Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: This is a defamation action stemming from a profile of Plaintiff Peter Paul Biro, written by Defendant David Grann (“the Grann Article”), which appeared in the July 12-19, 2010 issue of the New Yorker magazine, published by Defendant Condé Nast, a division of Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (“Advance”). In an opinion and order dated August 9, 2012, this Court examined each allegedly defamatory passage in the Grann Article and determined that four of roughly two dozen passages stated a claim for defamation under New York law. The remaining passages were determined to be either not susceptible of a defamatory implication, non-actionable expressions of opinion, or privileged as fair and true reports of a judicial proceeding. Before this Court at present are the following motions: (1) a motion filed by Grann and Advance (collectively, “the New Yorker Defendants”) for an order finding Biro to be a public figure; (2) the New Yorker Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings; and motions to dismiss by (3) Yale University Press (“YUP”); (4) Paddy Johnson; (5) Gawker Media LLC (“Gawker Media”); and (6) Business Insider (collectively, “the Republisher Defendants”). For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motions are all granted. I. Background A. Factual Background 1. The Parties Biro is a Canadian citizen in the business of art restoration and authentication. He is known for having developed scientific approaches to art authentication through fingerprint analysis. Biro is featured in the documentary Who the # $ & % is Jackson Pollock?, which concerns a painting purchased for five dollars by truck driver Teri Horton, which may or may not be an authentic Jackson Pollock. Defendant David Grann is a citizen of New York and a journalist who has written numerous books and feature stories for publications including the New Yorker, where the Grann Article appeared on July 12, 2010. Defendant Advance is a corporation with its principal place of business in New York and is the publisher of the New Yorker. Defendant Business Insider is a corporation with its principal place of business in New York and is the publisher of a business and technology news website, available at http://www.businessinsider. com. Defendant Gawker Media is a corporation with its principal place of business in New York and is the publisher of numerous blogs, including the technology blog Gizmodo, available at http://www.gizmodo. com. Defendant YUP is a department of Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut. YUP is a book publisher, which has published, inter alia, a biography of the artist Jackson Pollock, entitled Jackson Pollock, by the author Evelyn Toynton (“the Toynton Biography”). Defendant Paddy Johnson is a resident of New York, and is the founding editor of the blog artfagcity.com. 2. The Johnson Article On May 18, 2011, Paddy Johnson wrote and published an article entitled “Making the Mark of a Masterpiece” on artfagcity.com (“the Johnson Article”). Johnson’s article, which concerns Grann’s profile of Biro, states in its entirety: The New Yorker’s Mark of a Masterpiece tells me its [sic ] time to re-evaluate a couple opinions I expressed about that so-called Jackson Pollock I wrote about back in 2006. Thanks to a documentary called Who the #$ & % is Jackson Pollock?, I wasted a fair bit of ink on why I thought the International Foundation for Art Research should take another look at a garish painting that didn’t look much like a Pollock. Forensic scientist Peter Paul Biro had produced fingerprinting identification and matched paint samples though, and that evidence seemed rather compelling. So I pushed aside a few pesky details, namely that it followed the basic rule of forgery: The less plausible the fake, the more involved the narrative and documentation becomes. This one reached absurd levels, with truck driver Teri Horton’s big thrift store find and Peter Paul Biro’s research even spinning its own documentary. Now however, David Grann sheds considerable light on some of the forensic scientist’s more questionable authentication techniques. From the article: [Theresa] Franks [of Global Fine Art Registry, a company crusading against fraud] became particularly interested in Biro’s methods after Frankie Brown, an artist in California, told her that he had seen a photograph of the Teri Horton painting, in People, and wondered if it might be his own work. Franks hired as an expert Tom Hanley, the chief of police in Middlebury, Vermont, who had more than two decades of experience as a fingerprint examiner. Hanley told me that he approached Biro, who had previously stated about Horton’s painting, “My work is (and has been) available for evaluation to qualified experts.” Yet Biro declined to share his evidence, saying that Horton had objected to the idea. Hanley was thus forced to rely on bits of information that Biro had posted on his Web site, several years earlier. The online report contains a photograph of the partial fingerprint that Biro said he had found on the back of Horton’s painting. In Hanley’s judgment, the impression lacked the kind of detail — the clear ridges and furrows — that is necessary to make a proper comparison. After Hanley revealed his findings to Franks, she raised questions on her Web site about the reliability of Biro’s fingerprint methodology. Biro then inserted a clarification to his online report. It said: For security reasons, several images in this report are watermarked in a way that is not apparent to the observer. The fingerprint images have also been reduced in resolution so as to render them unusable except for illustration. I advise against evaluating the fingerprint images illustrated in this report as if they were the actual source material. Any attempt to do so is pointless. Biro told me that such secrecy protected the privacy of his clients and prevented anyone from, misusing the fingerprint. To Hanley, this was baffling: what forensic scientist avoids peer review and even admits to doctoring evidence in order to prevent others from evaluating it? “If what he found are truly fingerprints, why isn’t he sharing?” Franks asked me. In any case, Hanley, unable to examine Biro’s evidence firsthand, had reached a dead end. Then Ken Parker [a man Biro also produced a controversial Pollock authentication for] told Hanley and Franks about his drama with Biro. Parker said that Hanley was welcome to examine his painting. For the first time, Hanley was able directly to observe Biro’s fingerprint evidence. He noted several fingerprints on the back of the picture, including two on the wooden stretcher frame, which were black, as if they had been made with ink. Looking through a magnifying glass, Hanley focussed [sic] on the most legible fingerprint, which appeared to be covered with a clear finishing coat, like a varnish. Parker said that before giving the painting to Biro he hadn’t noticed a fingerprint on it. “I don’t know where it came from,” he said. He said that Biro had told him he had used some sort of “resin process” .to make it more visible. Hanley had never seen a print developed in this fashion. Based on the clarity of the impression, Hanley thought that the fingerprint had to be relatively new — certainly not from half a century ago, when Pollock was alive. Those are pretty damning words. I spoke with Peter Paul Biro on more than one occasion during the promotion of the movie, and while he didn’t offer a lot of insight on the movie itself he did go to great lengths to explain that his reputation was his livelihood. “This is not a risk I would take if I were not certain,” he told me. Foolishly, I believed him. Biro requested that Johnson remove this article from her website; that request was denied. 