## Facts

- Dr. Eugene Dong, Jr., a medical school faculty member, accused another faculty member, Dr. Zoltan J. Lucas, of scientific misconduct in federally funded research.
- Stanford convened successive faculty committees to investigate the dispute and related allegations.
- During internal proceedings, Lucas asserted that Dong had committed similar misconduct, acted out of jealousy and “personal aggrandizement,” and engaged in “public as well as scientific fraud.”
- Dong sued Stanford’s Board of Trustees and various Stanford officials for libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on statements and conduct occurring in connection with the internal investigations and institutional responses.
- On the trial date, before jury selection, the trial court granted defendants’ motions in limine excluding the documentary evidence Dong intended to present.
- Plaintiff’s counsel stated that, given the exclusions, an opening statement would lead to a nonsuit; the parties stipulated that a nonsuit would be granted based solely on the court’s in limine rulings and plaintiff’s written factual proffer (a redacted exhibit to the trial brief) as an offer of proof.
- The court entered judgment of nonsuit for all defendants, and Dong appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may appeal a nonsuit judgment entered by stipulation when the stipulation was made only to obtain appellate review after adverse in limine rulings.
2. Whether plaintiff’s offer of proof stated legally sufficient facts to support claims for:
   1. libel,
   2. intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
   3. breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was permitted because the nonsuit was stipulated only to facilitate appellate review after adverse rulings on a critical issue.
- Treating the redacted written proffer as plaintiff’s opening offer of proof and assuming its truth for review, the court concluded plaintiff still failed to state facts sufficient to support any cause of action.
- The court affirmed the judgment of nonsuit for all defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A party generally may not appeal from a judgment to which it consented, but an exception applies when consent is given solely to facilitate an appeal after an adverse determination of a critical issue.
- On review of a nonsuit entered on an offer of proof, the court may assume the proffered facts are true and still affirm if, as a matter of law, those facts do not establish a prima facie case.
- Defamation claims based on communications made in internal proceedings concerning matters of shared professional concern may be defeated where the plaintiff cannot show actionable, unprivileged publication of false statements under applicable privileges and defamation standards.
- Institutional handling of an internal faculty dispute, including investigations and evaluative communications, does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress absent conduct that is extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing protects contractual benefits; it does not create a right to damages merely because an institution rejects or does not vindicate a faculty member’s accusations or preferred outcome in internal processes.

## Conclusion

The court permitted appellate review despite a stipulated nonsuit because the stipulation was entered only after adverse in limine rulings to obtain review, but it affirmed nonsuit because the plaintiff’s own offer of proof could not establish libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from internal university misconduct investigations and related communications.


Dong v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 191 Cal. App. 3d 1573, 236 Cal. Rptr. 912 (Ct. App. 1987)