IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot says an editor and reporter at a national magazine should submit to 150-minute depositions before a judge rules on Mother Jones’ motion to dismiss VanderSloot’s defamation lawsuit.
The Post Register reported that VanderSloot’s attorneys on Friday argued for the depositions from four individuals at the magazine as part of VanderSloot’s claim he was defamed by an article that depicted him as a “gay-basher.”
VanderSloot, the CEO of direct marketing company Melaleuca, filed the lawsuit in Idaho Falls’ 7th District court in January. The magazine in March filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because of a lack of jurisdiction.
VanderSloot says a February 2012 article about him and two tweets promoting it prompted national criticism. The lawsuit seeks $75,000 and is in response to the article “Pyramid-Like Company Ponies up $1 million for Mitt Romney.”
The term “gay-bashing” never appears in the story, but VanderSloot points to a tweet promoting the article that described him as Romney’s “gay-bashing buddy.”
In the lawsuit, VanderSloot contends that the term “gay-bashing” denotes violence, harassment or intimidation based on sexual orientation.
He is requesting depositions from the magazine’s editor Monika Bauerlein and reporter Stephanie Mencimer, as well as two others at the magazine.
Mother Jones’ attorney, James Chadwick, argued against the depositions, contending VanderSloot failed to first get permission to do something in court normally not allowed, as required by law.
In an affidavit, Mencimer said she made periodic telephone calls and sent emails to people in Idaho. Also providing affidavits in support of dismissing the lawsuit were Bauerlein, Mother Jones CEO Madeleine Buckingham, and Robert Wise, the magazine’s online technology editor.
But Thomas Clare, an attorney for Melaleuca and VanderSloot, said depositions from all four are necessary.
“The defendants cannot have it both ways,” Clare said. “They cannot simultaneously ask the court to rely on affidavits in support to dismiss and at the same time refuse to allow those (people) to be cross-examined.”
The lawsuit contends that Mencimer didn’t try to contact VanderSloot or any other Melaleuca representative to comment in the magazine’s story, despite Mencimer’s statements in the affidavit.
“How periodic were those telephone calls?” said Clare. “How many of them? What were their (purposes)? Did they relate to the articles for the news-gathering efforts that are at issue with this case? Unless we take a deposition, we don’t have any way to know what periodic telephone calls means.”
District judge Darla Williamson is expected to rule next week.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
