Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION FLANNERY, District Judge. This matter comes before the court upon defendant Griffin B. Bell’s motions for partial summary judgment and for summary judgment. After hearing oral argument on these motions on March 9, 1987, and after considering the underlying papers, plaintiff’s oppositions, and the entire record in this case, this court will grant the motion for partial summary judgment, and grant in part and deny in part the motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated below. I. BACKGROUND On May 2, 1985, E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc. (“Hutton”), a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant, The E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. (“Hutton Group”), pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to 2,000 counts of mail and wire fraud. The Department of Justice decided not to prosecute individual Hutton executives and instead accepted a plea from Hutton to pay a $2 million fine, reimbursement to the government for its costs, and restitution to defrauded banks. Hutton was also enjoined from engaging in certain cash management practices. The scandal and the Justice Department’s handling of it led to a number of government probes and much public debate. As a result, the Hutton Group hired Griffin B. Bell and the law firm of King & Spalding in May, 1985 to conduct an investigation of the cash management program at Hutton which had resulted in the guilty plea. Based on this investigation, a report entitled “The Hutton Report” was issued on September 4, 1985 and was made available to the public by Mr. Bell at a press conference held in Washington, D.C. on the following day. The Hutton Report named a number of individuals as responsible for the fraudulent practices that resulted in Hutton’s guilty plea. The report also recommended certain sanctions for them. Among those deemed responsible for the fraud was John M. Pearce. Mr. Pearce had been branch manager of the Hutton office in St. Louis. After publication of the report, he was removed from that position, transferred to Florida, and eventually left the firm altogether. The State of Virginia took action against Pearce by barring him from being a Hutton manager there for five years. Pearce was also required to report to the securities regulators of the various states where he had been registered that an adverse action had been taken against him by his employer and the State of Virginia. Pearce filed suit on January 3, 1986 against the Hutton Group and Griffin Bell. He alleges that Bell was hired to produce a report that would place blame for the fraudulent cash management program with low level employees rather than with Hutton’s senior officers. Besides being made a scapegoat, Pearce alleges that the report falsely states that he should have known his actions were illegal and in violation of firm policies and guidelines. Thus, plaintiff claims the Hutton Report libels him and places him in a false light. Plaintiff also charges that by mentioning him in the Hutton Report, defendants have misappropriated his name. On April 16, 1986, this court denied the Hutton Group’s motion to stay these proceedings pending arbitration. On April 28, 1986, that decision was appealed. On June 10, 1986, a stay of this action, pending the appeal, was granted solely with regard to defendant Hutton Group. The Circuit Court heard oral argument on the appeal (D.C.Cir. No. 86-5281) on February 17, 1987 but no decision has been issued as yet. The case regarding defendant Bell was scheduled to go to trial on March 2, 1987. On February 9, 1987, however, trial was postponed because several motions had been filed that convinced the court this case was simply not ready to proceed. Among the motions filed, were the two dispositive motions presently before the court. Defendant Bell has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the claims for punitive damages and the false light invasion of privacy claim. Bell has also filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the remainder of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s original oppositions to Bell’s motions were stricken from the record by this court in an opinion filed February 12, 1987, because they relied on inadmissible evidence. Plaintiff filed new oppositions on February 18, 1987. Defendant Bell renewed a motion to strike plaintiff’s oppositions because they purportedly violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and Local Rule 108(h). Bell claimed the oppositions were replete with false statements and with arguments, assertions, and allegations that are not referenced to the record. On March 9, 1987, the court ruled from the bench and denied Bell’s renewed motion to strike. Following that ruling, the court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment. II. BARS TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS As a preliminary matter, Bell argues that at least some of plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed, regardless of how much supporting evidence plaintiff may have. First, plaintiff cannot raise a false light invasion of privacy claim since the applicable law is that of the State of Missouri, and Missouri does not recognize the false light invasion of privacy action. Second, plaintiff’s misappropriation of name claim is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. Finally, several of plaintiff's libel claims are not actionable since they involve statements that are absolutely privileged as expressions of opinion. A. Choice Of Law To determine which law applies to plaintiff’s false light claim, the forum must apply the choice of law principles of the state in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). This court must therefore apply the District of Columbia’s choice of law rules to the problem. This is no simple task. Choice of law issues in defamation actions have historically presented difficult problems for the courts, and these problems have only been magnified with the emergence of modern approaches to conflict of laws. As at least one commentator has noted, American courts now follow no less than ten different approaches, not one of which can claim the allegiance of a majority of states. 1) Approach to conflict of laws in the District of Columbia Until about thirty years ago, the territorialist or “vested rights” approach adopted by the first Restatement of Conflict of Laws dominated American conflicts law. E. Scoles & P. Hay, Conflict of Laws § 17.2, at 552 (1984). The District of Columbia abandoned that approach in Tramontana v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense, 350 F.2d 468 (D.C.Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 943, 86 S.Ct. 1195, 16 L.Ed.2d 206 (1966). In its place, a “governmental interest analysis” approach was adopted. See generally Milhollin, The New Law of Choice of Law in the District of Columbia, 24 Cath.U.L.Rev. 448 (1975). Strictly speaking, interest analysis refers to the method developed by Professor Brainerd Currie. See R. