“The facts submitted could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice.” The ruling continued, “There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery. Then, attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear, convincing evidence of actual malice.”
The newspaper labeled the investigation as “deceptive,” “false” and “without verifiable evidence.” This prompted Veritas to accuse NYT of publishing “false and defamatory statements impugning Veritas’ journalism” driven by resentment and political bias.
This decision by the New York Supreme Court allows Project Veritas to get depositions of the two NYT writers and other NYT employees. Veritas founder James O’Keefe promises to record and “expose” the depositions.
In its motion, the New York Times defended its coverage as accurate. The argument made by the NYT was “actual malice could not be proven”. The Times emphasized Veritas is “libel-proof,” meaning its reputation is already irreparably tarnished. The judge disagreed.
