaration was signed on December 11, 2021.
Sandmann’s deposition was taken on September 13 and 14, 2021.

8
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 9 of 21 - Page ID#: 2339

their decision to join Phillips as he approached the group of

students was an impromptu one. Five of the six individuals aver

that it was their impression that Sandmann blocked Phillips from

moving forward.

The seventh declaration is from a classmate of Sandmann’s who

was also with the group of students on the Mall. (Case No. 20cv23,

Doc. 53-8). But that student had moved away from the group at the

time of the encounter between Sandmann and Phillips and did not

observe it directly.

D. The Videos

The parties have submitted twenty videos that capture scenes

from the National Mall on the day in question. The parties have

stipulated to the videos’ authenticity and have waived any hearsay

objections to them. (Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 53-1 at 14 n.3).

In the Court’s view, six of the videos show the specific

encounter between Sandmann and Phillips in helpful respects. 9 What

a viewer might conclude from these videos is a matter of

perspective. However, what is clearly shown and not subject to

reasonable dispute is at least the following:

• Phillips began drumming and approaching the group of

students, accompanied by several individuals who testify
that, although they did not know Phillips, they followed
him because he was an elder;

• As Phillips came close to the group of students, some began

to part, and Phillips continued to move forward.

9 Videos 1, 2, 8, 9, 16, 17.

9
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 10 of 21 - Page ID#:
2340

Eventually, Phillips came to a stop directly in front of

Sandmann. As Phillips approached, Sandmann subtly adjusted
his footing, but it is unclear if he actually moved from
where he stood.

• At no point did Phillips ask Sandmann to move or attempt

to continue walking past him.

• Sandmann also did not change his position while Phillips

played his drum, although it was within inches of
Sandmann’s face.

• The encounter ended when a chaperone arrived and told the

students that their buses had arrived.

Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is

material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). In considering the evidence in the record, the court must

view the evidence “in a light most favorable to the party opposing

the motion, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable

inferences.” Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477

F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007). This Court is sitting in diversity,

and thus applies Kentucky law. Himmel v. Ford Motor Co., 342 F.3d

593, 598 (6th Cir. 2003).

A. Law of the Case

Sandmann first argues that the Court cannot now consider the

fact-or-opinion issue because of the law of the case doctrine.

10
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 11 of 21 - Page ID#:
2341

This argument is without merit.

As noted above, the Court expressly held that while the

allegations of Sandmann’s complaints passed the “plausibility”

test at the pleading stage, and that discovery should be had on

the context of Phillips’s statements, the actionability of the

statements would be revisited on summary judgment.

Further, the Sixth Circuit has held that “the law of the case

doctrine does not apply to earlier proceedings where a different

legal standard governs,” such as a ruling at the pleading stage

and subsequent summary judgment proceedings. In re: B & P Baird

Holdings, Inc., 759 F. App’x 468, 477 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation

omitted).

Finally, Sandmann’s insistence that the Court cannot now

revisit this legal issue is ironic considering that he vigorously,

and successfully, moved the Court to reconsider its initial ruling

in The Post case.

In sum, the law of the case doctrine does not preclude this

Court from reconsidering anew on summary judgment legal issues

raised at the pleading stage.

B. Fact or Opinion

1. General Principles

All parties agree that whether “a statement is fact or opinion

is a question of law for the court to decide.” Croce v. Sanders,

843 F. App’x 710, 713 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

11
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 12 of 21 - Page ID#:
2342

As the Supreme Court of the United States noted over thirty

years ago in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990),

“a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which

does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive

full constitutional protection.” Id. at 20; see also id. at 21

(statement must be “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being

proved true or false”); Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Inv’rs Servs.,

499 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Put differently, a viable

defamation claim exists only where a reasonable factfinder could

conclude that the challenged statement connotes actual,

objectively verifiable facts.”).

Under Kentucky law, “alleged defamatory statements should be

construed as a whole” in “the whole context of its publication.”

Yancey v. Hamilton, 786 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Ky. 1990) (internal

quotations and citation omitted). And a “publication must be read

and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is

addressed would ordinarily understand it.” Id. at 858.

The Sixth Circuit has also emphasized that it is important

for the court to consider what a reasonable reader would take away

from allegedly defamatory statements. A recent Sixth Circuit case,

Croce v. Sanders, 843 F. App’x 710 (6th Cir. 2021), illustrates

this principle well. The case involved a biologist who contacted

the New York Times and other newspapers about statistical

inaccuracies in scientific articles authored by a celebrated

12
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 13 of 21 - Page ID#:
2343

cancer researcher. Id. at 712–13. The cancer researcher sued the

biologist for defamation. The Sixth Circuit held that his

statement that the researcher “knowingly engag[ed] in scientific

misconduct and fraud” was protected opinion. Id. at 715.

Judge Thapar, who authored the opinion, focused on what a

reasonable reader would take away from the letter that the

biologist wrote. He concluded that “reasonable readers would see

there is ample room for a different interpretation of the evidence

[the biologist] presented.” Id. at 716. He further explained

that “whether a set of facts amounts to misconduct” is subjective

and “we would expect people to have different opinions on the

question.” Id. The biologist’s statement was “neither an

assertion of fact nor a conclusion that follows incontrovertibly

from asserted facts as a matter of logic. It is instead a

subjective take that is up for debate.” Id.; see also Seaton v.

