Teter v. Project Veritas Action Fund et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Defendants' 16 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION to Strike. FURTHER ORDERED that, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall submit a memorandum, not to exceed 5 pages, addressing whether consolidation of this matter with Campbell v. Teter, et al., Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-MR, is appropriate. FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for conducting an initial attorneys' conference is hereby STAYED until the Court addresses the issue of consolidation. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/23/2018. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00256-MR

SHIRLEY TETER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PROJECT VERITAS ACTION FUND, )
PROJECT VERITAS, and JAMES E. )
O’KEEFE, III,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss and Motion to Strike [Doc. 16].
The present action is one of two actions filed in this Court arising from
an alleged incident that occurred between the Plaintiff Shirley Teter (“Teter”)
and Richard Lamar Campbell (“Campbell”) outside of a political rally in
Asheville, North Carolina, on September 12, 2016. [See also Civil Case No.
1:17-cv-00129-MR].

In the present action, Teter asserts claims for

defamation, libel, and slander and unfair and deceptive trade practices
against the Defendants Project Veritas Action Fund, Project Veritas, and
James E. O’Keefe, III, arising from their publication and dissemination of
videos of the alleged incident between Campbell and Teter. In the other

case, Campbell v. Teter, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00129-MR, Campbell asserts
claims of assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and defamation against
Teter.

Teter, in turn, asserts counterclaims for assault and battery,

defamation, libel and slander against Campbell.

Additionally, Campbell

asserts claims of libel and slander per se, libel and slander per quod, and
negligence against Defendant Sinclair Communications, LLC, arising from
its publication of news stories and interviews about the alleged incident.
The parties in both of these actions present allegations that give rise
to starkly divergent inferences. Such divergence appears to be much greater
than that found in the ordinary case, and it appears that the scenarios
presented by the parties in their pleadings are so in conflict as to present
alternate realities. Each party apparently knows so little about the actions of
the opposing parties that gave rise to the events complained of, that the
resulting allegations are scant and vague, even though they give rise to
inferences that are duly plausible. The defendants in these respective cases
nonetheless now move to conclusively dismiss the claims asserted against
them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, the claims and defenses asserted in these cases, as well
as the arguments raised in the motions to dismiss, raise significant First
Amendment issues. Addressing such issues through arguments about the
2

plausibility of inferences, however, is not a process likely to lead to a just and
correct result regarding such a weighty subject matter. Such issues should
be presented based on evidence, not on conjecture or on inferences drawn
from mere allegations. Thus, discovery is necessary. In addition, the Court
is troubled by what could be construed to be inconsistent legal positions
taken by some parties. Such concerns can likely be eliminated when the
parties are addressing evidence rather than mere allegations and inferences.
For all of these reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied.
The Defendants also move to strike certain allegations from Teter’s
Complaint. Upon review of the Complaint, for the same reasons as set forth
above, the Court does not find the allegations complained of to be so
“immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” as to require being stricken. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Strike is also
denied.
Finally, it appears that the continued prosecution of these actions
separately would create the risk of inconsistent verdicts, rulings, and results.
Accordingly, the Court will direct the parties to address the question of
whether this action should be consolidated with Civil Case No. 1:17-cv00129-MR for further proceedings, including discovery, motions, and if
necessary, trial.
3

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike [Doc. 16] are both DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry
of this Order, the parties shall submit a memorandum, not to exceed five (5)
pages, addressing whether consolidation of this matter with Campbell v.
Teter, et al., Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-MR, is appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for conducting an initial
attorneys’ conference is hereby STAYED until the Court addresses the issue
of consolidation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 23, 2018

4