More on Dan Scott v. Randall Beck, Argus

Posted by PP at the SDWC

August 16, 2007

Sorry I couldn’t do more on the story when I broke it earlier today. I was on break from my Real Estate class at Pro-ed in Sioux Falls when I heard the news. I’ve been going down there for the past couple of weeks as I’ve been pursuing one of the things I’ve wanted to do for the past 10-15 years.

Anyway, I heard about this, and it left me scrambling to find a computer, get something quickly written, and rush back to class.

Now that I’m home, and I have a few minutes to reflect on it, I think it’s best to just lay out what this is all about:

On Friday, June 15, 2007 Plaintiff Scott gave a speech at a Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce legislative breakfast in Sioux Falls at the downtown Holiday Inn.

9.

Defendant Beck attended the speech and was present in the audience for the delivery by Plaintiff Scott.
10.

Defendant Argus Leader’s President and Publisher, Arnold Garson (Garson), also attended the speech.
11.

Plaintiff Scott opened his speech with a light hearted jest about Defendant Argus Leader.

12.

Later that morning, Defendant Argus Leader’s President and Publisher Garson made a telephone call to Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce President Evan Nolte. Mr. Garson was extremely angry and told Mr. Nolte he was offended by what Plaintiff Scott had said about Defendant Argus Leader.

13.

That same morning, Garson also called Dana Dykhouse, who is the Chairman of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation’s Board of Directors and Plaintiff Scott’s supervisor. Garson was extremely angry and told Mr. Dykhouse he was offended by what Plaintiff Scott had said about Defendant Argus Leader.

14.

The following day, on June 16, 2007 the Defendant Argus Leader published an article about Plaintiff Scott on the front page of Section B. The article did not mention any of Plaintiff Scott’s comments about Defendant Argus Leader, or that Garson was offended by the comments. Instead, the article focused on other portions of Plaintiff Scott’s speech and labeled them as “arrogant.”

15.

Also, on June 16th, the Defendant Argus Leader published a separate news story written by another reporter and that story was about the speeches to the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce legislative breakfast.

16.

On June 21, based in part upon phone calls from Publisher and President Garson, the Executive Committee of the Development Foundation asked Dan Scott to write a letter to all South Dakota legislators explaining his position as per his comments at the breakfast.

17.

On Sunday, July 15 Defendant Argus Leader published an article written by Defendant Beck. The article was titled “Divisively arrogant: Dan Scott’s apology.” The body of the article was prefaced “NEWS ITEM:”

18.

Defendant Beck purported and claimed to reproduce what he labeled a “reasonable facsimile” of Plaintiff Scott’s July 5, 2007 letter.

19.

Virtually the entire article written by Defendant Beck consisted of false statements which Defendant Beck attributed to Plaintiff Scott as if such words were, in fact, contained in the Scott letter.

20.

At no place in the article or even in the newspaper of July 15, 2007, did Defendant Beck or Defendant Argus Leader refer to the article as parody, satire, or otherwise give their readers any indication that the article was not factually true.

21.

Defendants Beck and Defendant Argus Leader also published this article online at Defendant Argus Leader’s website – www.argusleader.com

22.

Although Defendants Beck and Argus Leader claimed they reproduced Plaintiff Scott’s actual letter on Defendant Argus Leader’s website, they did not give their readers any directions to enable them to find Plaintiff Scott’s actual letter. Nor did Defendant Argus Leader or Defendant Beck ever publish Plaintiff’s actual letter in the print version of the newspaper.

23.

Readers of Defendant Beck’s article believed it to be an actual letter of apology written by Plaintiff Scott. As a result of Defendant Beck’s article, individuals wrote comments on Defendant Argus Leader’s website and various internet blogs ridiculing Plaintiff Scott and demanding he resign or be fired.

24.

Plaintiff Scott wrote a letter to Defendants Argus Leader and Beck, demanding they retract the false statements. The retraction notice was sent via certified mail on August 1, 2007.

