William Spooner v. Associated Press

Team:
Jordan Garnick
Saul Mangel

The names of the litigants are William H. Spooner (plaintiff), The Associated Press Inc.
and Jon Krawczynski (defendants). The lawsuit was filed on March 14, 2011. Also, this
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Lastly,
this matter is still pending.
The issues in dispute are whether the actions of Jon Krawcczynski, a reporter for the
Associated Press, give rise to a claim for damages on behalf of the Plaintiff William
Spooner, and therefore a claim against the Associated Press on the theory of Respondeat
Superior. Specifically, at issue is whether the twitter post by Defendant Krawczynski
published on his Associated Press Twitter account gives rise to a compensable claim for
Defamation, whereby the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s actions. As
such, the issue is whether the plaintiff proves the elements of a claim for defamation.
These elements are: that the words written are untrue, that the words are harmful and
that the words were made known to another person. In this case, plaintiff must prove that
the statement made by the defendant violates one or more of the criteria needed to prove
defamation. Additionally, plaintiff must prove that the words in the defendant’s
twitter, “Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks,”
were harmful in that Defendant was implying that Plaintiff was engaged in fixing the
game. It does not appear that there is an issue that the words were published to a third
party. Commensurate with these issues are several factors that relate to whether the
words were actually stated by the plaintiff, and whether they were harmful. For example,
was the defendant close enough in proximity to the plaintiff and Coach Rambis, to have
actually heard what was stated? Did Spooner actually attempt to add points to the
Timberwolves? Were the calls made by the Plaintiff bad enough that they were
circumspect, given the fact that he was a seasoned referee? These issues are all relevant
to plaintiff’s burden of proving that the Twitter statement was both false and harmful to
him. The fact that the plaintiff was a public figure, entitles him to less protection for
untrue and negative statements than an ordinary citizen. Therefore, plaintiff must prove
that defendant’s actions were made with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Moreover, because defendant’s statements potentially affected plaintiff’s occupation and
profession, they are potentially more libelous. Finally, given the fact that the publication
was made in the aftermath of the Tim Donaghy affair that scandalized the National
Basketball Association’s referees to the viewing public, were these Twitter posts to be
interpreted more scrupulously by the public as being harmful to the Plaintiff?
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for defamation per se to his professional and
business reputation, a declaratory judgment that the Twitter publication constitutes
defamation, an injunction requiring the removal of defamatory statements from the
Defendants’ Internet postings, and lastly if the court see fit that the defendant pays for
legal fees.