## Facts

- Pete Barry was the former head men’s basketball coach at the University of San Francisco (USF).
- Quintin Dailey, a former USF player, became involved in an NCAA-related controversy concerning alleged improper payments from a USF supporter’s company.
- *Sports Illustrated* published articles (July 26, 1982 and August 9, 1982) describing alleged illegal recruiting and payments connected to USF basketball and reporting that Dailey accused Barry of being involved in transmitting improper payments.
- The articles also reported Barry’s denials and described the matter as a “scandal” involving “shocking conditions,” in the context of USF’s decision to cancel its men’s basketball program.
- Barry sued Time, Inc. (publisher of *Sports Illustrated*) for libel per se based on the republication of Dailey’s accusations, alleging the reporting implied Barry actually participated in NCAA violations.

## Issues

1. Whether Barry was a public figure (at least a limited-purpose public figure) with respect to the controversy surrounding USF basketball and alleged NCAA violations, triggering the constitutional actual malice standard.
2. If Barry was a public figure, whether the complaint alleged sufficient nonconclusory facts showing Time published the challenged statements with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).

## Decision

- The court held Barry was a limited-purpose public figure regarding the USF basketball/NCAA controversy because of his central role as head coach in a widely publicized dispute.
- The court ruled Barry therefore had to plead actual malice to state a defamation claim against Time.
- The court granted Time’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not allege facts supporting an inference that Time knew the accusations were false or acted with reckless disregard.
- The court noted the articles reported both Dailey’s accusations and Barry’s denials, which weakened any inference that Time presented known falsehoods as established fact.
- Dismissal was entered at the pleading stage, with the possibility of further amendment contemplated.

## Legal Principles

- A public-figure plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice: publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether the statement was false.
- Limited-purpose public figures are those who assume a leading role in a particular public controversy and are public figures for statements germane to that controversy.
- Allegations that a publisher “knew or should have known” of falsity, without supporting facts, are insufficient; actual malice requires facts indicating serious doubts about truth or a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
- Republishing a participant’s accusations in reporting on a newsworthy controversy does not create liability absent adequately pleaded actual malice.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Barry’s libel claims against Time because, as a limited-purpose public figure in a high-profile NCAA-related controversy, he was required to plead actual malice and failed to allege specific facts showing knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard in the magazine’s reporting.


Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Cal. 1984)