Can you help ansewer this and what specific references and in text ciations were used to do so?

n Case 9.1, a federal court of appeals considers whether a professional football coach is a public figure in a defamation context.

CASE 9.1 Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018) FACT SUMMARY The National Football League hired the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and one of its partners, Theodore Wells (collectively Wells), to investigate allegations of bullying within the Miami Dolphins organization. The investigation centered on the bullying of a football player, Jonathan Martin, who abruptly left the Dolphins team midway through the 2013 season. At the time, Martin was an offensive lineman in his second year with the Dolphins. After leaving a Dolphins facility on October 28, 2013, Martin checked himself into a hospital for psychological treatment. Later, Martin explained that he left the team because of persistent taunting from other Dolphins players.

After several months of investigation, Wells published a 144-page report (the Report) that concluded that bullying by other Dolphins players contributed to Martin's decision to leave the team. The Report also included several references to their offensive line coach, James Turner (Turner), and opined that Turner's unprofessional conduct played a role in Martin's struggles. The Report noted that Dolphins coaches and players created a culture that enabled the bullying by discouraging players from snitching on other players, known in the organization as "the Judas Code." It concluded that the treatment of Martin and others in the Miami Dolphins organization at times was "offensive and unacceptable in any environment."

After receiving the Report in February 2014, the Dolphins fired Turner, who in turn filed a defamation lawsuit against Wells and his law firm. The trial court found in favor of Wells because (1) the Report consisted of opinions and therefore was not actionable in a defamation suit and (2) Turner was a public figure and failed to adequately plead actual malice in his complaint. Turner appealed.

SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The U.S. Court of Appeals for the eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court in favor of Wells. The court held (1) the Report was a product of a careful balance in the investigation and that the statements were opinion-based and could not be categorized as false or misleading and (2) Turner was a public figure and therefore had an even higher hurdle to clear, malice, but that there was no evidence of malice during the investigation or upon publication of the subsequent report.

WORDS OF THE COURT: Fact Versus Opinion "Notably too, the Report included several cautionary statements that inform a reasonable reader that the conclusions contained therein are opinions. For example, the Report stated several times that it sets forth the Defendants' opinions, based on a lengthy investigation: '[t]he opinions set forth in the findings and conclusions below and elsewhere in this Report are our own'; '[i]n our opinion, the factual record supports the following findings' . . . Further, it is well settled in Florida that commentary or opinion based on accurate facts set forth in an article 'are not the stuff of libel.' That is precisely the case here."

WORDS OF THE COURT: Public Figure "'[S]ports figures are generally considered public figures because of their position as athletes or coaches.' . . . Here, Coach Turner chose to put himself in the public arena. As the Report noted, Turner was the focus of the 2012 season of Hard Knocks, an HBO television program that 'showcase[ed] Turner's coaching style and featur[ed] interviews and footage of him on the field and in the locker room.' During his coaching career, Turner was the subject of several articles discussing his career and coaching philosophy. Turner was a prominent person on the closely followed Dolphins professional sports team. . . . [Turner] has failed to provide any evidence of malice in this case."

Case Questions Why is it important that the court concluded that the Report was largely the opinions of Wells and his colleagues?

Why is malice an important factor in analyzing this case?

Focus on Critical Thinking: Why is there a special standard for public figures? Is that good public policy or does it prevent public figures from pursuing legitimate claims?