Nexstar Media Group has asked a federal judge to invalidate a jury’s award of more than $4 million in collective damages to two of the broadcaster’s former newsroom executives who sued for defamation and invasion of privacy.
According to court documents obtained by The Desk this week, attorneys for Nexstar said a federal jury erred in awarding former WOOD-TV (Channel 8, NBC) News Director Stanton Tang and Assistant News Director Amy Fox compensatory damages after finding the broadcaster liable for violating workplace privacy laws in Michigan.
The lawsuit stems from a memo Fox wrote at Tang’s urging three years ago that encouraged journalists at WOOD to reconsider coverage of Pride Month festivities. The memo reminded reporters and producers that WOOD’s viewership included conservatives, who might find coverage of Pride Month events “controversial and polarizing in our community.”
“While you personally may not agree with a certain position, people are entitled to their opinions, and they are our viewers,” Wood wrote, according to a copy of the memo obtained and published by The Desk.
After receiving significant media attention, Nexstar launched an internal review of the memo and determined Fox and Tang violated the company’s editorial policies. Fox and Tang were fired, as were two others suspected of giving copies of the memo to other news outlets.
Fox and Tang sued, accusing Nexstar of wrongful termination and of violating federal law when its corporate spokesperson offered background statements to some reporters after their employment ended. A judge overseeing the case dismissed some accusations of defamation and wrongful termination, but allowed the company to be tried on the invasion of privacy claims.
Last month, a jury exonerated Nexstar on the remaining defamation claims but found the company liable for invasion of privacy. The jury awarded Fox nearly $2.4 million in actual and compensatory damages, and Tang nearly $1.7 million in damages. Both are also seeking tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, according to additional records reviewed by The Desk.
On Tuesday, Nexstar filed a motion in court asking a judge to set aside the verdict and judgment, saying the jury erred in awarding anything for invasion of privacy after concluding the broadcaster did not defame the pair. Nexstar said any statements made by its executives to the public, including to reporters, were either truthful or protected under the First Amendment.
“Neither statement (from the spokesperson) names plaintiffs, describes their conduct or attributed to them any character or belief,” Nexstar’s attorneys wrote.
The broadcaster also contends that Fox and Tang were already publicly associated with the controversy before Nexstar commented on anything, specifically citing reports from The Desk and other publications that covered the memo and the reaction within WOOD’s newsroom before Fox and Tang were fired.
According to Nexstar’s attorneys, those news reports on the memo were proof that the company’s statements to reporters did not disclose anything private under Michigan or federal law, and it didn’t introduce the two executives to additional public scrutiny. (The Desk was the first to report on Fox and Tang’s firings by way of sources at the company; Nexstar issued a public statement on their terminations only after other media outlets began reporting the same.)
Beyond challenging the legal basis of the verdict, Nexstar alleges that the trial itself was unfair: The company’s attorneys contend that comments made by the presiding judge during witness questioning improperly influenced the jury’s assessment of the evidence.
“The (judge’s) conduct at trial, which included unnecessary and partial comments which placed the Court’s thumb on the scale in favor of plaintiffs and a last-minute change to the jury instructions over (Nexstar’s) objections which had a direct impact on the jury’s verdict, prejudiced Nexstar,” the attorneys wrote.
According to Nexstar, U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker interjected numerous times while Nexstar’s attorneys were questioning or cross-examining witnesses. Judges are allowed to interrupt the flow of questioning to make procedural inquiries, but Nexstar contends Jonker’s questioning crossed the line, including a demand to know how long the attorneys planned to question Tang in the matter, which “improperly signaled to the jury that this line of questioning was unimportant.”
Nexstar also took issue with hoe Jonker instructed the jury to evaluate certain evidence, saying a hypothetical situation involving some witness testimony poisoned the mind of the jury before they had a chance to deliberate.
“Even outside the jury’s presence, (Jonker’s) commentary display partiality towards (Fox and Tang), which prejudiced (Nexstar),” the attorneys wrote. One of Jonker’s alleged comments raised questions about whether Nexstar’s prominence in the TV industry prevented Fox and Tang from getting employment at another news outlet — an argument that neither Fox nor Tang raised in their complaint or at trial, but “which the (judge) presented to them.”
“Such comments likewise exceed the permissible scope of judicial commentary,” Nexstar’s attorneys wrote.
Motions for a judge to set aside a verdict or grant a new trial are rarely approved, since the typically require a judge to acknowledge that they or a jury got a decision wrong. But the motions are typically filed anyway as a first step toward appealing an unfavorable outcome to a higher court.
A spokesperson for Nexstar previously said the company was pursuing “all legal options, including an appeal.”
More Stories
- Fired WOOD-TV news directors win lawsuit against Nexstar
- Stressed employees levied complaints at WOOD-TV for months
- Fired news director says Pride Month memo was “spot on”
- Defamation lawsuit against Nexstar will continue, final settlement conference ends without deal
- Former Nexstar news director defends colleague who wrote controversial Pride Month memo
- Former WOOD-TV reporter leaked info about controversial Pride Month memo, Nexstar says