3.The Gawker Article On July 7, 2010, an article entitled “Is This Man the Art World’s High-Tech Hero or Villain?” was published on Gawker Media’s website Gizmodo (“the Gawker Article”). The article begins, “This is Peter Paul Biro. Depending on who you ask, he’s either using fingerprinting, forensic science, and state of the art spectral cameras to uncover lost art masterpieces, or using that same technology to manufacture them.” After quoting a paragraph from the Grann Article, the Gawker Article states: But Grann quickly began to find cracks in Biro’s story, tracing a long history of purported fraud and manipulation of artworks he was employed to restore (his family worked in restoring art before Peter Paul eventually moved into the field of authenticating it). At the end of this tangled yarn comes a striking accusation: Biro had actually planted many of the fingerprints that supposedly verified the authenticity of the paintings he was charged with evaluating.' Just like the art he works with, it’s hard to pin down the true- story behind Peter Paul Biro. But as shown in the New Yorker piece (which you should really read in full), Biro’s complicated cameras and forensic techniques have only introduced a new layer of uncertainty to the hazier corners of art history. 4.The Business Insider Article On July 5, 2011, Business Insider published an article entitled “Nine of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time” on its website (“the Business Insider Article”). One of nine biggest art forgeries of all time, according to the Business Insider Article, was perpetrated by Biro. The article contained the following language: “But soon after, New Yorker reporter David Grann wrote a profile of Biro revealing him as a forger and long-term fraud who created phony fingerprints on paintings to market them as genuine.” After Biro demanded a retraction of the Business Insider Article, Business Insider removed the posting. The remainder of the Article, sans reference to Biro, continues to exist on Business Insider’s website. It is now entitled “Eight of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time.” 5.The Toynton Biography On or about December 19, 2011, after this lawsuit had commenced, YUP published the Toynton Biography. Chapter ten of the Toynton Biography contains a section of several pages in length about two discoveries of supposed Jackson Pollock paintings, including the painting discovered by Teri Horton. The section also discusses Alex Matter, a filmmaker who found a cache of paintings that his late father had designated as Pollocks. The section on the Horton and Matter paintings begins, “Just as the prices of Pollocks make headlines in the mainstream media, there has also been extensive coverage of the controversies surrounding the discovery, in unlikely places, of what were claimed to be previously unknown Pollocks.” (Toyton at 109.) On page 110, Toynton writes: A purported forensics expert with a specialty in art claimed to have found a Pollock fingerprint on Horton’s painting, though his integrity was later called into doubt, and the validity of his methods questioned by a fingerprint expert of long standing. There were even allegations that the fingerprint had been forged — transferred onto the painting via an inked rubber stamp made from a cast of a Pollock print on a paint can. And when the same forensic expert announced he’d also found a Pollock fingerprint on another disputed Pollock, it was hard to take him seriously. Although he is not named, the “purported forensics expert” mentioned in the Toynton Biography is allegedly Biro. The Toynton Biography goes on to note: “In fact, even before the fingerprint controversy, experts like the late Thomas Hoving, a former director of the Metropolitan Museum, had scoffed at Horton’s claims for her painting .... ” Toward the conclusion of her section on these controversies, Toynton writes: Neither dispute has yet been conclusively laid to rest, and it is certain that there will be other controversial Pollock discoveries in the future. Whether they will be resolved by scientific analysis or by the aesthetic judgment of those whose long-standing involvement with Pollock’s work make their instinctive responses particularly trustworthy is not yet clear. In both cases, the problem of establishing authenticity and thus differing conclusions arrived at by respected scholars and connoisseurs, not to mention the scientists involved, highlighted the particular difficulty of authenticating the kind of work Pollock produced. And the controversies inevitably reopened the uncomfortable question, in the public mind at least, of how authentic Pollock’s work was in and of itself .... (Id. at 111.) B. Procedural Background Biro initiated this action on June 29, 2011. (Dkt. No. 11.) Biro has since amended his complaint three times, on September 27, 2011, December 5, 2011, and October 12, 2012. (See Dkt. Nos. 17, 27, & 92.) Claims against all of the Re-publisher Defendants relevant to this opinion, except YUP, were first added in the Second Amended Complaint. The claim against YUP was added in the Third Amended Complaint. On August 9, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the New Yorker Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 70.) Most of the roughly two dozen allegedly defamatory statements in the Grann Article were dismissed. The Court held that Biro had stated a claim, however, as to the following four sections of the Grann Article: (1) the recitation of Elisabeth Lipsz’s comment that Biro is a “classic con man” as well as her attorney’s comment that Biro “was so convincing. He was very suave, soft-spoken, but after a while you catch him in different lies and you realize that the guy is a phony,” Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 461-62 (“the Lipsz passage”); (2) the section on Biro’s analysis of the purported Pollocks owned by Teri Horton and Alex Matter as well as Biro’s examination of Pollock’s studio, which implies “that Biro’s findings are not trustworthy, and are highly suspect,” id. at 476 (“the Horton and Matter passage”); (3) the section on the Provenance venture, which suggests that Biro would profit from the sale of the Horton painting and other paintings that he was to authenticate, id. at 476-77 (“the Provenance Venture passage”); and (4) the description of the lawsuit brought by Saul Hendler over the “Renoir” painting that may or may not have been switched with a copy, which Biro claims contains several inaccuracies, id. at 481-82 (“the Hendler passage”). The Court’s previous opinion concluded as follows: There is little question that a reader may walk away from the Article with a negative impression of Biro, but that impression would be largely the result of statements of fact that Biro does not allege to be false. There can be no claim for an overall defamatory impact from the reporting