In Defamation Case
Against Brandel Chamblee,
Reed’s Complaint Digs a Hole
The quickest way to make unsavory allegations disappear is probably not to file frivolous litigation. And yet, that is the hole into which Patrick Reed has dug himself.
On August 16, Reed sued Golf Channel commentator Brandel Chamblee (and Golf Channel’s parent company) in a Texas federal court for what Reed alleges is defamation. (The Complaint is here.) Also embedded in the Complaint is Reed’s allegation that Chamblee, Golf Channel, and the PGA Tour conspired to eliminate LIV Golf from competition by smearing LIV, Reed, and his fellow Saudi-bankrolled game-growers.
Those without enough to do with their lives will recall that this case takes its genesis from the third round of the 2021 Farmers Insurance Open. After Reed’s second shot at the 10th hole bounced into the rough, he picked up the ball, appeared to press the ground with his fingers, claimed that the ball was embedded, placed the ball on the ground, and then asked a rule official to declare the ball embedded retroactively. The PGA Tour and USGA later reviewed the process — after which the USGA said it was “supportive” of the way Reed handled the matter. Effectively, the episode left viewers with one of two impressions: that Reed handled the matter imperfectly but legally (i.e., ideally the rules official would have been able to inspect the ball’s lie before Reed removed it), or that Reed created the appearance that his ball was embedded with the goal of receiving relief that he otherwise could not have taken.
Chamblee — among others — drew the latter conclusion. “It’s hard to watch that. It really is,” Chamblee said on January 31, 2021, while Golf Channel showed a video replay of Reed’s shot. “It’s hard to watch the players being able to pick the ball up so easily and move it around, take drops. It’s not a good look for the PGA Tour, not by any stretch of the imagination.”
Now, Reed’s dissatisfaction with Chamblee’s commentary about that January 2021 incident — and others — has bubbled over into federal court. Let’s blog about it!
. . .
What is a tort?
A tort is a civil offense, as opposed to a criminal offense. In layman’s terms, it’s a legal basis for seeking a remedy (usually money damages) for some sort of injury (usually measured financially). Defamation — which is the nucleus of Reed’s case against Chamblee and Golf Channel — is a type of tort.
What is defamation?
In a nutshell, defamation is a communication that injures a person’s character. There are two types of defamation: libel (which is written defamation) and slander (which is spoken defamation). Defamation is a creature of state law (as opposed to, for example, the Sherman Act — which is a federal law), which means that the requirements for proving defamation sometimes differ slightly from state to state. But generally, proving a claim of defamation requires a plaintiff to prove four things: (1.) that the defendant made a false statement that they represented to be fact; (2.) that the statement was communicated to at least one third person; (3.) that the defendant acted with a level of intent amounting at least to negligence (more on that later); and (4.) that the false statement caused damage to the defendant.
Wait wait wait. If defamation springs from state law, then why is Patrick Reed’s lawsuit happening in federal court?
That’s a very nerdy question, and I’m glad you asked! Generally, cases arising from state-law causes of action (like torts) must be filed in state court. But if the plaintiff and defendant are from different states, and the plaintiff alleges that the case involves more than $75,000, then the case can be filed in federal court. This is called “diversity jurisdiction,” if you care (which you don’t).
Remind me — what is a Complaint?
A complaint is just a document that begins a lawsuit. It includes the plaintiff’s name, the defendant’s name, the facts (as the plaintiff sees them), the legal rights that (in the plaintiff’s view) have been violated, and what the plaintiff wants as a result (for example, money damages). A Complaint is not evidence. It’s a plaintiff’s side of the story — nothing more.
OK, so tell me about Patrick Reed’s Complaint.
It’s bad! And by “bad,” I mean very bad. And by “very bad,” I mean that the lawyers who wrote it should be embarrassed. It’s nonsensical, hyperbolic, and littered with typos. I wouldn’t file this Complaint with a justice of the peace. To file it in federal court would require a plaintiff to really — ahem — put his head in the sand.
Alright alright, so it’s bad. Setting that aside, what does it say?
Well, it’s kind of hard to say. A lot of the Complaint is quite vague. For example, Reed alleges that Chamblee and Golf Channel “have conspired . . . for and with the PGA Tour . . . to engage in a pattern and practice of defaming Mr. Reed, misreporting information with falsity and/or reckless disregard of the truth, that is with actual and constitutional malice, purposely omitting pertinent key material facts to mislead the public, and actively targeting Mr. Reed since he was 23 years old, to destroy his reputation, create hate, and a hostile work environment for him, and with the intention to discredit his name and accomplishments as a young, elite, world-class golfer, and the good and caring person, husband and father of two children, he is.” What the hell does that even mean? I don’t know! It’s gobbledygook!