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 12.03[5] (1986); Pielemeier, Multistate Defamation, supra note 2, at 396-98. Indeed, plaintiff appears to rely in part on arguments based on that form of interest analysis. Currie’s approach, however, places heavy reliance on forum law. Pielemeier, Multistate Defamation, supra note 2, at 396-97. See generally B. Currie, Selected Essays on the Conflicts of Laws (1963). Yet recent choice of law decisions by the District of Columbia courts put no such reliance on forum law. Thus, it is clear that the District does not follow Currie’s brand of governmental interest analysis. Nevertheless, Currie’s work provided the starting point for many of the current, policy-based approaches to conflict of laws. Among these numerous variations of interest analysis is the “most significant relationship” approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. The Restatement (Second) developed over a seventeen year period which was marked by an at-first grudging and then a more whole-hearted acceptance of policy analysis. R. Cramton, D. Currie & H. Kay, Conflict of Laws: Cases — Comments— Questions 317 (1981). The end product combines presumptive jurisdiction-selecting rules with policy analysis. Id. It is the Restatement (Second) that guides choice of law decisions in' the District of Columbia. The most significant relationship approach has even been used by this jurisdiction in other defamation/invasion of privacy cases. Therefore, the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws governs the choice of law issue in the case at bar. 2) False conflict analysis The first step in deciding a choice of law problem is to determine whether there really is a conflict or whether the situation presents a “false conflict.” A false conflict exists when either (1) the potentially applicable laws do not differ, or (2) when, upon examination, one law — by its terms or underlying policies — is not intended to apply to a situation such as the one in issue. E. Scoles & P. Hay, Conflict of Laws at 17. Both concerns are raised in the instant case. Plaintiff argues that the laws of the District of Columbia and of the State of Missouri do not truly differ as to the existence of a false light invasion of privacy claim under the facts of this case. It is clear that the District of Columbia does recognize the false light action. See, e.g., Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F.Supp. 1285, 1291 (D.D.C.1981); Logan v. District of Columbia, 447 F.Supp. 1328, 1332-34 (D.D.C.1978). The only issue is whether Missouri recognizes such a claim. The key case on this issue is the decision in Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.1986). In Sullivan, a plaintiff was found to have filed a suit for defamation under the guise of an action for false light invasion of privacy in order to avoid the shorter statute of limitations for defamation actions. Id. at 476. The plaintiff contended the defendant had published a false accusation (that he had stolen materials, plans, and labor from the City of St. Louis for his personal benefit) that publicly portrayed him in a false light. Id. at 475. In holding that the plaintiff could not treat his claim as anything other than a defamation action, the court expressly rejected providing a false light claim when “one party alleges that the other published a false accusation concerning a statement of fact.” Id. at 481. Though plaintiff Pearce is correct in pointing out that the Missouri court did leave open the possibility of a false light claim in other contexts, the instant case is clearly not among them. Pearce is alleging that defendants published false accusations about him — precisely the situation the court in Sullivan rejected as providing grounds for a false light claim. The Sullivan court noted only two situations in which it might possibly recognize the false light tort. Id. at 480. The first is when one publicly attributes to the plaintiff some opinion or utterance, harmful or not, that is false. The classic case would be where one claims the plaintiff wrote a book or poem that he did not. The second situation is when one uses another’s likeness in connection with a story that has no bearing on the plaintiff. Obviously, neither of these scenarios is applicable to the case at bar. Therefore, since Missouri would not recognize Pearce’s false light invasion of privacy claim, while the District of Columbia would, the potentially applicable laws are in apparent conflict. The second step in determining whether a true conflict exists is to look at the differing laws and their underlying policies to see if they are all intended to apply to the situation at hand. By their terms, both Missouri’s and the District’s laws regarding false light actions are applicable to the present case. The underlying policies, however, are substantially different. The Missouri Supreme Court decision in Sullivan reflects that state’s clear interest in refusing to allow false light actions to circumvent traditional restrictions on defamation claims. Id. at 480. Missouri has decided that defamation actions provide sufficient protection for its residents. Furthermore, the careful evaluation given the false light tort in Sullivan, as well as Missouri’s much longer experience with privacy actions as compared to the District of Columbia’s, underscores the history and strength of Missouri’s policy. In sharp contrast, the District of Columbia has a rather nebulous policy underlying the false light tort. Cases involving such claims simply adopt the Restatement formulations for privacy torts without significant analysis or evaluation of this type of claim. In fact, while the court in Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., found no reason to distinguish false light from defamation, 518 F.Supp. at 1288, it did not set forth any policy reason for simultaneously providing both causes of action. Plaintiff has relied on language in Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co. to argue that the District of Columbia has a policy of maximum protection for those placed in a false light. See 424 A.2d 78, 87 (D.C.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 989, 101 S.Ct. 2327, 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981). Phillips, however, only discussed maximum protection in the context of a defamation action. Nothing was said to indicate that the District’s policy of providing maximum protection to reputations also sought to provide plaintiffs with additional causes of action. It is just as plausible to presume that the false light tort was adopted solely to address concerns with privacy, rather than to augment the District’s policy of maximum protection from defamation. Even assuming the District’s adoption of the false light tort is due to a policy of providing maximum protection, that policy would not be advanced here. Plaintiff was domiciled in Missouri. He lived and worked there for four years before the alleged invasion of privacy. Though plaintiff was at one time a domiciliary of the District, his residence ended by 1981 and has never been resumed. If plaintiff was not (and is not now) domiciled in the District of Columbia, the District’s interests will not be advanced by an application of D.C. law. Since plaintiff was in St. Louis at the time Bell published his report, however, Missouri interests will be advanced by application of that state’s law. Missouri has determined that the false light tort is unnecessary to protect its residents — one of them being the plaintiff. Missouri has a greater interest in protecting free speech. Therefore, the case at bar presents a “false conflict.” The only interested state is Missouri, which does not recognize the false light invasion of privacy claim. 