## Facts

- Randolph L. Cook alleged he previously had a relationship with Oprah Winfrey and that they regularly used cocaine during that relationship.
- Cook alleged that in January 1995 he contacted multiple media organizations to sell his story about the relationship.
- Cook claimed that, while he was considering offers, Winfrey made public and private statements to third parties that he was a “liar,” could not be trusted, would be “sorry” if he told his story, and that they never had a relationship.
- Cook alleged similar statements appeared in a February 18, 1997 publication of the *National Enquirer*.
- After Cook filed suit in January 1997, he alleged Winfrey made additional statements to the press describing him as a “liar” and the lawsuit as a “pack of lies.”
- Cook alleged the statements prevented him from entering into an agreement with any media outlet to sell his story and caused emotional harm.

## Issues

1. Whether the defamation per se and per quod claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, if timely, whether the alleged statements were actionable defamatory statements of fact rather than nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
2. Whether Cook stated claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and tortious interference with contract without identifying a specific contract or a concrete, identifiable business expectancy with a particular third party.
3. Whether the alleged conduct plausibly satisfied the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, including extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress.

## Decision

- The court granted Winfrey’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Defamation claims based on statements allegedly made in or around January 1995 were dismissed as time-barred under the one-year limitations period.
- Remaining defamation allegations were dismissed because the challenged language (including calling Cook a “liar” and characterizing the suit as “lies”) was treated as nonactionable opinion/rhetorical hyperbole and did not plead an actionable false statement of fact.
- The tortious interference claims were dismissed for failure to plead a specific contract or identifiable expectancy and failure to allege interference directed at a particular third party.
- The IIED claim was dismissed because the alleged conduct was not extreme and outrageous and the allegations of severe distress were conclusory.
- The amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation actions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations running from publication; plaintiffs cannot avoid dismissal by recasting stale publications as a continuing wrong.
- Defamation requires an actionable false statement of fact; epithets and evaluative characterizations about credibility, especially in a public dispute and litigation context, may be nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
- Tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage requires a specific, identifiable contract or business expectancy involving a particular third party, defendant knowledge, intentional unjustified interference, and resulting breach or loss; generalized allegations of lost opportunities are insufficient.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct beyond ordinary insults and a factual showing of severe emotional distress; conclusory distress allegations do not state a claim.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed all claims because the defamation allegations were largely untimely and otherwise based on nonactionable opinion, the interference counts failed to identify any specific contract or concrete business expectancy with a particular third party, and the alleged statements did not meet the demanding standards for extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress required for IIED.


Cook v. Winfrey, 975 F. Supp. 1045 (N.D. Ill. 1997)