of true statements beyond the specific defamatory implications that may arise from those specific statements. More fundamentally, the Article as a whole does not make express accusations against Biro, or suggest concrete conclusions about whether or not he is a fraud. Rather, it lays out evidence that may raise questions, and allows the reader to make up his or her own mind. In that regard it is similar to the article at issue in the Chapin case in the Fourth Circuit. There, the article raised questions about the legitimacy of a charitable organization that sent gift packages to U.S. soldiers stationed abroad. The court concluded that the article “is a story constructed around questions, not conclusions.” Chapin [v. Knight-Ridder, Inc.], 993 F.2d [1087] at 1098 [ (4th Cir.1993) ]. The court continued: But the mere raising of questions is, without more, insufficient to sustain a defamation suit in these circumstances. Questions are not necessarily accusations or affronts. Nor do they necessarily insinuate derogatory answers. They may simply be, as they are here, expressions of uncertainty. The ... article advances alternative answers to the questions it raises, presenting both favorable and unfavorable views, but does not ultimately adopt any particular answer as correct. From this, a reasonable reader would not be likely to conclude that one answer is true and the other false. Language of ambiguity and imprecision permeates the article, significantly coloring its tone. Id. This analysis applies to the Article in this case as well. At the end of the Article, the reader is left genuinely uncertain what to believe. Although the Article reports many facts tending to suggest that Biro may not be exactly who he says he is, it also contains extensive interviews with Biro himself, includes Biro’s responses to many of the accusations reported in the Article, and quotes many third party sources with complimentary things to say about Biro. If anything, the Article seeks to draw a parallel between the idea that one can never be wholly certain whether a piece of art is truly “authentic” (whether through connoisseurship or science) with the idea that it is difficult to fully know the truth about who a person is. This type of inquisitive approach falls short of the “hatchet job” that Biro’s counsel described at oral argument. (See Transcript, Dkt. No. 68, at 27.) At the same time, there can be little doubt that even a publication that, on the whole, merely raises questions has the potential to have serious consequences on a plaintiffs reputation. Thus, where Biro has alleged an actionable defamatory false statement of fact, or false implication, the Court allows the claim to proceed. Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 482-483. On November 27, 2012, the Court denied both Plaintiffs and the New Yorker Defendants’ motions for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 120.) On November 5, 2012, Business Insider moved to dismiss Count Six of the Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 101 (“BI Mem.”)). In its brief in support of dismissal, Business Insider argued that Biro is a limited purpose public figure. Following that motion, the New Yorker Defendants also moved for an order determining that Biro is a limited purpose public figure. (Dkt. No. 106.) Thereafter, Gawker Media, Paddy Johnson, and YUP moved to dismiss Counts Seven, Eight, and Nine of the Third Amended Complaint, respectively. (Dkt. Nos, 133 (“GM Mem.”), 117 (“PJ Mem.”) and 144 (‘TUP Mem.”).) At a status conference on February 13, 2013, the New Yorker Defendants sought leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court granted leave and set a briefing schedule. On March 1, 2013, the New Yorker Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. No. 156 (“NY Def. Mem.”).) Oral argument on the pending motions was held on May 17, 2013. II. Applicable Legal Standards As this Court explained in a prior opinion, there is, according to the New York Court of Appeals, “ ‘particular value’ in resolving defamation claims at the pleading stage, ‘so as not to protract litigation through discovery and trial and thereby chill the exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms.’ ” Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 457 (quoting Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 85 N.Y.2d 373, 625 N.Y.S.2d 477, 649 N.E.2d 825, 828 (1995)). With that principle in mind, the Court reviews the federal pleading standards that govern this case. A. Motion to Dismiss On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws inferences only in the plaintiffs favor. On such a motion, the Court is limited to reviewing the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint or incorporated into it by reference, any documents that are “integral” to the plaintiffs allegations, even if not explicitly incorporated by reference, and facts of which the Court may take judicial notice. See ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir.2007); Thomas v. Goord, 215 Fed.Appx. 51, 52 (2d Cir.2007); accord Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 478 (taking judicial notice of court records submitted by the New Yorker Defendants in adjudicating their motion to dismiss). The doctrine of judicial notice is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 201, which provides that a “court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” In the motion to dismiss context, “a court should generally take judicial notice ‘to determine what statements [the documents] contain [ ] ... not for the truth of the matters asserted.’ ” Schubert v. City of Rye, 775 F.Supp.2d 689, 698 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (quoting Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 987 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991)) (alterations in Schubert). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In order to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), however, a plaintiff must state “the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ ” ATSI Comm., Inc., 493 F.3d at 98 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.”). In other words, where a plaintiff has not “nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955; see also Leak v. Schriro, No. 11 Civ. 8023(PAE) (JCF), 2013 WL 1234945, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2013) (“Where the complaint’s factual allegations permit the court to infer only that it is possible, but not plausible, that misconduct occurred, the complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937)). B. Judgment on the Pleadings Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Under Rule 12(c), “a party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings only if it has established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bailey v. Pataki, No. 08 Civ. 8563(JSR), 2010 WL 234995, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original). “The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Thus, while the Court “accept[s] all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences” in favor of the non-movant, Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), “[t]o survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Because “hasty or imprudent use of this summary procedure by the courts violates the policy in favor of ensuring to each litigant a full and fair hearing on the merits of his or her claim or defense,” federal courts are “unwilling to grant a motion under Rule 12(c) unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1368 (3d ed.). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, “a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir.2010). III. The Timeliness of the Claim against Gawker Media Because failure to abide by the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, dismissing claims on statute of limitations grounds at the motion to dismiss stage is appropriate only if the “complaint clearly shows the claim is out of time.” Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243, 250 (2d Cir.1999); see also Intuition Consol. Grp., Inc. v. Dick Davis Publ’g Co., No. 03 Civ. 5063(PKC), 2004 WL 594651, at *1 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2004) (explaining that “the Second Circuit has approved the consideration of an affirmative defense on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if the defense appears on the face of the complaint”). Defamation claims brought under New York law are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See CPLR 215(3). Under New York law, “[a] cause of action for defamation accrues when the material is published.” Shamley v. ITT Corp., 869 F.2d 167, 172 (2d Cir.1989) (citations omitted). Biro’s claim against Gawker Media is based on an article published on Gawker Media’s Gizmodo site on July 7, 2010, at 12:40 a.m., two days after the Grann Article appeared in the New Yorker. Gawker Media was not named as a Defendant, however, until the filing of the Second Amended Complaint on December 5, 2011, well over a year after the limitations period began to accrue. Thus, the Third Amended Complaint does indeed suggest on its face that the claim against Gawker Media “is out of time.” In support of its argument that its claim against Gawker Media is not time barred, Biro makes two related attempts to demonstrate that the Gawker Article has been republished within the statutory period. First, Biro argues that Gawker Media republished the article in 2011, because the article reappeared “accompanied by different and related material, consisting of new comments added by readers of the first posting.” (Dkt. No. 127 (“Opp’n. to GM”) at 2.) Second, Biro argues that the article was republished on other, Gawker Media-owned websites. Under New York’s single publication rale, it is irrelevant, for statute of limitation purposes, that a story remains online after its publication. Young v. Suffolk Cnty., 705 F.Supp.2d 183, 212 (E.D.N.Y.2010). In other words, the fact that an article can still be accessed online does not mean that it has been republished. It is well established that a new edition of a book or newspaper begins again the statute of limitations for a defamation claim. Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F.Supp. 1082, 1094 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (citing Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 52 N.Y.2d 422, 438 N.Y.S.2d 496, 420 N.E.2d 377 (1981)). Less clear, however, is when it is appropriate to deem an internet publication “republished” for purposes of restarting the statute of limitations period. In Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 371-72, 747 N.Y.S.2d 69, 775 N.E.2d 463 (2002), the New York Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a peripheral modification of the website at issue constituted republieation. The Court reasoned as follows: Republication, retriggering the period of limitations, occurs upon a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely “a delayed circulation of the original edition.” The justification for this exception to the single publication rule is that the subsequent publication is intended to and actually reaches a new audience. Thus, for example, repetition of a defamatory statement in a later edition of a book, magazine or newspaper may give rise to a new cause of action. The mere addition of unrelated information to a Web site cannot be equated with the repetition of defamatory matter in a separately published edition of a book or newspaper .... The justification for the republication exception has no application at all to the addition of unrelated material on a Web site, for it is not reasonably inferable that the addition was made either with the intent or the result of communicating the earlier and separate defamatory information to a new audience. We observe that many Web sites are in a constant state of change, with information posted sequentially on a frequent basis. For example, this Court has a Web site which includes its decisions, to which it continually adds its slip opinions as they are handed down. Similarly, Web sites are used by news organizations to provide readily accessible records of newsworthy events as they occur and are reported. Those unrelated additions are indistinguishable from the asserted DMV report modification of the State’s Web site here. A rule applying the republication exception under the circumstances here would either discourage the placement of information on the Internet or slow the exchange of such information, reducing the Internet’s unique advantages. In order not to re-trigger the statute of limitations, a publisher would be forced either to avoid posting on a Web site or use a separate site for each new piece of information. These policy concerns militate against a holding that any modification to a Web site constitutes a republication of the defamatory communication itself. Id. The analysis of the Firth Court suggests that there are several factors relevant to the question of republication as it applies to the internet: (1) whether it is “reasonably inferable that the addition was made either with the intent or the result of communicating the earlier and separate defamatory information to a new audience”; (2) whether any alterations to the webpage were related to the allegedly defamatory content at issue; and (3) whether a determination that a republication had occurred would blunt “the Internet’s unique advantages.” Id. Biro argues that, while the Gawker Article was published on July 7, 2010, “[o]n December 19, 2011, another version appeared, containing entirely different comments.” (Opp’n. to GM at 6.) Contrary to Biro’s contention that the printouts of the Gawker Article dated July, 2010 and December 19, 2011 are different “version[s],” they are in fact identical versions of the Gawker Article, printed from the same URL. (See Dkt. No. 129 (“Altman Deck”), Exs. B & C.) The only difference is that, between July 7, 2010 and December 19, 2011, different discussion threads appear at the top of the “comments” section. As Biro points out, the “comments” section closed at some point between December 2011 and November 2012. A holding that new comments on an article by third parties establish a “republication” of the article would eviscerate the single publication rule, as websites with “comments” sections would be subject to defamation suits from the moment an article is published to a year after the commenting period had closed. It would also contravene the New York Court of Appeals’ holding in Firth. New comments below an internet article say nothing about the publisher’s intent, or the publication’s ability, to reach new audiences; rather, they simply indicate, at most, that additional people have read the publication in question. This is not republication, just as a book is not republished when it is sold to a new customer at a second-hand bookstore, or loaned by one friend to another. More importantly, the ability of third parties to comment on articles is a unique advantage of the internet, and thus application of the republication concept in this context would be inappropriate. Indeed, one value of “comments” sections is that they actually allow defamed persons to more effectively combat defamation. See David S. Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law, 45 Harv. C.R.C.L. L.Rev. 261, 318 (Summer 2010) (“On the Internet, those, who believe they have been defamed can quickly add their side of the story to the comments section or, perhaps, be accorded the ability to have a link to their own Web site included with the original statement or added to search results.”). Thus, it is clear that — at least in cases in which third party comments are not part and parcel of the defamation claim at issue — a new third party comment in the “comments” section of a website cannot create an exception to the single publication rule. Biro next argues that his claim should be saved because Gawker Media republished the Gawker Article on several other websites — one called 109 (Altman Decl., Ex. D), the other called Gizmodo Australia — “at some point in time.” (Opp’n. to GM at 6.) As Biro rightly notes, a relocation of defamatory material to a new location can constitute a republication that restarts the limitations period. See, e.g., Rare 1 Corp. v. Moshe Zwiebel Diamond Corp., 13 Misc.3d 279, 822 N.Y.S.2d 375, 377 (N.Y.Sup.2006). Biro alleges nothing about these other publications in either his Second or Third Amended Complaint. Nor, by extension, do Biro’s pleadings allege that the republications of the Gawker Article now submitted by Biro were published by websites owned or operated by Gawker Media. Rather, the Third Amended Complaint simply alleges that the Gawker Article was published on Gizmodo, a website owned and operated by Gawker Media. More importantly, while Biro claims, perplexingly, that the republication dates of the articles are unknown, the Gizmodo Australia article clearly states on its face that it was published at July 7, 2010 at 2:40 p.m., while the 109 article clearly states that it was published on July 6, 2010 at 9:40 a.m. Doron Precision Sys., Inc. v. FAAC, Inc., 423 F.Supp.2d 173, 179 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (“For purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may take judicial notice of information publicly announced on a party’s website, as long as the website’s authenticity is not in dispute and ‘it is capable of accurate and ready determination.’ ” (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b))). Accordingly, Biro’s claim against Gawk-er Media is untimely. Count Seven of the Third Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed. IV. Biro as a Limited Purpose Public Figure Courts have long recognized the “conflicting interests involved in libel cases. On the one hand is the societal interest in free press discussions of matters of general concern, and on the other is the individual interest in reputation.” Serv. Parking Corp. v. Washington Times Co., 92 F.2d 502, 505 (D.C.Cir.1937). In the seminal case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the Supreme Court tipped the balance decidedly toward free expression in cases concerning public officials. The Sullivan Court determined that, to succeed in a defamation suit, the First Amendment requires a public official to first establish that the defendant published a defamatory falsehood with “actual malice.” Id. at 285-86, 84 S.Ct. 710. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court extended the same test to defamation suits brought by public figures. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 335-36, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (citing Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 162, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967)). While the plaintiff in Gertz, a private attorney who represented the family of a murder victim in a civil trial, was a private plaintiff, Gertz remains the leading Supreme Court case on the contours of the public figure designation. As the Gertz Court explained, while one “may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts,” it is more common that otherwise private individuals are considered public figures “for a limited range of issues.” Id. at 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997; see also Nelson v. Globe Intern., Inc., 626 F.Supp. 969, 973 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (noting that “[t]here are two types of public figures”). The effect of Gertz was to significantly broaden the scope of subjects about whom commentary will receive the heightened protections provided in Sullivan. See James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834, 839 (1976) (noting that the “category of ‘public figures’ is of necessity quite broad”). But see Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc., 443 U.S. 157, 167, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979) (“A private individual is not automatically transformed into a public figure just by becoming involved in or associated with a matter that attracts public attention.”). “Whether or not a person or an organization is a public figure is a question of law for the court to decide.” Church of Scientology Int’l v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.Supp. 661, 666 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citing James, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d at 839-40). Where the question whether a plaintiff is a public figure can be determined based upon the pleadings alone, the Court may deem a plaintiff a public figure at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., id. Here, Defendants contend that Biro is a. limited purpose, or “vortex,” public figure, and that Biro must therefore plead actual malice in order to proceed with his suit. Thus, before proceeding further, it must be determined whether Biro is a limited purpose public figure for the purposes of this action, or at least whether such a determination can be made at the pleadings stage in this litigation. The Second Circuit has set forth a four-part test for determining whether an individual is a limited purpose public figure. A defendant must demonstrate that a plaintiff has: (1) successfully invited public attention to his views in an effort to influence others prior to the incident that is the subject of litigation; (2) voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy related to the subject of the litigation; (3) assumed a position of prominence in the public controversy; and (4) maintained regular and continuing access to the media. Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 123, 136-37 (2d Cir.1984); see also Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 617 (2d Cir.1988) (same). By definition, comments regarding a limited purpose public figure are subject to heightened scrutiny only to the extent that they are relevant to the public figure’s involvement in a given controversy. Faigin v. Kelly, 978 F.Supp. 420, 426 (D.N.H.1997). Yet, once a plaintiff is deemed a limited purpose public figure, courts allow the heightened protections to sweep broadly, covering all statements by defendants that are not “wholly unrelated to the controversy.” Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ’ns, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C.Cir.1980). As one district court has noted, “[standing as close as we are to the First Amendment’s core, we must diminish this risk by taking a view of ‘relevance’ broad enough to reveal whether the statement might affect public opinion without discriminating based on the reasons why.” Kisser v. Coalition for Religious Freedom, No. 92 Civ. 4508, 1995 WL 3996, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 5, 1995) A. Successful Invitation of Public Attention to Influence Others The first question is whether Biro has successfully invited public attention in an attempt to influence others. By Biro’s own admission, he is “a leading authority in [the] emerging field [of art authentication],” who has “been retained in a number of challenging authentication studies for collections and private clients worldwide.” (TAC at ¶ 11.) As a “leading authority,” Biro has “lectured at Harvard University, the Yale Club in New York, the National Portrait Gallery in London, the University of Glasgow in Scotland.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) He has also published on art authentication in various scientific journals. (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 107 (“Atcherley Deck”), Exs. 4-8 (articles by Biro on his techniques for art authentication).) Moreover, Biro “has been interviewed for a feature-length documentary, ‘Who the # $ & % is Jackson Pollock?,’ two BBC documentaries, CBS’s 60 Minutes, CNN, and a forthcoming documentary produced by the National Geographic Society.” (TAC at ¶ 12.) Despite admittedly making myriad high-profile public appearances, Biro contends that he is not a limited purpose public figure under Lerman because he “has made no effort to influence others, but has merely described his work when invited to do so, and has defended it and himself when he has been attacked.” (Dkt. No. 119 (“Opp’n. to BI”) at 2-3.) This argument is unpersuasive. The very purpose of writing articles in scientific journals, lecturing at universities, and opining in news shows and documentaries is to influence public discourse. Indeed, Biro’s articles themselves bespeak an unequivocal desire to alter the public discourse about art authentication. (See, e.g., Atcherley Decl., Ex. 7 (“This leads me to my final comment: you just don’t dismiss science and forensics in the 21st Century ...” (ellipses in original))); id., Ex. 6, at 157 (arguing that, “it is almost certain that forensic evidence will join formal, stylistic, and material analyses, as well as the determination of provenance, to become one more standard instrument in the art historian’s tool kit, at least whenever questions of authentication arise”); id., Ex. 5, at 148 (describing the “groundbreaking” technology in his lab and purporting to answer the question, “But why do we need all this new technology?”); id., Ex. 4 at 5 (proclaiming that Biro’s “innovative forensic approach has helped resolve equivocation” regarding the identity of certain works of art); accord Perks v. Town of Huntington, 251 F.Supp.2d 1143, 1168 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (public employee alleging he was sexually harassed by his boss is a limited purpose public figure where, in an attempt to present his “side of the story,” he “participated in more than one press conference related to this lawsuit” and “had agreed to be interviewed by several reporters who were writing newspaper articles about the dispute”); Rybachek v. Sutton, 761 P.2d 1013, 1013-14 (Alaska 1988) (journalist who writes bi-weekly column on mining and natural resources is a limited purpose public figure). Thus, Biro satisfies the first prong of Lerman. B. Voluntary Injection into a Controversy The next Lerman prong contains two distinct questions: first, whether the plaintiff has injected himself into a controversy, and second, if so, whether that injection was voluntary. 1. The Existence of a Public Controversy A public controversy is simply “any topic upon which sizeable segments of society have different, strongly held views,” even if the topic does “not involve[ ] political debate or criticism of public officials.” Lerman, 745 F.2d at 138; see also Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1296 (explaining that a “public controversy” is “a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way”). Even those controversies that engage a “specialized” audience can still be considered “public” in nature. See Chandok v. Klessig, 648 F.Supp.2d 449, 459 (N.D.N.Y.2009) (determining that publication in plant biology journals constitutes voluntary injection into a public controversy (citing Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 177 (2d Cir.2000))); see also Hoffman v. Washington Post Co., 433 F.Supp. 600, 604 (D.D.C.1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 442 (D.C.Cir.1978) (lecturer and author on nutrition was a public figure for the purposes of protein shakes and supplements). Indeed, courts, in this Circuit and elsewhere, have squarely held that statements about art and art authenticity are “clearly a matter of public concern.” McNally v. Yarnall, 764 F.Supp. 838, 847 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (“Granted, the topic of La Farge may not be of interest to the population as a whole. Where, however, as here, the statements of Yarnall on the authenticity and value of works attributed to La Farge affect the market for and the tax implications of donating La Farge’s works among the segment of the population that trades such works as well as the community of scholars with an interest in La Farge, such statements are of public import.”); Porcella v. Time, Inc., 300 F.2d 162, 166 (7th Cir.1962) (allegedly defamatory article questioning the bona fides an “art expert” who purported to render “expert counsel, advice, opinions, evaluations and authentications” of art works constitutes a matter of public concern); Park W. Galleries, Inc. v. Global Fine Art Registry, LLC, 2010 WL 742580, *9-10 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 26, 2010) (legitimacy of Dali prints sold by gallery constituted a public controversy). In the Second Circuit, the issue into which the plaintiff has injected himself must be “controversial” at the time the plaintiff forayed into the matter. See Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 129 F.Supp.2d 248, 252 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“Prior to plaintiffs’ making these statements, however, there was no ‘public controversy’ over the issues of the quality of Warnaco goods or non-Calvin-Klein goods being passed off as Calvin Klein goods.”); see also Lerman, 745 F.2d at 138 (plaintiff must “plunge into the arena and enter the fray” of the controversy at issue). Conceding that his method of authentication has been “publicized and written about,” Biro contends that this “does not make one a public figure. Rather, what is required is that the work be controversial.” (Dkt. No. 128 (“Opp’n. to PF”) at 6 (emphasis