3) True conflict and the state with the most significant relationship Even assuming arguendo that there was a true conflict, Missouri has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, with respect to the false light claim. Under the Restatement (Second), the identification of “the state with the most significant relationship” involves a two-step process of identifying the relevant contacts with the respective states and then evaluating their significance in the light of, first, detailed prescriptive rules and, second, the policy-oriented general principles found in section 6(2). R. Cramton, D. Currie & H. Kay, Conflict of Laws: Cases — Comments—Questions, at 319-20. According to section 145(2) of the Restatement (Second), the relevant contacts in tort cases are: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2) (1971). Item (d) is not applicable to the instant case. Item (b) is the least controversial. The District of Columbia is clearly the place of conduct since it is here that defendant Bell issued his report and gave the press conference. Though Bell argues that the place of conduct also includes those states where his report was prepared and disseminated, the principal acts of communication (allegedly putting plaintiff in a false light) occurred in the District. In any event, as is discussed shortly, the place of conduct is not a significant contact in the context of defamation and invasion of privacy actions. Items (a) and (c) are interrelated in the instant case. With regard to defendants, item (c) is not particularly relevant because neither Missouri nor the District are the domicile, residence, place of incorporation, or the principal place of business of the defendants. Reference to these contacts thus presents no means of determining which of the two jurisdictions has the stronger interest. As to the plaintiff, however, domicile and residence are significant contacts. Plaintiff was a domiciliary of Missouri. Furthermore, because plaintiff was residing there at the time of the alleged invasion of privacy, Missouri is also the location of item (a) — the place of injury. The place of injury plays a central role under Restatement (Second) analysis. For torts, this contact is the most important in the selection of the state of the applicable law. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145, comment (e), at 419. In contrast, the place of conduct plays a less important role, especially in a case such as defamation. Id. at 420. In the instant case, the place of injury is clearly Missouri. Though plaintiff has claimed he has numerous contacts and friends in the D.C. area, none of these are relevant to an invasion of privacy claim. While plaintiff’s contacts with the District might give him grounds to argue that his reputation was injured here, reputation only relates to the defamation claim. Lumping defamation with invasion of privacy leads to error in choice of law because the two torts differ materially. Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Co., 129 F.Supp. 817, 824-25 (D.D.C.1955), aff'd, 232 F.2d 369 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 945, 77 S.Ct. 267, 1 L.Ed.2d 239 (1956). Invasion of privacy is a personal injury — an injury to feelings. Id. at 825. Rules of privacy are designed to protect a person’s interest in being let alone, not in one’s reputation. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 152, comment d. Clearly, an injury to one’s feelings can only occur where the plaintiff is located at the time of the impact of the privacy invasion. Bernstein, 129 F.Supp. at 825-26. In the instant case, plaintiff was residing in Missouri at the time defendants issued their report. Though the opinion in Bernstein was written during the first Restatement era, the decision to draw a distinction between the torts of defamation and invasion of privacy did not rely on the outdated choice of law rules of the territorialist approach. In fact, the distinction was noted and relied on by the Restatement (Second). See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 152, comment d. Even if the place of injury ordinarily was not the most important contact in tort actions, the Restatement (Second) goes further and specifically provides that in cases of multistate invasion of privacy, the state with the most significant relationship will usually be the state where the plaintiff was domiciled. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 153; see also Crane v. Carr, 814 F.2d 758, 760 (D.C.Cir.1987) (“[L]ibel and ‘false light,’ are the kind [of claims] in which the injury, foreseeably, is felt with greatest force in the place where plaintiff lives.”). Relying on the fact that rules of privacy are meant to protect feelings, the Restatement’s drafters explained that the plaintiff’s domicile should be the state of the most significant relationship because that is usually the state of the greatest injury. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 153, comment d. The drafters went on to state that the law of the plaintiff’s domicile will also be applied even though some or all of the defendant’s acts were done in another state. Id. The Restatement (Second) ’s preference for applying the law of the plaintiff’s domicile has received considerable judicial approval. Though commentators have expressed concern that courts will choose plaintiff’s domicile from “an unconsidered application” of section 153, see Pielemeier, Multistate Defamation, supra note 2, at 396, such fear would be misplaced in the case at bar. Even under the general principles of section 6(2), the District of Columbia cannot be deemed to have a more significant relationship to the occurrence and parties. Examination of various contacts bolsters the application of Missouri law. Plaintiff lived in Missouri for four years before the alleged invasion of privacy. He worked there for Hutton as a branch manager, the position in which he engaged in the activities in issue. He worked there twice as long as the two years he worked as branch manager in Maryland. He has not worked in the District of Columbia since the fall of 1979. Plaintiff and his wife apparently had at least as many friends and acquaintances in Missouri as in the District in 1985. In fact, she has named more people with whom the couple maintained contact from Missouri than from the entire Washington metropolitan area. Contact with Washington friends has been infrequent. Additionally, plaintiff left his job with Hutton in Missouri, moving to a position in Florida and ultimately leaving the firm. Plaintiff's privilege to manage a brokerage was suspended in Virginia, not the District. Although other states considered similar action, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and Missouri, apparently the District did not. Plainly, whatever contacts plaintiff has with the District of Columbia cannot outweigh the substantial connections that Missouri has with this issue. Finally, the court turns to plaintiff’s contention that there is a trend by courts to apply the law most favorable to plaintiff. This position is simply untenable. The Restatement (Second) states that the law selected under section 153 even determines whether a right to privacy is to be recognized at all. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 153, comment b. Furthermore, none of the cases relied on by plaintiff to support the alleged “trend” dates from the past decade. In contrast, there are a number of recent cases choosing laws unfavorable to plaintiffs. Therefore, Missouri is the state with the most significant relationship to the false light claim. Since Missouri would not recognize plaintiff's false light action, the claim must be dismissed with prejudice. B. Misappropriation Of Name Plaintiff argues that even if his false light claim is precluded, he can proceed on another invasion of privacy theory-misappropriation of name. The premise for this claim is that defendant used plaintiff’s name and identity to gain substantial pecuniary benefit by having him serve as a scapegoat for Hutton’s corporate abuses. Plaintiff’s theory is plainly implausible. There is no evidence that plaintiff’s name was of any particular value or that it was included in the Hutton Report to take advantage of plaintiff's reputation or the value associated with his name. There is no evidence that defendant Bell’s compensation was somehow dependent on including plaintiff’s name in the Hutton Report. The essence of a misappropriation of name action is that the defendant has used another’s name to take advantage of some value associated with it — not merely for informational purposes. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C, comment d (1977). “Incidental use of name or likeness or publication for a purpose other than taking advantage of a person's reputation or the value associated with his name will not result in actionable appropriation.” Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s, 492 A.2d 580, 592 (D.C.1985). In the case at bar, plaintiff has presented no evidence that defendants’ use of his name was for anything other than for informational purposes. The misappropriation of name invasion of privacy claim must therefore be dismissed with prejudice. G. Absolute Privilege For Opinion Defendant Bell claims that several of his allegedly defamatory statements are simply opinion, so summary judgment must be granted as to them. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that statements of opinion are absolutely exempt from libel suits under the first amendment. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (dictum); see also Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 974-75 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 2662, 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985). Distinguishing between what is fact and what is opinion, however, can often be a very difficult task. In Ollman v. Evans, this Circuit addressed the problem and held that courts must “analyze the totality of the circumstances in which the statements are made to decide whether they merit the absolute First Amendment protection enjoyed by opinion.” 750 F.2d at 979; see also R. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 6.08[3] (detailed discussion of implications of Oilman). To evaluate the totality of the circumstances, the court set forth four factors to be considered in assessing whether the “average reader” would view the statement as fact or, conversely, as opinion. Id. First, the common usage or meaning of the specific language of the challenged statement must be analyzed. Id. This is to determine whether the statement has a precise meaning and thus is likely to give rise to clear factual allegations. Id. at 980. “The classic example of a statement with a well-defined meaning is an accusation of a crime.” Id. In the present case, Bell claims his statements, that plaintiffs actions were such that “no reasonable person could have believed that this conduct was proper” (Complaint at II 21(d)) and were “so aggressive and egregious as to warrant sanctions” (Complaint at 1121(g)), were mere expressions of opinion. So too, he claims, were his statements that plaintiff was “actually engaged in wrongdoing” (Complaint at 1121(e)), and was a “moving force in improprieties” (Complaint at 1121(f)). There is nothing “loosely definable” or “variously interpretable” about Bell’s statements. This is not a situation involving some indefinite epithet, such as the “fascist” accusation in Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 785, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977), or the “sloppy and irresponsible reporting” criticism in Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 386 Mass. 303, 435 N.E.2d 1021, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1037, 103 S.Ct. 449, 74 L.Ed.2d 603 (1982). To the average reader, Bell’s statements mean, as a factual matter, that plaintiff knew his participation in chaining and overdrafting was wrong. The statements are equivalent to criminal accusations. In fact, at the press conference Bell not only stated that he tried to use something “pretty close to a criminal prosecution standard,” but that he had, in fact, found criminal wrongdoing. Transcript of September 5, 1985 press conference, at 19 & 49. These statements are not just “broad, brush-stroked references” to unethical conduct, as was the use of the term “traitor” in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974). To the average reader or listener, unequivocal statements (by a former United States Attorney General and Federal Judge using a criminal prosecution standard) about deliberate wrongdoing are obviously laden with factual content. Thus, Bell’s statements have a sufficiently definite meaning to convey facts. The second factor to consider is the degree to which the statements are verifiable. Ollman, 750 F.2d at 981. An unverifiable statement cannot convey actual facts. Id. Obviously, verifiability is not a simple, black or white determination. The degree to which a statement is verifiable ranges over a spectrum rather than fitting into neat categories. The object of this inquiry is merely to determine whether a statement can be sufficiently proven so that a jury would not be rendering a decision based on speculation, or on the approval or disapproval of the contents of the statements, its author, or its subject. In the case at bar, the statements are objectively capable of being proven or dis-proven. While the determination of whether plaintiff knew his conduct was improper necessarily involves an assessment of intent, fact finders routinely make such determinations in criminal actions. Bell’s statements are verifiable under an objective, “reasonable person” standard. The third factor to consider is the context in which the statement occurs. Oilman, 750 F.2d at 982. Whether a statement is factual depends in part on the publication, taken as a whole, of which the statement is a part. Id. The language of the entire publication may signal that a specific, apparently factual statement is really being used in a metaphorical, exaggerated, or even fantastic sense. For example, in Myers v. Boston Magazine Co., 380 Mass. 336, 403 N.E.2d 376 (1980) a magazine’s statement that a television sports reporter was “the only newscaster in town who is enrolled in a course for remedial speaking” was deemed protected opinion. Though the statement on its face appeared factual, it was in an article consisting of a series of “one-liners” about sports personalities. Thus, the average reader would have realized that he or she was reading opinions, and not being showered with facts. In sharp contrast, the Hutton Report as a whole undercuts defendant’s position that his statements were opinion. The average reader of such an investigative report would naturally assume that he or she was being presented with a compilation of facts. Another consideration in this respect is the inclusion of cautionary language in the text where the challenged statements are found. Ollman, 750 F.2d at 982. A reader encountering such language tends to discount what follows. Id. at 983. Arguably, the inclusion of Bell’s statements in the “Conclusions and Remedies” section of the Hutton Report, and the use of the words “We conclude” and “We think” in connection with those statements, amounts to cautionary language. In the context of this investigatory report, however, the language is more akin to a summary of facts than a subjective analysis of them. Furthermore, because the challenged statements set forth plaintiff’s culpability, they imply the existence of damaging, undisclosed facts beyond the mere descriptions of the chaining and overdrafting activities given in the more detailed sections of the Hutton Report. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 (1977). Therefore, the average reader would not have been put on notice that Bell’s statements were opinions. Even if defendant had put readers on notice with cautionary language, that one factor alone could not justify the absolute privilege given to expressions of opinion. As previously discussed, Bell’s statements are unequivocal and amount to criminal accusations. When a statement is as factually laden as the accusation of a crime, cautionary language is essentially unavailable to dilute the factual implications. Ollman, 750 F.2d at 983. Thus, the immediate context of the allegedly defamatory statements indicates that they are factual assertions and not expressions of opinion. Finally, the fourth factor to consider is the broader social context in which the statement appears. Id. Different types of writing have widely varying social conventions that signal to the reader the likelihood of a statement’s being either fact or opinion. Id. at 979. As the court in Oilman noted, it is one thing to be called corrupt by a soapbox orator and quite another to be referred to that way in a research monograph. Id. at 983. Little more need be said in the instant case than to point out that the alleged defamation occurred in the context of an independent counsel’s report on his investigation of illegal corporate practices. In fact, the independent counsel was a former United States Attorney General and Federal Judge. The setting in which defendant’s statements were delivered clearly would cause the reasonable person to view them as fact, not opinion. Given the clear and verifiable meaning of Bell’s statements, and given the serious and professional context in which they were made, the absolute privilege for statements of opinion is simply not available in the instant case. III. STANDARD OF FAULT AND BURDEN OF PROOF Before reviewing the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence, the level of fault and burden of proof must be established. These determine the amount of evidence plaintiff must have in order to bring his case before a jury. At this point, plaintiff’s only remaining claims are for compensatory and punitive damages based on the defamation count. As to the standard of fault for both compensatory and punitive damages, defendant Bell contends he cannot be held liable unless it is established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice. For compensatory damages, defendant bases this position on two arguments. First, his statements are protected by qualified privileges for fair comment and/or for good-faith disclosure of matters of public interest. Second, plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure. For punitive damages, Bell’s position is based on the holding in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). Plaintiff counters, however, by maintaining that a lesser standard of fault for punitive damages is permitted under the recent Supreme Court decision in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (plurality opinion). As to the burden of proof, defendant argues that plaintiff must establish the falsity of Bell’s statements by clear and convincing evidence. This position is based on a number of Supreme Court decisions. Each of these arguments will be dealt with in turn. A. Qualified Privileges 1) Privilege for fair comment The doctrine of fair comment was a development at common law that evolved from the need to protect and encourage the free exchange of ideas. Franklin & Bussel, The Plaintiffs Burden in Defamation: Awareness and Falsity, 25 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825, 855, 871 (1984); see also R. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 6.02. The doctrine was necessary because the common law considered all statements to be actionable, regardless of whether they were capable of being verified. Franklin & Bussel, supra, at 871. Intuitive, evaluative statements, however, cannot be proven “true or false by the rigorous deductive reasoning of the judicial process.” Id. Recognizing that valuable discourse is often furthered by such commentary, courts gradually developed shelter for these unprovable statements. Id. Though initially modest, the fair comment privilege eventually embraced all opinions about matters of public concern. R. Smolla, supra, at § 6.02[1]. While the fair comment privilege has been recognized in this jurisdiction, see Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe, 366 F.2d 649, 656 (D.C.Cir.1966) (en banc), it is clear that the doctrine is now obsolete in light of the broader first amendment protections afforded expressions of opinion. Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 975 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc) (though claim arises under D.C.’s common law of libel, whether statements are protected opinion is a matter of constitutional law), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 2662, 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985); Hoffman v. Washington Post Co., 433 F.Supp. 600, 603 (D.D.C.1977) (no need to determine whether fair comment privilege applicable since Supreme Court has made privilege constitutional one under first amendment), aff'd, 578 F.2d 442 (D.C.Cir.1978). Even if the doctrine was not obsolete, it would be inapplicable to the case at bar. The fair comment defense goes only to opinion, not to misstatements of fact. Fisher v. Washington Post Co., 212 A.2d 335, 337 (D.C.1965). As previously discussed, Bell’s statements are fact, not opinion. Therefore, the qualified privilege for fair comment cannot protect Bell here. 2) Privilege for good-faith disclosure of matters of public interest The common law also developed several related conditional privileges based on the defendant’s acting to further his self-interest, the interest of others, or a “common” interest. See R. Smolla, supra, at § 8.08. Indeed, the District of Columbia has recognized that a qualified privilege exists for disclosure of a “subject matter ‘in which the party communicating has an interest or in reference to which he has, or honestly believes he has, a duty to a person having a corresponding interest or duty.’ ” Smith v. District of Columbia, 399 A.2d 213, 220 (D.C.1979) (quoting May Department Stores Company v. Devercelli, 314 A.2d 767, 773 (D.C.1973)). Defendant Bell maintains that such a qualified privilege should exist for a “good faith disclosure of matters of public interest.” The use of the phrase “good faith” adds nothing to the analysis here because a qualified privilege, by definition, only protects statements made in the absence of malice. See Mosrie v. Trussell, 467 A.2d 475, 477 (D.C.1983) (qualified privilege is lost by showing of malice). Therefore, Bell's position comes down to an assertion that the court should interpose the shelter of a qualified privilege whenever a disclosure involves a matter of public interest. In the instant case, defendant asserts that the matter of public interest was the 2,000 felony counts that Hutton had pled guilty to. What constitutes “a matter of public concern” has recently been addressed by the Supreme Court. In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., Justice Powell relied on the opinion in Connick v. Myers to hold that “ ‘[wjhether ... speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by [the expression’s] content, form, and context ... as revealed by the whole record.’ ” 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 2947, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (plurality opinion) (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)). As one commentator has noted, however, this test is not very helpful since it essentially says a court must weigh everything. See R. Smolla, supra, at § 3.03. Nevertheless, Justice Powell went on to stress that since the credit report at issue there concerned solely “the individual interest of the speaker and its specific business audience,” and since the report was made available to only five subscribers who were contractually bound not to disseminate it further, the “speech” in Dun & Bradstreet did not involve a matter of public concern. 472 U.S. at 762, 105 S.Ct. at 2947. In sharp contrast, the report at issue in the case at bar is not a matter solely in the interest of the defendants or their business audience. The nature of the conduct giving rise to Hutton’s plea agreement and the identity of those responsible for that conduct were clearly matters of public interest, especially since the banking and securities industries (which have a central role in the American economy) were implicated. Furthermore, the entire controversy received enormous publicity being not only the subject of national news media attention, but also being the subject of congressional hearings. Finally, the Hutton Report was not simply made available to a narrowly defined group but was made widely available through public distribution. Clearly, therefore, defendant Bell is correct in asserting that he disclosed matters of public interest. Defendant is mistaken, however, in contending that a generalized public interest justifies a special privilege for widespread public disclosures. Though Bell has cited numerous decisions upholding a qualified privilege for statements made to protect the interests of another, none of these cases supports the incredibly broad protection defendant now seeks. Those courts that had invoked a qualified privilege had found significant policy considerations for doing so. These policies include: physicians’ warnings to their patients about other health care professionals, evaluations of employees or those seeking public office, reports of possible misconduct to the appropriate authorities, and even limited disclosures by public officials, about matters the public deserves to know about, made at the request of the news media. In each instance, the protected publication was limited somehow — either by the size of the audience, by the subject matter discussed, or by the depth of detail of the revelations made. Defendant can point to no limiting factor here. The publication was made widespread without any inquiry or urging on the part of the press. It was not a report of ongoing or previously undisclosed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing. It was not made by a public official attempting to notify the public of something they deserved to know about. The disclosures were not even limited to those matters of greatest public interest — the actions affecting the banking and securities industries. Instead, the report and press conference were in no way circumscribed. They were highly detailed and included discussions of such relatively private matters as recommending what sanctions Hutton should dole out to its employees. Further, there are no significant policy considerations that would support the sweeping privilege sought by Bell. First, it must be remembered that qualified privileges developed because the common law held defendants strictly liable for defamatory statements. Watkins & Schwartz, Gertz and the Common Law of Defamation: Of Fault, Nonmedia Defendants, and Constitutional Privileges, 15 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 823, 825 (1984). Just as the fair comment doctrine developed to protect opinions and thereby promote the free exchange of ideas, the “interest-related” qualified privileges evolved to encourage communication about important matters. See id. at 865. The constitutional fault requirements developed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and its progeny, however, have undermined the need for such safety valves. The recent Supreme Court decision in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (plurality opinion) indicates that only in private-figure plaintiff cases not involving matters of public concern will a strict liability fault requirement be constitutionally permissible. The question of whether Pearce is a private plaintiff is discussed infra, but as was noted earlier in this opinion, the instant case clearly involves matters of public concern. Therefore, since strict liability cannot be imposed, there is a reduced need for the safety valve of a qualified privilege. Second, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Supreme Court basically repudiated the short-lived plurality ruling of Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). Rosenbloom held that defamatory statements involving matters of public or general interest deserve heightened protection. Though defendant has argued that he does not rely on any protection derived from Rosenbloom, the broad qualified privilege he is seeking is, as a practical matter, indistinguishable from the now obsolete Rosenbloom theory. Defendant contends that because his statements involved disclosures of public concern, plaintiff should be required to prove malice — exactly what the Court in Gertz rejected as being constitutionally required. While the states may be free to impose their own malice requirement to protect every disclosure bearing on matters of public concern, defendant has not cited any jurisdiction that does so. Such a broad, state-created burden would certainly be at odds with this jurisdiction’s policy of providing defamed plaintiffs a maximum standard of protection. See Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78, 87 (D.C.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 989, 101 S.Ct. 2327, 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981). Finally, there are policy considerations strongly against creating a qualified privilege in the case at bar. First, society is not served by the dissemination of false information. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 340, 94 S.Ct. at 3007 (“there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”). The public interest in a matter already investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice is not so immediate or critical that a defendant should be protected from his or her negligent publication of falsehoods about another. Second, there is little likelihood that holding defendants such as Bell liable on a negligence standard will have a chilling effect on speech. Future investigative reports are unlikely to be deterred by such a ruling since they are motivated by a desire for profit. Bell was well paid to publish the Hutton Report. If it can be proven that he negligently published false information about a private individual, there is no reason why he should not be held accountable for any harm caused. A qualified privilege is thus inapplicable to the instant case. B. Limited-Purpose Public Figure In abandoning the public or general interest approach of Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., the Supreme Court settled on a compromise approach in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. to accommodate the competing values of uninhibited debate with the need to protect reputation. The Gertz approach is grounded in a dichotomy between public and private figures. The Court in Gertz subdivided its discussion of public figures into two categories: general purpose or universal public figures, and limited or vortex public figures. 