Lisotto v. New Prime, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-092-15, 5 pp.) (Mary Lewis, J.) 3:14-cv-03920; D.S.C.
Holding: Where plaintiff alleges that defendant has continued to report false and defamatory information about his drug testing results and has failed to correct this information after being notified of the alleged error as late as March 2014, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not indicate that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
Plaintiff seeks to engage in further discovery in order to better identify dates and periods of time in which defendant published the allegedly defamatory statements to other motor carriers and in databases. Identifying these specific times as well as each alleged “new” publication, determining whether it was reasonably foreseeable to defendant that the statements could be republished, and ascertaining whether defendant fraudulently concealed any private defamatory statements concerning plaintiff, may all prove important to plaintiff’s case.
Further, discovery may aid in the determining the scope of the duties owed to plaintiff as well as the nature of the relationship between the parties which may be relevant to plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim.
Motion denied.