in original).) But as Biro himself has noted, there was a large amount of skepticism about forensic art authentication after the release of Who the # S & % is Jackson Pollock?, in which Biro provides the critical evidence behind the contention that the painting bought by the protagonist for five dollars is in fact an authentic Jackson Pollock. Indeed, the film itself is premised upon the unresolved controversy surrounding the validity of Biro’s methods of authentication: it opens with the question: “Is this a genuine, honest-to-God, no-doubt-about-it American masterpiece possibly worth as much as $50 million?” — which the film’s narrator answers: “Maybe.” (Atcherley Deck, Ex. 9). Additionally, while the makers of Who the # S & % is Jackson Pollock? seem to sympathize with Horton and her champion Biro, the film persistently refuses to take a firm stand on whether the painting is real or not. Throughout the film, Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, assiduously disputes the notion that Horton’s painting is a real Pollock, even after learning of Biro’s fingerprint authentications of the painting, and Nick Carone, a painter and friend of Pollock’s, says that he cannot determine whether the painting is in fact an authentic Pollock. 2. Voluntary Injection into that Controversy “[A plaintiffs degree of voluntary] involvement in the public controversy” is critical to the determination of whether the plaintiff is a public figure. Chandok, 648 F.Supp.2d at 458 (citing James, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d at 840 (“The essential element underlying the category of public figures is that the publicized person has taken an affirmative step to attract public attention.”)). Generally, an individual can become a limited purpose public figure only through his own actions; by “enterfing] voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions,” one “consentís] ... to the rough competition of the marketplace.” Dilworth v. Dudley, 75 F.3d 307, 309 (7th Cir.1996). As explained above, Biro has written numerous scholarly articles and has given lectures on his methods, behavior which, standing alone, demonstrates that he has voluntarily injected himself into the public sphere. Accord Chandok, 648 F.Supp.2d at 458-59 (“Scientific articles are inherently subject to robust criticism, and for good reason. Dr. Chandok has chosen and worked diligently in furtherance of a career where, through publication, entry into controversy and debate is expected and even- required as a matter of course. She cannot be said to have entered the public arena haphazardly or otherwise in the absence of her own volition.”); Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co., 532 F.3d 312, 324 (4th Cir.2008) (“Through these media, Dr. Hatfill voluntarily thrust himself into the debate. He cannot remove himself now to assume a favorable litigation posture.”). In other words, Biro “has willfully interjected [himself] into a public controversy by way of creating the very subject of the controversy.” Chandok, 648 F.Supp.2d at 459. (See Atcherley Decl., Ex. 13 (Biro telling the London Observer, in 2003 that he “stand[s] by [his] work publicly.”)) Biro has also taken stances in the public sphere on the authenticity of certain possibly invaluable paintings, and has been interviewed in documentaries and on new shows about the authenticity of various works and about art authentication and forensics in general. In short, Biro has voluntarily injected himself into several, interrelated public controversies. C. Assumption of Prominent Position in the Controversy In order to be a limited purpose public figure, one’s “role in the controversy” must be “more than trivial or tangential.” Underwager v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir.1994). Biro easily meets this prong of the Lerman test. As this Court explained in its prior opinion, Biro is “well known in the art world for having developed scientific approaches to art authentication through the analysis of fingerprints.” Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 449. Articles pre-dating the New Yorker Article routinely described Biro as an “expert” in forensic art authentication (see, e.g., Atcherley Decl., Exs. 22 and 25), and indeed, in his Complaint, Biro describes himself as a “leading authority” on art authentication. (TAC at ¶ 11.) Accord Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 619 F.2d 932, 939 (2d Cir.1980); see also Maule v. NYM Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 880, 881-82, 444 N.Y.S.2d 909, 429 N.E.2d 416 (1981) (noting that a “[plaintiffs candid admissions” can be “telling” in determining whether he is a public figure). Moreover, Biro’s authentication of the alleged Jackson Pollock painting in Who the #S & % is Jackson Pollock? constitutes the principal evidence for the theory that the Pollock is in fact real. Therefore, Biro clearly plays a prominent role in the controversy surrounding the value of forensic art authentication, both generally and as applied to certain works of art. D. Regular and Continuing Access to Media Finally, Biro “enjoy[s] significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication” than the average private person, “and hence ha[s] a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements then private individuals normally enjoy.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344, 94 S.Ct. 2997; see also Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 485, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (noting Gertz’s recognition that “public figures have less need for judicial protection because of their greater ability to resort to self-help.”); David Lat & Zach Shemtob, Public Figurehood in the Digital Age, 9 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 403, 410 (2011) (discussing “Gertz’s ‘self-help’ rationale”). The limited record in this case clearly bespeaks Biro’s regular and continuing access to the media. Biro purports to dispute his access to the media by contending that he “has frequently turned down requests for interviews.” (Dkt. No. 119 (“Opp’n. to BI”) at 3.) Yet the fact that Biro is “frequently” sought out for interviews is evidence that he has access to channels of self-help to which the private citizen does not. And indeed, Biro’s response to accusations of fingerprint forgery in 2008 was covered by the press, underscoring Biro’s ability to counteract false statements in the public sphere. (See, e.g., Atcherley Decl., Ex. 15). E. Conclusion Because Biro meets all four prongs of the test articulated in Lerman, he constitutes a limited purpose public figure. Accordingly, to survive dismissal, the complaint must adequately plead actual malice. V. Failure to State a Claim, A. The Elements of a Defamation Claim “Defamation is the injury to one’s reputation either by written expression, which is libel, or by oral expression, which is slander.” Idema v. Wager, 120 F.Supp.2d 361, 365 (S.D.N.Y.2000). As explained above, as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence and state law, the standard for proving, and pleading, defamation is different depending upon whether the plaintiff is a private individual or a public figure. “A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that ‘the statements ... complain[ed] of were (1) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual malice.’ ” Karedes v. Ackerley Grp., 423 F.3d 107, 113 (2d Cir.2005) (citation omitted). As this Court explained in a past decision, “[i]t is wéll settled that Defendants cannot escape liability simply because they are conveying someone else’s defamatory statements without adopting those viewpoints as their own.” Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 461; see also Levin v. McPhee, 917 F.Supp. 230, 237 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (“It has long been the rule that one who republishes a libel is guilty of libel.”). However, where, as here, the plaintiff is a public figure, a plaintiff must plead, and then prove, that each defendant acted with actual malice. See, e.g., Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 595 F.Supp. 982, 987 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (“Hearst may be held answerable in libel only if it acted with ‘actual malice’ in connection with the 1982 republication.”) B. Actual Malice In order to prevail on a defamation claim against a public figure, a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” Importantly, actual malice does not simply connote ill will or spite; rather it is “a term of art denoting deliberate or reckless falsification.” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 499, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991); see also Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666-67, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (“[A]ctual malice ... is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’ in the ordinary sense of the term.” (citations omitted)); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Barron’s, 442 F.Supp. 1341, 1350 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (“When the Supreme Court uses a word, it means what the Court wants it to mean. ‘Actual malice’ is now a term of art having nothing to do with actual malice.”) As used in this context, “reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). Thus, actual malice cannot be premised solely on the fact that an article is one sided: The fairness of the broadcast is not at issue in the libel suit. Publishers and reporters do not commit a libel in a public figure case by publishing unfair one-sided attacks. The issue in the libel suit is whether the publisher recklessly or knowingly published false material. The fact that a commentary is one sided and sets forth categorical accusations has no tendency to prove that the publisher believed it to be false. Westmoreland v. CBS Inc., 601 F.Supp. 66, 68 (S.D.N.Y.1984). Actual malice, even by way of recklessness, is therefore a difficult standard to meet, and quite purposefully so: as the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “the stake of the people in public business and the conduct of public officials is so great that neither the defense of truth nor the standard of ordinary care would protect against self-censorship and thus adequately implement First Amendment policies.” St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731-32, 88 S.Ct. 1323; see also id. at 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323 (“Concededly the reckless disregard standard may permit recovery in fewer situations than would a rule that publishers must satisfy the standard of the reasonable man or the prudent publisher.”). Actual malice can be proven, of course, by direct evidence. More often, however, actual malice is inferred through circumstantial evidence. See Levesque v. Doocy, 560 F.3d 82, 90 (1st Cir.2009) (“Because direct evidence of actual malice is rare, it may be proved through inference, and circumstantial evidence.”) Courts have noted various circumstances that may be probative of actual malice, including where: • “a story is fabricated or is based wholly on an unverified, anonymous source,” Church of Scientology Int'l. v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir.2001) (citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323); • the defendant fabricates a statement made by a source, Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir.1987) (citation omitted); • “the defendant’s allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless person would have put them in circulation,” Behar, 238 F.3d at 174 (citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323); • “there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports,” id. at 174 (citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323); see also Butts, 388 U.S. at 170, 87 S.Ct. 1975 (Warren, C.J., concurring) (actual malice inferred where the sole source of the article had criminal charges on his record); cf. Rodney Smolia, 1 Rights and Liabilities in Media Content § 6:53 (2d ed.) (actual malice less likely present where “nothing on the face of the reports to lend them any inherent improbability” (citation omitted)); • the defendant has a motive for defaming the plaintiff, see Kipper v. NYP Holdings Co., Inc., 12 N.Y.3d 348, 355 n. 4, 884 N.Y.S.2d 194, 912 N.E.2d 26 (2009) (noting that, while “actual malice” should not be confused with “evil intent or a motive arising from spite or ill will,” an “intent to injure plaintiff’ is relevant to the actual malice inquiry (citations omitted)); see also DR Partners v. Floyd, 228 S.W.3d 493, 498 (Tex.Ct.App.2007) (“[T]he relation of the parties” may be relevant to a determination of actual malice); accord Butts, 388 U.S. at 158, 87 S.Ct. 1975 (finding actual malice where “[t]he Saturday Evening Post was anxious to change its image by instituting a policy of ‘sophisticated muckraking,’ and the pressure to produce a successful expose might have induced a stretching of standards”); • the defendant knows or suspects that it has committed an error and refuses to acknowledge it, Zerangue, 814 F.2d at 1071 (citation omitted); and • “the words or acts of the defendant before, at, or after the time of the communication” indicate that the defendant knew that his or her statement was or may well have been false. Floyd, 228 S.W.3d at 498. In cases “involving the reporting of a third party’s allegations, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.” Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 688, 109 S.Ct. 2678 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369, 382-83, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943, 366 N.E.2d 1299 (N.Y.1977) (no actual malice evidenced by a publisher unless it “had, or should have had, substantial reasons to question the accuracy of the articles or the bona fides of its reporter” (citations omitted)). Again, however, the relevant question is not whether the republisher defendant acted negligently by failing to verify an article, Rivera v. Time Warner Inc., 56 A.D.3d 298, 298, 867 N.Y.S.2d 405 (1st Dep’t 2008), whether it would have been “prudent” to verify an article, Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 960 F.2d 896, 902-03 (9th Cir.1992), or whether there was an “obligation to ensure” that the article was correct, Rivera v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 16 Misc.3d 1121(A), at *4, 2007 WL 2284607 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2007) (citation omitted). Rather, the operative question is whether a defendant failed to investigate in the face of “actual, subjective doubts as to the accuracy of the story.” Stern