Carlo Croce can’t catch a break in court.
Yesterday, a Federal U.S. judge ruled against Croce, a cancer researcher at The Ohio State University, in a case Croce had filed against Purdue University professor David Sanders in 2017. As Judge James Graham, of the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division, writes in the 36-page ruling — which we’d recommend reading in its entirety:
The suit largely relates to a March 8, 2017 article (the “Article”) in The New York Times in which Dr. Sanders was quoted and paraphrased several times in connection with his claim that he had found falsified data and plagiarism in scientific papers for which Dr. Croce was listed as a co-author.
Croce, who has had ten papers retracted, lost a related defamation case against the Times. He has also sued OSU — also unsuccessfully — to force them to restore him as chair of the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics. His attorneys have moved in and out of relationships with him along the way.
Judge Graham ruled that Croce’s attorneys had not made a convincing case for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied Sanders’ request for legal fees — which were paid by Purdue — under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute, for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” designed to deter frivolous defamation suits.
Graham has praise for Sanders:
Dr. Sanders has a knack for detecting image duplication and remembering the blots he sees reported in scientific journals.
The judge quotes Sanders from one of the depositions in the case:
I’m embarrassed to say some part of my brain has blots permanently burned into them.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I’m glad that the judge did not fall for the “great man ” argument.
I was disappointed to read that the anti-SLAPP portion of the case failed:
“Judge Graham ruled that Croce’s attorneys had not made a convincing case for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied Sanders’ request for legal fees — which were paid by Purdue — under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute, for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” designed to deter frivolous defamation suits.”
This paragraph suggests that Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute provided insufficient protection in this instance. However, my reading of the case is that the rest of the case was decided under Ohio law and Ohio doesn’t seem to have an anti-SLAPP statute, per https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-ohio. The tactic to get attorney’s fees reimbursed after the trial failed since those statutes aren’t really designed for that purpose.
Seems the defendant couldn’t get the case tried under Indiana law and there is no anti-SLAPP protection available in Ohio. Good to know.
A small victory for scientific integrity and against frivolous litigation; but a welcome victory.
According to the decision, the judge did consider applying Indiana’s anti-SLAPP law, even though though the rest of the case was decided under Ohio’s defamation law. But he decided that Sanders’ lawyers failed to follow the specific procedural requirements in the Indiana stature.
“But he decided that Sanders’ lawyers failed to follow the specific procedural requirements in the Indiana stature.”
Yes, the procedure would have been to file the anti-SLAPP suit to get the case tossed before it was even heard. I didn’t look at the trial history to see if they even attempted that. Since the plaintiff was an Ohio resident, that state’s laws were (probably correctly) applied.
https://www.thelantern.com/2020/05/ohio-state-cancer-researcher-accused-of-falsifying-data-loses-defamation-suit/
“Croce said in an email that he disagrees with the decision.
“The court opinion is wrong! It will be appealed!” Croce said.”