ILNews

Rolling Stone settles, but fight over rape story isn't over

 Associated Press
April 12, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rolling Stone magazine settled a University of Virginia administrator's lawsuit over its discredited story about a rape on campus, but its legal fights over the botched article aren't over.

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and Nicole Eramo announced this week that they reached a confidential settlement over the 2014 story "A Rape on Campus," putting an end to the lengthy case stemming from the now-debunked claims of a woman identified only as "Jackie."

"We are delighted that this dispute is now behind us, as it allows Nicole to move on and focus on doing what she does best, which is supporting victims of sexual assault," Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said in a statement.

Rolling Stone called it an "amicable resolution."

The magazine still faces a more than $25 million lawsuit filed by the University of Virginia chapter of the fraternity where Jackie claimed she had been raped, which is scheduled to go to trial in October. A separate lawsuit from three former fraternity members was dismissed last year.

The settlement in Eramo's case came after Rolling Stone challenged a jury's November verdict awarding the former associate dean of students $3 million. Rolling Stone asked the judge in December to overturn the jury's decision, arguing that there is no evidence reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely acted with actual malice.

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, also urged the judge to overrule the jury's finding that Rolling Stone "republished" the false claims when it attached an editor's note highlighting problems with the story to an online version. Jurors said the magazine and its publisher didn't act with actual malice when the story was originally published but did when it was "republished."

The media groups said punishing Rolling Stone for trying to alert the public to problems with the story could discourage organizations from correcting errors.

Rolling Stone and Eramo settled before the judge could rule on the issue, so the jury's verdict stands and won't be examined by an appeals court.

"That's the troubling thing about the settlement, is that it doesn't give an appellate court a chance to wipe out that precedent," said George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center and a former attorney for The New York Times.

Freeman said Eramo's case shows Rolling Stone has "a propensity to settle," but he said it's hard to predict how the magazine's attorneys will proceed in the other matter.

In documents recently filed in that case, Rolling Stone suggested that the fraternity is partially at fault for the article because, it claims, the fraternity was aware of problems with Jackie's account and didn't say anything before the story went to print.

"For had they done so, the article never would have been published," Rolling Stone's attorneys said.

Attorneys for the fraternity did not immediately respond to messages.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT