Judge orders DeWeese to provide more details in suit against Herald-Standard
A Fayette County judge has ruled that House Minority Leader Rep. H. William DeWeese (D-Waynesburg) must provide more details in his lawsuit against the Herald-Standard. Judge Steve P. Leskinen ruled that DeWeese needs to specifically identify any inferences and innuendo he drew from newspaper editorials that he claims defamed him.
DeWeese filed suit against the paper, Editor Michael C. Ellis and five John Does in November, claiming that caricatures and accompanying editorial writings, one article and one editorial column defamed him.
All of the items DeWeese cited deal with an October 2000 meeting with the newspaper’s editorial board during which the paper contends he promised to release specific expense records relative to a $12 million fund he controlled in his capacity as House minority leader.
DeWeese contends he agreed with editors of the newspaper that the expenditures should be made public, but he never promised to release the specific records sought by the Herald-Standard.
Seven months after the October 2000 meeting, the newspaper began running daily caricatures of DeWeese, accompanied by editorial commentaries. The drawing of DeWeese held a scroll that counted the number of days he had not turned over the records. The caricature ran just under one year.
In his ruling, Leskinen denied Herald-Standard attorney Charles Kelly’s request to dismiss parts or all of the suit. Kelly claimed that five of the six counts were merely duplicating the initial count of the suit.
However, Leskinen called the way the suit was filed “appropriate,” noting that if DeWeese wanted, he could have filed a count for each of the dozens of publications he cited as defamatory.
“(DeWeese) grouped the publications into counts chronologically, separated by events and correspondence that could affect the degree of Defendants’ alleged culpability,” wrote the judge.
The newspaper also had asked Leskinen to dismiss the entire suit because it did not lay out any specific allegations of how DeWeese was defamed by innuendo or implication. While Leskinen denied that request, he said DeWeese must specifically define what was defamatory.
Leskinen wrote that it was not difficult to understand how allegations that DeWeese “broke his word” or “promise” could be construed as defamatory if no promise was made. However, referring to the leadership account under DeWeese’s control as a “slush fund” was more open to interpretation, concluded the judge.
“Whether or not calling the account involved a ‘slush fund’ implies dishonesty or immorality on the part of the plaintiff (DeWeese) is a matter about which reasonable minds might continue to disagree. For that reason, it is all the more important that the specific implications and innuendos be set forth in detail so that everyone in the courtroom will know what is at issue,” wrote Leskinen.
In a motion filed earlier this year, Kelly had requested Leskinen order a more specific complaint if he did not dismiss the entire suit. DeWeese’s attorney will have 20 days to file the amended complaint. According to Leskinen’s ruling, anything not included in the second complaint will not be considered by the court.
Leskinen also agreed that the suit improperly asked for $1 million per count in punitive damages and $50,000 per count in compensatory damages. Such requests for specific amounts are not in accordance with county rules.
“While making a claim for an amount in excess of One Million Dollars might be good for publicity in a supermarket tabloid, it is specifically forbidden by our rules,” wrote the jurist.
In his order, Leskinen also wrote that it was “unfortunate” that DeWeese felt he had to sue the newspaper to publish his side of the story.
“At this point, it appears that all parties to this litigation sincerely believed that they acted with the public interest at all times, and that they all agreed that public money should be generally publicly accounted for.
“Where they differ is whether plaintiff promised to disclose information that legislative rules and customs have kept confidential in the past. It is certainly unfortunate that the parties have not been able to settle their differences up to this point,” wrote Leskinen.
Once DeWeese’s amended complaint is filed, Kelly will have 20 days to file a response to the complaint.