COUNT I
Defamation by Libel — Newspaper Article (Defendant Beck)

25.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 24 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

26.

On July 15, 2007, Defendant Beck made a false and unprivileged publication by writing concerning the Plaintiff Dan Scott, which exposed Plaintiff Scott to hatred and/or contempt and/or ridicule and/or obloquy, and caused the public to cast doubt on his qualifications, thereby having a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

27.

Defendant Beck’s article can reasonably be interpreted as attributing false statements of fact to Plaintiff Scott.

Alternative Count (Public Figure Standard)

28.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 27 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

29.

Defendant Beck acted with actual malice because of one or all of the following:

a. Beck knew his writing was false and that Plaintiff Scott did not make such comments;

b. Beck intended that readers would construe the publication as a
statement of facts;

c. Beck recklessly failed to anticipate that readers would construe his false statement of facts as an actual letter of apology from Plaintiff Scott.

d. Beck entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his article.

COUNT II

Defamation by Libel — Internet Article (Defendant Beck)

30.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 29 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

31.

Defendant Beck committed an additional libel to the same extent as listed above when he created a false and unprivileged publication by writing concerning the Plaintiff on the Defendant Argus Leader’s website.

COUNT III

Invasion of Privacy – False Light (Defendant Beck)

32.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

33.

On July 15, 2007, Defendant Beck, by publishing false facts and falsely attributing those facts to Plaintiff Scott:

a. placed Plaintiff Scott in a false light before the public;

b. portrayed Plaintiff Scott in such a way that would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person;

c. should have known that the publication would be offensive to a
reasonable person.

Alternative Count (Public Figure Standard)

34.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

35.

Defendant Beck acted with actual malice because of one or all of the following:

a. Beck knew his writing was false and that Plaintiff did not make such comments;

b. Beck intended that readers would construe the publication as a statement of fact;

c. Beck entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the article;

d. Beck recklessly failed to anticipate that readers would construe his false statement of facts as Plaintiff Scott’s actual letter.

COUNT IV

Invasion of Privacy – False Light – Internet Article (Defendant Beck)

36.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

37.

Defendant Beck committed an additional invasion of privacy – false light to the same extent as listed above when he created a false publication by writing the article concerning the Plaintiff on the Defendant Argus Leader’s website.

COUNTS AGAINST DEFENDANT ARGUS LEADER

38.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

39.

At all material times, Defendant Beck was acting within the scope of his employment with and for the benefit of Defendant Argus Leader.

40.

Defendant Argus Leader ratified Defendant Beck’s conduct.

41.

Defendant Argus Leader is vicariously liable to Plaintiff Scott for Counts I
through IV above.

DAMAGES

42.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 41 and incorporates them by reference as if fully set out herein.

43.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Beck’s and Argus Leader’s conduct in counts I and II above (defamation by libel) Plaintiff Scott has suffered damages to his personal reputation, professional reputation, and his good name. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from those losses in the future.

44.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Beck’s and Argus Leader’s conduct in counts III and IV above (invasion of privacy—false light) Plaintiff Scott has suffered damages for emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from those losses in the future.

45.

Plaintiff Scott is entitled to punitive damages as Defendants Beck and Argus Leader’s conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, willful and in disregard of humanity and was done in a manner as to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff Scott.

46.

Defendants Beck and Argus Leader are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Scott.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Dan F. Scott, demands and prays for judgment against the Defendants Randell Beck and the Argus Leader for damages in excess of one million ($1,000,000.), and, in addition, for such exemplary/punitive damages as may be appropriate pursuant to SDCL 21-3-2.

One MILLION dollars for defamation by libel. Invasion of Privacy.

And all the rest.

And the best part? Dan is represented by none other than former Governor Bill Janklow.

Remember the Dan Sutton matter where Governor Janklow represented the accuser? There weren’t theatrics. No extended monologues.

But what you did see was what was called for in the situation. And what I think you’ll see in this case. Some darned good lawyering. This time, the Argus Leader might just have bit off more than they might have wanted to chew.

BOOKMARK IT: