MICHAEL L. GOGUEN, Plaintiff, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant, v. NYP HOLDINGS, INC., ISABEL VINCENT, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants and Appellants, and WILLIAM DIAL, Defendant and Cross-Appellee

MICHAEL L. GOGUEN, Plaintiff, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant, v. NYP HOLDINGS, INC., ISABEL VINCENT, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants and Appellants, and WILLIAM DIAL, Defendant and Cross-Appellee. Oral Argument is set for Friday, September 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in the Northern Hotel in Billings, with an introduction to the oral argument beginning at 9:00 a.m. In November 2021, the New York Post published an article that recounted accusations of sexual abuse, tax fraud, and corruption made against Michael L. Goguen in two lawsuits. At the time of publication, one suit had been dismissed and the plaintiff barred from repeating allegations the court had found false and defamatory. The plaintiff in the other lawsuit had recently pled guilty to felonies that stemmed from his victimization of Goguen. However, the Post’s article, published on its website under the category “Blackmail, Sex Scandals and Silicon Valley,” and in its print edition with the headline “ ‘He’s Like Weinstein or Epstein’ A civil complaint alleges billionaire kept harem, had sex with 5,000 women and planned murder in small town,” included allegations that Goguen had “transformed” Whitefish into a “dark banana republic” where he committed sexual assault and controlled local law enforcement, which prevented Goguen’s alleged victims from obtaining justice. The article also quoted William Dial, a former Whitefish Police Chief who had resigned while under investigation. Goguen immediately responded to the website article by submitting online comments. The Post then published a second article that reiterated the accusations of its initial article, with the addition of some of Goguen’s comments. Goguen’s attorney then demanded a correction and apology from the Post. The Post refused. Goguen then filed a Complaint for Defamation in the Flathead County District Court, against the Post, the journalist who wrote the initial article, and Dial. The Post and Dial each moved to dismiss on the basis that the article was not defamatory. The court granted Dial’s motion but denied the Post’s, ruling that whether the article was fair, true and published without malice are questions of fact for a jury. Goguen appeals Dial’s dismissal and the Post appeals the District Court’s ruling to proceed to trial.