418 U.S. 323, 345-46, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3009-3010, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The former consists of those individuals with such tremendous notoriety that they have sufficient power and influence to counteract or respond to defamatory statements. Id. The latter consists of those thrust to the forefront of particular controversies and who are defamed in connection with those controversies. Id. It is the limited-purpose public figure that has produced the greater volume of cases and that involves more problematic judgment calls. See, e.g., Rosanova v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 411 F.Supp. 440, 443 (S.D.Ga.1976) (“Defining public figures is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall.”), aff'd, 580 F.2d 859 (5th Cir.1978). In the instant case, there is no colorable argument that Pearce is a general-purpose public figure. It is Bell’s contention, however, that plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure because his voluntary activities at Hutton drew him into a significant public controversy. This Circuit has adopted a three-part test for determining whether an individual is a limited-purpose public figure. Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1296-98 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 898, 101 S.Ct. 266, 66 L.Ed.2d 128 (1980). First, the controversy at issue must be isolated “because the scope of the controversy in which the plaintiff involves himself defines the scope of the public personality.” Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762, 772 (D.C.Cir.1987) (en banc). Second, the plaintiff’s role in the controversy must be examined. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Finally, whether the alleged defamation was germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy must be determined. Id. at 1298. Applying these tests to the case at hand, it is clear that there was a significant pub-lie controversy involving the overdrafting and chaining activities by Hutton. While a public controversy involves more than a public interest, plaintiff has conceded that the plea by Hutton to a 2,000 count indictment did create a public controversy. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s participation in the controversy was not such as would make him a limited-purpose public figure. Pearce’s role in the public debate was negligible. Once the original story about the chaining and overdrafting broke in the news, plaintiff had no further involvement in the furor that developed. Furthermore, plaintiff’s name never came up until defendant Bell mentioned it prominently in his Report. A new controversy, this time directly involving the plaintiff, was then created in the media. This public controversy, however, would not have arisen but for Bell's statements regarding Pearce. Defendant cannot bootstrap himself into the protection of the actual malice standard by pointing to the controversy over the plaintiff that he himself created by his publication. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 135, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979). In an effort to use the Hutton plea agreement controversy as the basis for Pearce’s public-figure status, defendant makes two arguments. First, he has pointed out that the St. Louis and Bethesda branch offices were named in the Information filed against Hutton by the Department of Justice. The fact that plaintiff managed those offices, however, does not mean plaintiff became the focus of attention. Mentioning the name of plaintiff’s branch office is not the equivalent of broadcasting plaintiffs name. In another context, the D.C. Circuit Court noted that “[b]eing an executive within a prominent and influential company does not by itself make one a [limited-purpose] public figure.” Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1299. Clearly, plaintiff was an anonymous figure until Bell issued his Report. Nevertheless, defendant’s second and main justification for treating Pearce as a limited public figure is that plaintiff voluntarily participated in misconduct leading to Hutton’s guilty plea. Bell contends plaintiff had to know such misconduct begged attention. He maintains that the over-drafting and chaining activities were bound to invite scrutiny. By voluntarily engaging in conduct with such foreseeable publicity and which formed the basis for the Hutton plea agreement controversy, plaintiff became a limited-purpose public figure with respect to that controversy prior to Bell’s statements. Obviously, defendant is correct in pointing out that a plaintiff cannot control first amendment standards simply by choosing not to seek publicity. “Those who attempt to affect the result of a particular controversy have assumed the risk that the press, in covering the controversy, will examine the major participants with a critical eye.” Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1298. Not all public controversies, however, result from activities out of which publicity would foreseeably arise. See, e.g., Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 443 U.S. 157, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979). Defendant has attempted to analogize this case to a number of decisions including: Jensen v. Times Mirror Co., 634 F.Supp. 304 (D.Conn.1986); Logan v. District of Columbia, 447 F.Supp. 1328 (D.D.C.1978); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 417 F.Supp. 947 (D.D.C.1976); and Buchanan v. Associated Press, 398 F.Supp. 1196 (D.D.C.1975). In each of these cases, however, the plaintiffs had voluntarily participated in activity either patently criminal or already subject to significant public scrutiny. Those plaintiffs had no colorable claim that the coverage by the media was unexpected. In sharp contrast, plaintiff Pearce argues, as part of his underlying claims, that he did not have reason to know his conduct was improper. In fact, among what Pearce alleges defamed him are Bell’s statements about knowing impropriety. Plaintiff’s claim that the type of activity he was engaged in is not of a nature that one would immediately recognize as either criminal or highly controversial is quite plausible. Plaintiff worked for a reputable brokerage firm, not the mafia. He was not attempting to embezzle funds from his employer but to maximize its profits. His overly agressive use of “float” simply cannot be equated with blatant criminal conduct, such as the offer to be a “hit man” in Logan v. District of Columbia, supra. Therefore, since plaintiff did not engage in activity for which publicity was clearly foreseeable, since he did not play any role in the controversy once the Hutton plea agreement came to the public’s attention, and since he remained virtually anonymous until defendant published his allegedly defamatory statements, plaintiff cannot be deemed a limited-purpose public figure. C. Standard For Compensatory Damages As noted earlier, Gertz set as the critical determination in defamation actions the identity of the plaintiff — i.e., is plaintiff a public or a private figure? In public-figure cases, the plaintiff must satisfy the New York Times “actual malice” standard of fault. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 343, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). As discussed above, the instant case is a private-figure action. Under Gertz, in private-figure cases the states are free to set their own standards so long as they do not establish liability without fault. 418 U.S. at 345-46, 94 S.Ct. at 3009-3010. Most states, including the District of Columbia, have thus set the standard of fault at negligence. Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78, 90 (D.C.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 989, 101 S.Ct. 2327, 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving negligence as part of his prima facie case. See New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26; Curtiss Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). In cases involving the actual malice standard of fault, plaintiff must meet that burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 285-86, 84 S.Ct. at 728-29. The assumption is, however, that in cases involving the negligence standard of fault, plaintiff must meet the burden of proof by only a preponderance of the evidence. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 366, 94 S.Ct. at 3020 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“in contrast to proof by clear and convincing evidence required under the New York Times test, the burden of proof for reasonable care will doubtless be the preponderance of the evidence.”); see also R. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 3.08. Concluding that plaintiff must prove negligence by a preponderance of evidence does not end the matter, however. Defendant contends that a “professional malpractice” model of negligence must be adopted. Defendant’s position is that plaintiff must establish what the professional standard of care is, and that Bell deviated from that standard. To set the standard of care, plaintiff must provide expert testimony. The Restatement (Second) of Torts has adopted the professional model of negligence for defamation actions involving a media defendant. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580B comment g, at 228 (1977). Presumably, the Restatement (Second), and any jurisdictions following it, would revert to an ordinary reasonable person standard when the defendant is not part of the media. See R. Smolla, supra, at § 3.25[1]. While defining who is a member of the media may present difficulties in some situations, it is clear that defendant Bell is not part of a news organization. Therefore, even under the Restatement (Second), the “professional malpractice” model is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. Furthermore, many jurisdictions have eschewed the Restatement (Second) approach and have simply adopted the traditional tort “ordinary reasonable person” standard. R. Smolla, supra, at § 3.26. This court also adopts the “ordinary reasonable person” model of negligence. Though defendant has pointed out that this action involves some exceedingly complicated matters, the complexity refers to the financial transactions involved. A professional malpractice negligence model is only justified when the field involved cannot be understood without resort to technical expert testimony. Id. Taking reasonable precautions to ensure the accuracy of an investigative report is simply not something beyond the comprehension of a layman. Expert testimony is not required in the instant case. The court notes that negligence in the context of an investigative report may include: (1) failure to pursue further investigation; (2) unreasonable reliance on sources; (3) unreasonable formulation of conclusions, inferences, or interpretations; (4) errors in note-taking and quotation of sources; (5) misuse of legal terminology; (6) mechanical or typographical errors; (7) unreasonable screening or checking procedures; (8) the failure to follow established internal practices and policies. See R. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 3.28[3]. D. Standard For Punitive Damages In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages can be recovered only upon a showing of actual malice. 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. at 3011. For a time, there was debate over whether Gertz was only meant to apply to media defendants since there is some language in the opinion suggesting this. See R. Smolla, supra, at § 3.02[2]; Note, Private Individual May Recover Presumed and Punitive Damages Without a Showing of Actual Malice, 16 Seton Hall L.Rev. 785, 795 (1986). The D.C. Circuit has held, however, that the actual malice standard governs even in cases involving nonmedia speakers. Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n. 3 (D.C. Cir.1975). The issue appears resolved in any event. In Dun & Bradstreet, a lower court had ruled that on the issue of presumed and punitive damages, Gertz did not apply because the defendant was a nonmedia speaker. 472 U.S. at 753, 105 S.Ct. at 2942. Though the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, it did so for different reasons. Apparently rejecting the lower court’s invocation of the media/nonmedia distinction, the Court basically ruled that in private-figure cases not involving matters of public concern, Gertz does not apply. Id. at 760-61,105 S.Ct. at 2946-47. In such cases, the availability of punitive damages is purely a matter of state law. Plaintiff has attempted to latch onto the Dun & Bradstreet holding to argue that punitive damages are available here without a showing of actual malice. His position is that because Mr. Bell is not a member of the news media, and because his Report dealt with financial practices, the defamatory statements were merely commercial speech. As the Court in Dun & Bradstreet recognized, such speech “occupies a ‘subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.’ ” 472 U.S. at 758 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. at 2945 n. 5 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s argument, however, is untenable. The Hutton Report cannot be considered commercial speech simply because its author was not a journalist and its subject concerned finance. As discussed previously, the Hutton Report clearly involved matters of public concern. Therefore, Dun & Bradstreet is wholly inapplicable. Gertz governs this issue. To recover punitive damages, plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. See Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d at 738; Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe, 366 F.2d at 661; see also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 285-86, 84 S.Ct. at 778-29 (actual malice must be proved with “convincing clarity”). Actual malice is defined as publishing a statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26. In St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), the Supreme Court explained the standard further by stating that: 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. 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S.Ct. at 1375. Thus