[ad_1]
NANCY WEST, InDepthNH.org
Brentwood – Eric Spofford has filed a motion for taped interviews with some of the sources New Hampshire Public Radio used in reporting stories that allegedly defamed him.
This article, published March 22-23, 2022, reports that Spofford, the founder and former owner of Granite Recovery Centers, sexually assaulted two former clients and killed one former client. Although he claims to have sexually harassed his employees, Spofford categorically denies all of these.
Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel I. St. Hilaire dismissed the case nine days ago, but gave Spofford 30 days to amend his complaint to focus on the actual bad faith allegations. .
St. Hilaire held Spofford to be a limited public figure in dismissing the case, and therefore stated that Spofford must show actual bad faith, stating that “knowing that the statements were false, or recklessly ignoring whether it is false or not.”
If Spofford is deemed a private person, he will only have to prove that the report was reckless.
The lawsuit cites senior reporters Lauren Cholzian and Jason Moon, editor Dan Barrick, and three sources for the article.
NHPR attorney Sigmund Schutz responded by email Wednesday night.
“NHPR opposes this latest allegation filed by Mr. Spofford’s attorneys,” Schutz said.
Spofford’s attorneys, Michael Strauss and Joseph Cuckers, are seeking limited discovery to cure the flaws St. Hillaire found in Spofford’s original complaint.
Strauss and Cacace filed a motion Wednesday seeking unedited recordings of interviews with NHPR’s “Elizabeth”, “Employee A”, Nancy Bourque, Justin Downey, Piers Kaniuka and Brian Stoesz.
Lawyers are also seeking Lauren Chooljian’s notes and correspondence with them, along with her notes with Lynsie Metivier and the transcript of her March 22, 2022 call, if any. and Chorzian’s notes and correspondence with the mother of Spofford’s eldest son Amy Cloutier (formerly Anagnost), and recordings of her interviews (if any).
Metivier, formerly the head of human resources at Granite Recovery Centers, called Chooljian shortly after the article aired and said he had not heard of any such allegations against Spofford, which were not reported in the article. yeah.
Spofford’s attorneys have asked St. Hilaire to extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint pending a judge’s decision on the motion for limited discovery, and if granted, NHPR will file the requested recordings and memos. requested a delay of 30 days after the submission of the
In his April 17 dismissal order, St. Hilaire identified Spofford’s amended complaint and substance abuse accusations, which he testified before the U.S. Senate, co-authored a book on recovery, and described his relationship with the former vice president. noted his previous position as a leader in the disability community. Mike Pence and Governor Chris Sununu grew out of his recovery expertise.
“In the court’s view, Spofford could not claim to have had a nationally prominent reputation based on his inspirational story of recovery, while at the same time claiming that he was not a public figure in the controversy over opioid addiction. I cannot,” wrote St. Hilaire.
The motion filed Wednesday quotes St. Hilaire as saying:
and that “NHPR defendants . . . were subjectively aware that the information given by these sources was probably incorrect, [original complaint] Actual malice cannot be claimed. “
Only the NHPR defendants have the information Spofford needs to detail the actual malice, the complaint says.
The New Hampshire Constitution gives Spofford the right to hold NHPR defendants who defame him accountable in court, stating that “he should be given a fair chance to fully assert actual malice.” Yes,” the motion said.
Spofford also points to a 1985 state Supreme Court case by then-Judge David Suter (Nash v. Keane Publishing Corporation), which states that “assessment of credibility is “very difficult” without a trial.” We recognize that “the problem of malice is not easily resolved” because of To summary disposal. “
Mr. Spofford had previously opposed the dismissal of the lawsuit, saying Mr. Soter had ruled that only a jury in New Hampshire could determine who was a public person and who was not. It relied on more recent case law, which said it was up to the judge to make that decision.
Spofford does not admit that his original complaint failed to assert actual bad faith against each defendant. “Nothing in this motion should be construed as a waiver of Eric’s right to amend the complaint or to appeal the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss,” the motion states.
St. Hilaire, by his order, held that Spofford was a public figure of limited purpose who must allege actual bad faith in order to advance his claims of defamation and false light, and failed to do so. I concluded.
“At the heart of that conclusion, according to the court, was the ‘reliability of NHPR’s sources.’ The court ruled that those claims were not “fatal” to the credibility of each source.
Overall, the Court wrote:[a]There is no clear evidence that the NHPR Defendants acted in bad faith in reliance on these sources or had subjective knowledge that the information provided by these sources was likely false. unless [original complaint] Actual malice cannot be claimed. “
St. Hilaire granted Spofford permission to “amend his complaint to remedy the deficiencies identified” and “supplement his allegations with facts showing actual malice”.
“But for Eric to have a meaningful chance to do so, the court must grant Eric access to information under the control of the NHPR defendant,” his attorney argued.
“Requiring NHPR Defendants to produce a full recorded interview gives Eric a fair ability to assess the validity of NHPR Defendants’ subjective beliefs and source accounts, and to argue in an amended complaint. Give. It would also be consistent with the principle of perfection.
“The same is true of Choljian’s notes on the source and his correspondence with the source. As the NHPR defendants vehemently argued, if this story were scrutinized and reported, the findings would not be in their defense. Alternatively, if the NHPR defendants knew or recklessly ignored the falsehoods in their reports, this finding would allow Eric to use the “clearer evidence” the court desired. , it becomes quite possible to claim their actual malice.
“The findings that Eric claims here will at least give him a fair chance to exercise his constitutional right to ‘get right and justice’ for the injuries he suffered.” “To rule on defamation would arbitrarily exclude a defamation plaintiff from a day in court,” the motion states.
[ad_2]
Source link
