## Facts

- Trevor Bauer, a professional baseball player, was accused in a California court filing by “L.H.” of violent, nonconsensual conduct during an encounter that began as consensual.
- The filing and attached medical records described “significant head and facial trauma” and symptoms consistent with a possible basilar skull fracture; later imaging reported no acute fracture.
- A sports website published an article reporting on the filing and medical information and commenting on the allegations.
- Bauer challenged three statements in the article: (1) that Bauer and his lawyer did not attempt to deny he was responsible for L.H.’s injuries; (2) that an investigation and trial were unnecessary to know L.H. did not consent to having her “face beaten” and “skull fractured”; and (3) that Bauer’s legal team’s position was that an initial CT scan showed a fracture.
- Bauer alleged the statements falsely accused him of fracturing L.H.’s skull and mischaracterized his response, harming his reputation and career.
- Bauer sued the author and publisher for defamation per se under New York law.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether Bauer plausibly alleged actionable defamation under New York law, including falsity, where the article’s gist was that L.H. alleged severe head trauma diagnosed as consistent with a skull fracture.
2. Whether the challenged statements were nonactionable because they were substantially true under the “gist or sting” doctrine.
3. Whether portions of the article constituted protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole rather than verifiable statements of fact.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The court held the challenged statements were nonactionable as a matter of law because they were substantially true and/or constituted protected opinion or rhetorical commentary.
- The court denied leave to amend, concluding the claim was premised on statements that could not support defamation liability.
- Bauer noticed an appeal but later withdrew it, leaving the dismissal intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, defamation requires a false statement of fact published to a third party with the requisite fault, causing special harm or constituting defamation per se.
- Substantial truth defeats falsity; courts evaluate the “gist” or “sting” and disregard minor inaccuracies that would not produce a different effect on the mind of a reasonable reader.
- Statements of opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, and value-laden commentary—especially on matters of public concern—are generally nonactionable because they are not objectively verifiable as false.
- Reporting that fairly conveys the substance of allegations and associated medical descriptions is less likely to be actionable where any exaggeration does not materially alter the nature of the accusation.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Bauer’s defamation per se claim because, viewed in context, the article did not materially change the gist of the public allegations and medical descriptions, and key passages were protected commentary rather than provably false statements of fact.


Bauer v. Baud, No. 22-cv-1822, 2023 WL 2307413 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023)