No no, seriously. In its best possible light, what does the Complaint say?
Alright, I’ll try. The Complaint points to several statements that Chamblee has made regarding Reed’s decision to — ahem — embed with LIV. For example, Reed alleges that Chamblee appeared on a podcast and accused Mohammed bin Salman (the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, whose Public Investment Fund is LIV Golf’s principal backer) of “centralizing power, committing all these atrocities . . . . He settles disputes with bonesaws.” All of this is true! Similarly, Reed contends that Chamblee recently tweeted that PIF’s financial resources is “still blood money and you’re still complicit in sportswashing.” Again, this is true. A statement that is true can never be defamation (remember, proving defamation requires proving that the defendant made a false statement). Reed alleges that Chamblee’s statements have led fans at PGA Tour events to tell Reed — among other things — “You suck!” and “No one likes you!” That part is probably true, too. You hate to see it. (That part is not true).
Well, OK. Uh, where does that leave us?
Alright, look. To begin with, it’s nearly impossible for a public figure to win a defamation case — and that’s even when that public figure’s lawyer doesn’t live in Banana Land. The reason that it’s so hard for public figures to win defamation cases is because the Supreme Court requires public figures (unlike regular old people) to prove that a defendant committed defamation with “actual malice.” This is extremely difficult to prove — as it should be! The justification for this difficult standard is that free speech would be chilled if speakers could be sued for accidentally (but in good faith) saying something that turns out to be incorrect. Requiring proof of actual malice is good for public discussion. It also makes proving defamation tough for a public figure like Patrick Reed. Sorry.
What’s this “actual malice” thing, anyway?
Proving that a defendant defamed a plaintiff with “actual malice” means that a defendant must show that the plaintiff actually knew or should have known that their false statement was false. Basically, this requires a plaintiff to prove that a defendant lied purposefully.
I watch Golf Channel a lot. I listen to Brandel Chamblee a lot. I’ve read the statements that Reed says were defamatory. They seem less like Brandel was stating facts and more like — at worst — Brandel was using hyperbole. Does that matter?
Yes, it does! The Supreme Court has explained that the First Amendment protects a type of speech that the Court has described as “rhetorical hyperbole.” This embodies the idea that — as one court has put it — “exaggeration and non-literal commentary have become an integral part of social discourse.” It certainly feels like the statements singled out by Reed’s Complaint fit the description of “exaggeration and non-literal commentary.”
Does it matter if a defendant expressed an opinion, rather than expressing something that the defendant claimed was a fact?
Yes, it matters a lot! In a 1974 decision called Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court explained: “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” What that boils down to is, effectively, that opinions cannot be defamatory.
Stop me if this sounds crazy, but…it kinda seems like…Patrick Reed is…mad that…Brandel expressed unfavorable opinions rather than untrue facts.
Yes, it does seem like that is what’s happening here.
OK, but let’s assume someone could read the statements in Reed’s Complaint and interpret them as (purported) facts rather than opinions. Does it matter that Reed has a garbage reputation?
It might! There is a school of thought within defamation jurisprudence that a defendant’s reputation might be so toxic that his reputation cannot possibly be injured further — in which case no false statement can cause him further injury. Remember: when a plaintiff claims that a defendant defamed him, he must prove (among other things) that the defendant’s false statements damaged him. But if a defendant’s reputation couldn’t possibly be any worse, then might it be possible that an (allegedly) incorrect statement doesn’t actually injure the defendant? Maybe! Sound like anyone familiar? Maybe!
Well then. OK. So, uh, what’s gonna happen next?
Within the next month or so, Chamblee and Golf Channel’s parent company probably will file a Motion to Dismiss. When a defendant files a Motion to Dismiss, they argue that the law doesn’t support the plaintiff’s legal claim even if all the facts alleged in the Complaint are true. In this case, if the defendants file a Motion to Dismiss, my guess is that they will have an above-average chance of having the motion granted.
That seems bad.
If you’re the plaintiff or their attorneys, yes, that’s bad.
Who is Reed’s attorney, anyway?
Jesus, I thought you’d never ask! His name is Larry Klayman. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Klayman as an “extremist” who — in SPLC’s words — is “a pathologically litigious attorney and professional gadfly notorious for suing everyone from Iran’s Supreme Leader to his own mother.” He did apparently sue his own mother.
Theoretically — and we’re talking crazy here — let’s assume the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied. What then?
Pop the popcorn! Because then we get discovery, and everyone in this whole hilarious story is gonna be deposed. Can you imagine Patrick Reed in a deposition? Justine Reed in a deposition? Can you imagine bananas Larry Klayman deposing Brandel? It would be insane. The case probably won’t get to that point. But as a country badly divided and in need of healing, these are the depositions that America needs.
. . .
You might also enjoy reading…