uva virginia fraternity rape article
The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va., Monday, Nov. 24, 2014.
AP Photo/Steve Helber
Nearly two years after Rolling Stone was greeted with condemnation for its since-retracted article about a brutal rape at the the University of Virginia, the publication is bracing for a defamation trial set to begin on Monday. Tensions are running high for the parties involved in UVA dean Nicole Eramo's lawsuit, and now, the publication's lawyers are worried they won't get a fair trial because ABC's 20/20 will be featuring the case and an interview with Eramo on Friday.

On Monday, Rolling Stone told a Virginia federal judge in an emergency motion that Eramo's side "intentionally leaked copies of video depositions," including one showing Sabrina Rubin Erdley, the author of the controversial rape story, crying during pre-trial testimony. ABC is promoting the episode in a trailer that states, "Now, for the first time, those at the center of the scandal, speak."


Rolling Stone is now demanding that Eramo be held in contempt and that she shouldn't be able to use any deposition testimony at trial. The publication has asked ABC to refrain from using the video recordings, but if the show airs as scheduled, Rolling Stone is also asking the judge to transfer the case to another district and postpone the trial.




Nicole Eramo.
Screenshot Via YouTube

At trial, Rolling Stone will be looking to defend itself by asking the jury to interpret some of the article's statements, including that Eramo "silenced" Jackie or "discouraged" her from reporting her gang-rape to the police, as either opinion or exaggerated rhetoric, based on a reading of UVA's sexual assault policies, and not susceptible to a defamatory meaning.


Among other things, Eramo will still need to show that the statements in question including ones directed at the administration at large were "of and concerning" her and that she was damaged.


Rolling Stone has argued Eramo will be unsuccessful in showing the publication believed the challenged statements in the article to be false. "To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants firmly believed - and still believe today - that the Article's reporting on Eramo and UVA's handling of sexual assault reports is accurate and well-substantiated," stated a summary judgment motion.

Conrad will let a jury decide and believes there's enough of a possibility for Eramo to clear the actual malice hurdle. In allowing the case to get to trial, he pointed to potential evidence possibly showing a jury that Sabrina Rubin Erdley had a preconceived story line and may have consciously disregarded contradictory evidence; evidence suggesting that Ederly should have further investigated Jackie's allegations; evidence suggesting that Ederly had reasons to doubt Jackie's credibility; that at least three individuals advised the writer that her portrayal of Eramo was inaccurate; that deposition testimony could lead a jury to believe Ederly harbored ill will for Eramo or intended to injure the administration; and finally, evidence about the events between the publication and Rolling Stone's apology in an editor's note a couple weeks later.

But will the trial really take place next week?


"There is no 'Emergency,'" she writes. "Defendants' Motion rests entirely on speculation, a misconstruction of the relevant law, and an erroneous and tortured reading of the Court's Protective Order."


That's not good enough for Rolling Stone, worried about the tainting of a jury that has yet to be seated.

"There is a vast difference between the public release of deposition transcripts and video testimony," the publication tells the judge. "The latter - due to the nature of the video medium - engenders a much greater risk of abuse, harm, and embarrassment. This is already evident here, as ABC chose for its promotional trailer a public display of Erdely at her most vulnerable moment."