VanderSloot moves forward with lawsuit against former Post Register reporter
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — A civil lawsuit by Melaleuca’s CEO against a former Post Register reporter is moving forward.
On Thursday Oct. 15, Forth District Judge Darla S. Williamson awarded a partial summary judgment to Frank VanderSloot and denied a similar motion for summary judgment filed by Peter Zuckerman’s attorneys. The case is now scheduled to go to jury trial on Nov. 9.
The civil case against Zuckerman centers around a May 2012 television appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.” During the show, Zuckerman asserted VanderSloot publicly outed him as gay in a 2005 advertisement in the Post Register. The ad, placed by VanderSloot, disputed the Post Register’s reporting on a series of articles about pedophilia in the Boy Scouts.
Zuckerman, who worked at the Post Register from 2003 to 2006, was lead reporter on the series. Zuckerman repeatedly claimed that because of the ad, he suffered homophobic harassment and that his then-boyfriend, Dylan Stone, was fired from his job.
VanderSloot contends the statements made on television were untrue and defamatory, court documents show. His recent motion for summary judgment requested the judge determine if Zuckerman’s statement on Rachel Maddow constituted libel.
In Thursday’s partial summary judgment ruling for VanderSloot, Williamson agreed on the defamatory nature of Zuckerman’s statements.
Williamson wrote:
“Zuckerman portrays himself as a victim of the Community Page ad and blames VanderSloot for his subsequent negative experiences … the Court presumes as a matter of law that these statements (about the negative experiences) ‘disgrace and degrade’ and hold VanderSloot ‘up to public hatred, contempt or ridicule’ and ‘reflect on VanderSloot’s ‘integrity, character and his good name in the community’ … the Court finds the alleged libel is evident on its face.”
Williamson found Zuckerman’s alleged statements constitute libel and that some of the statements were libelous per se or obviously harmful, without the need to prove malice.
In Zuckerman’s recent motion for summary judgment, the former reporter asserts his statements did not carry actual malice. He claims most of his comments are substantially true and that many of the statements were not about VanderSloot. Zuckerman also said VanderSloot did not suffer economic harm from his comments.
Williamson denied Zuckerman’s motion on each point. She contends most of the Zuckerman’s arguments can be determined by facts in the case, and are “not appropriate for summary judgment.”
“Both sides offer evidence that confirms and contradicts Zuckerman’s statements to Maddow. Thus, an issue of fact as to whether Zuckerman’s personal and professional life was tremendously impacted by VanderSloot’s ads is for presentation to a jury,” Williamson wrote.
EastIdahoNews.com was unable to reach Zuckerman or his attorney for comment Friday afternoon.
As a result of VanderSloot’s summary judgment, a jury will only have to determine damages caused to VanderSloot by Zuckerman.
The case was originally part of a larger legal dispute between VanderSloot and Mother Jones Magazine. VanderSloot claimed the publication made libelous statements against VanderSloot. On Oct. 6, Williamson awarded summary judgment to Mother Jones, but VanderSloot claimed a moral victory in the case, because of Williamson’s harsh words for Mother Jones. Click here to read the judge’s discussion points on the case. Click here to read VanderSloot’s statement about the case.