TripAdvisor, 728 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Readers would,

instead, understand the list [of dirtiest hotels in America] to be

communicating subjective opinions of travelers who use Trip

Advisor.”); Macineirghe v. Cty. Of Suffolk, 13-cv-1512, 2015 WL

4459456, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015) (finding that a statement

from an eyewitness who recounted the entirety of a police chase

and said that he saw someone “block” a police car was opinion, and

a reasonable reader would not understand his words to imply

undisclosed facts).

13
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 14 of 21 - Page ID#:
2344

The Supreme Court has also emphasized that the setting in

which the speech in question is made helps make the nature of the

allegedly defamatory statements more apparent to readers. For

example, “[q]uotations allow the reader to form his or her own

conclusions and to assess the conclusions of the author, instead

of relying entirely upon the author’s characterization of her

subject.” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 511

(1991); see also Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S.

6, 13-14 (1970) (holding that when speakers at a city council

meeting characterized the plaintiff’s negotiating position as

“blackmail,” a reasonable reader would understand that it was not

slander when spoken, and not libel when reported by a newspaper).

These same principles are applied across many other circuits.

In sum, the Court must ask whether a reasonable reader, in reading

the entire article, would understand that the statement in question

is someone’s opinion or interpretation of an event or situation.

See, e.g., Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1156–57 (9th Cir.

1995) (“When an author outlines the facts available to him, thus

making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own

interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw

his own conclusions, those statements are generally protected by

the First Amendment.”); Hayes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d

1222, 1227 (7th Cir. 1993) (“If it is plain that the speaker is

expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory,

14
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 15 of 21 - Page ID#:
2345

conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession

of objectively verifiable facts, the statement is not

actionable); Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publ’ns, 953

F.2d 724, 729 (1st Cir. 1992) (“The sum effect of the format, tone,

and entire content of the articles is to make it unmistakably clear

that [the author] was expressing a point of view only.”).

Finally, if an allegedly defamatory statement is a statement

of opinion, it is actionable under Kentucky law “only if it implies

the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts.” Lassiter v.

Lassiter, 456 F. Supp. 2d 876, 881 (E.D. Ky. 2006) (internal

quotations and citation omitted).

2. The “Blocking Statements”

The allegedly defamatory Blocking Statements at issue are the

following:

It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: “I’ve got

to find myself an exit out of this situation and
finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,” Mr.
Phillips told the Post. I started going that way,
and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were
at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t
allow me to retreat.

(See, e.g., Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 1-7 at 3) (emphasis added). 10

Applying the above legal authorities, and with the benefit of

10This citation is to the complaint against The New York Times, which quoted
The Washington Post article. Some of the publications by the other four
defendants differ slightly. For example, CBS’s publication quoted Phillips as
saying that Sandmann “positioned himself” in front of Phillips; that Sandmann
“slided” to the left and right; and that Sandmann “aligned himself with me, so
that sort of stopped my exit.” (Case No. 20cv24, Doc. 1-7 at 3). However, the
parties apply the same analysis to these statements.

15
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 16 of 21 - Page ID#:
2346

a more developed record, the Court concludes that Phillips’s

statements that Sandmann “blocked” him and “wouldn’t allow [him]

to retreat” are objectively unverifiable and thus unactionable

opinions.

Instead, a reasonable reader would understand that Phillips

was simply conveying his view of the situation. And because the

reader knew from the articles that this encounter occurred at the

foot of the Lincoln Memorial, he or she would know that the

confrontation occurred in an expansive area such that it would be

difficult to know what might constitute “blocking” another person

in that setting.

Generally, “blocking” is an imprecise term capable of

different meanings that “lacks a plausible method of

verification.” Croce, 843 F. App’x at 715 (citation omitted). In

particular, because of the context in which this encounter

occurred—the large, open area adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial—

the blocking statement simply cannot be proven to be either true

or false. Had such an encounter occurred in a small or confined

area, a statement that one person was “blocked” by another might

be objectively verifiable. But it is not here.

Interestingly, plaintiff’s responsive memorandum to the joint

motion for summary judgment argues that “blocking” is factual

because “it involves the oppositional position of two human bodies

in a confined space.” (Case No. 20cv23, Doc. 61 at 42) (emphasis

16
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 17 of 21 - Page ID#:
2347

added). But, as the videos depict, the area where this encounter

occurred was a huge, outdoor setting, not a confined space.

Further, Phillips’s statements rely on assumptions concerning

both Phillips and Sandmanns’ state of mind. Yet, Phillips had no

way of knowing what Sandmann was thinking or intended when he made

the challenged statements. 11

It has long been established that someone’s state of mind is

not capable of being proven true or false. 12 Compare Riley v. Harr,

292 F.3d 282, 290 (1st Cir. 2002) (“An author who fairly describes

the general events involved and offers his personal perspective

about some of the ambiguities and disputed facts should not be

subject to a defamation action.”) and Haynes, 8 F.3d at 1227

(“Anyone is entitled to speculate on a person’s motives from the

known facts of his behavior.”) with Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21

(explaining that perjury is verifiable by comparing the witness’s

11It is undisputed that Phillips and Sandmann did not speak to each other during
their standoff. Thus, Sandmann had no way of knowing that Phillips was trying
to pass him to get to the Lincoln Memorial. Likewise, Phillips had no way to
confirm his belief that Sandmann intended to block him and would not allow him
to retreat.

12 Sandmann’s own deposition testimony illustrates the unverifiability of

someone’s state of mind. Sandmann was asked whether it was possible “that
Phillips was trying to see if you guys [Sandmann and his friend, Cameron] would
both move to create a path for him to go towards what would now be where you
are standing?” (Sandmann Dep. at 238:1–6). This of course required Sandmann
to speculate and prompted him to answer “It’s possible he was thinking that.
Again, he never made that clear.” (Id. at 238:12–13). He was then asked if
this was because “he [Phillips] didn’t articulate it?” (Id. at 238:15–16). To
which he responded “Correct.” (Id. at 238:17). Phillips’s intent in that moment
is not objectively verifiable, the same way Sandmann’s intent in that moment is
not objectively verifiable. The Court must look at the meaning of the statements
when they were made, without reference to post hoc explanations.

17
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 18 of 21 - Page ID#:
2348

testimony at a board hearing and subsequently in court); see also

Compuware Corp., 499 F.3d at 529 (“A Moody’s credit rating is a

predictive opinion, dependent on a subjective and discretionary

weighing of complex factors.”).

Courts have also found important the style of writing and its

context in assessing what a reasonable reader would understand the

allegedly defamatory statements to mean.

For example, in McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839 (1st Cir.

1987), the owner of a time share condominium development sued a

reporter who published an article in a local paper describing his

encounter with the business, referring to it as a “scam.” After

reviewing Supreme Court libel precedent, the Court first noted

that the word “scam” does not have a precise meaning but means

different things to different people. Id. at 842. The Court further

observed that first-person, narrative style statements on matters

of public concern “put[] the reader on notice that the author is

giving his views” and “are commonly understood to be attempts to

influence the public debate.” Id. at 843.

This latter observation applies equally to Phillips’s

statements. The media defendants were covering a matter of great

public interest, and they reported Phillips’s first-person view of

what he experienced. This would put the reader on notice that

Phillips was simply giving his perspective on the incident. See

also Riley, 292 F.3d at 289 (statement expressing an

18
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 19 of 21 - Page ID#:
2349

interpretation, rather than claiming to be in possession of

objectively verifiable facts, is nonactionable opinion).

Moreover, Phillips’s statement did not imply the existence of

any nondisclosed defamatory facts, and only under such

circumstances does a statement of opinion lose its constitutional

protection. Yancey, 786 S.W.2d at 857.

Therefore, in the factual context of this case, Phillips’s

“blocking” statements are protected opinions. This holding moots

all other motions before the Court.

Conclusion

The Court allowed these cases to proceed to discovery based

on the allegations of plaintiff’s complaints and a belief that

some development of the context of this incident may be helpful.

The parties shrewdly agreed to phased discovery allowing the above

legal issues to be revisited by the Court before the parties

embarked on further expensive and time-consuming discovery and

possibly trials, all of which would be wasted should the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agree with this

Opinion.

And finally, the Court has reached its conclusions with fealty

to the law as its primary concern, with no consideration of the

rancorous political debate associated with these cases.

Therefore, having reviewed these matters, and the Court being

19
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 20 of 21 - Page ID#:
2350

advised,

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s motions for partial summary judgment on the

issue of falsity (Sandmann v. New York Times, No. 20cv23

(Doc. 52); Sandmann v. CBS News, No. 20cv24 (Doc. 58);

Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25 (Doc. 64);

Sandmann v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26 (Doc. 65);

Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC, No. 20cv27 (Doc. 59))

be, and are hereby, DENIED AS MOOT;

(2) Defendants’ joint motions for summary judgment (Sandmann

v. New York Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 53); Sandmann v. CBS

News, No. 20cv24 (Doc. 59); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc.,

No. 20cv25 (Doc. 65); Sandmann v. Gannett Co., Inc., No.

20cv26 (Doc. 66); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC, No.

20cv27 (Doc. 60)) be, and are hereby, GRANTED;

(3) Defendants’ motions to strike (Sandmann v. New York

Times, No. 20cv23 (Doc. 64); Sandmann v. CBS News, No.

20cv24 (Doc. 72); Sandmann v. ABC News, Inc., No. 20cv25

(Doc. 78); Sandmann v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 20cv26

(Doc. 78); Sandmann v. Rolling Stone, LLC, No. 20cv27

(Doc. 72)) be, and are hereby, DENIED AS MOOT; and

(4) Separate judgments shall enter concurrently herewith in

each of these cases.

20
Case: 2:20-cv-00023-WOB-CJS Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/22 Page: 21 of 21 - Page ID#:
2351

This 26th day of July 2022.

21