EOPYI i, r? IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSDN . It: 7? .giiriNNR. FUNK, 26 All If}: 37 Plainti?', 0. 160333 v. C. . JURYDEMAND -.SQR1PPS MEDIA, INC., and .PHIL WILLIAMS, Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, for his Amended Complaint against the Defendants, states as follows: I. THE PARTIES l. The Plaintiff is the District Attorney General for the 20th Judicial District in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Funk is 'a veteran trial attorney with twenty- nine years of experience. Mr. Funk is a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church and serves on the board of directors of the YWCA of Nashville andMiddle Tennessee, Tennessee Voices for Victims, the "Vanderbilt Kennedy 'Center' Leadership Council, the Rochelle Center, Room in the Inn and the Child Advocacy Center. He has also volunteered with the Special Olympics since 1994, and has served on the board of. directors for the, Down Association. of Middle Tennessee, Dismas House, and The Arc Davidson County, an organization that represents children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. {00011408 3} 'Cb'Defendant Scripps Media, Inc. (?NewsChannel is a Delaware company duly authorized to? do business in Tennessee. Scripps Media, Inc. owns and . operates NeWsChannel 5 (W-TVF) in Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Defendant Phil Williams is ?chief investigative reporter for NewsChannel. 5 and an employee of Scripps Media, Inc., which is vicariously liable. for all of Defendant Williams, actions set forth herein. II. QEISDICTIQN AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 16-10-101. 5. This Court is the-proper venue to hear. this dispute pursuant to Tenn. Code?Ann. 20-4-104. FACTUAL 6. This, is a lawsuit for defamation arising out of two patently false stories published by the Defendants which allege. that Mr. Funk, in his role' as District Attorney, extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and 'even blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing aciivil lawsuit. 7. Both stories were published in conjunction with one ?of Nielsen?s ?sweeps? weeks. Sweeps determine the advertising 'rates televisions stations may charge for commercial spots. The ratings are based on the" number of 'viewers, for eachnewscast. The higher-the rating, the. higher the advertising rate that can be charged for commercial spots. Television stations oftenidentify highly'controversial {00011408 3} 2 Copy or-"hot button" stories leading up to sweeps and hold the story until the ratings period?begins. 8. On February 2016, the beginning of ?sweeps? week, the Defendants published a defamatory story about Mr. Funk on the NewsChannel 5 website and via broadcast television with the headline ?Explosive Allegations Emerge From David Chase Case: $2 Million Requested To Make Case ?Go Away??. A true and correct copy of this story is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the ?First Story?). The written version and, video are both available at (last visited Feb. 4, 2016). 9; The First Story has a. juicy and deceptive ?lead-in? which is a clip from the video deposition of Sandra Chase (David Chase?s. mother) in which she says! did not get any impression about it involving Glenn Funk ?in' the wav of a bribe? Which is "immediately followed by the lawyer asking her the question! ?Why would Bill Fletcher think he would just get to keep the?2 Million Dollars.? ?After Mrs. Chase responds! don?t know?, the Channel 5 newscaster saysi ?It was one of the most controversial dOmestic violence cases in recent Nashville history. Last year, the. case against Nashville developer David Chase went away after Nashville DA Glenn Funk agreed to drop the charges. ?But' now NewsChannel 5 InveStig'ates has uncovered even more salacious allegations surrounding that case allegations of extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail. Those allegations raise questions about {00011408 3} 3 Cher a longtime Democratic political consultant, as well as the DA himself.? (Exhibit A (emphasis 10. The First Story,.in part, published the following: Explosive Allegations Emerge from Chase Case Sworn testimony raises allegations of extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail in the domestic violence, case, ., . . Last year, the case against Nashville developer David Chase went away after Nashville DA Glenn Funk agreed to. drOp the charges. But now NewsChannel 5' Investigates has uncovered even more salacious allegations surrounding that case allegations of extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail. Those allegations raise questions about a longtime Democratic .political consultant, as well as the DA himself. . . . But during-the. discovery process for that civil .case, information surfaced about a mysterious demand for $2 million pertaining to' the criminal case. "Tomake it go may,? Da?vid Chase?s-inOther, Sandy Chase testi?ed in her deposition. "But dOn?t' what that means, what that translates to, you know, I don't know.? Among the evidence uncovered in that case was a text message from David Chase?s phone. "What's the status of your Case?" a friend asked; The status of the case, Chase replied, is "my PRguy went beyond the extortion of me and told my dad. he needs $2 million _to ?make this go away.??. . Under oath, Sandy Chase was asked'by Nashville attorney Brian Manookian about the money. "'Was your perception that Bill Fletcher wanted $2 million to bribe someone?" Manookianasked. think Dean inferred that that wasthe purpose," the mother answered. De?an Chase was asked'the same question: "m you believe the $2 million request'was to Dav a bribe to someone?? But his-attorneys'toldhimnot to answer. . . . At the time David Chase's fate was in the hands of Funk, who had apparently been signaling for months thatahe was open tothe poSsibility that there just might not be enough evidence to- continue the case. Attorney Ma'nookian asked Sandy Chase, "Making it go away would have required a decision on Glenn Funk's part, correct?? "Well," she answered, "since-he was in the control of, the, dropping the charges, or not, I guess then the answer would be yes." . . . But David Chase had harsh words for Funk after learning about the $2 million :reguest, texting his mother: ?After today, Glenn Funk can rot in prison with everyone else.? . . . A few days after the Chases ?red'Bill Fletcher, according to the testimony, Funk's'of?ce sent word that the charges would be dismissed. (1d. (emphasis {00011408 3} 4 ,da?y Chase requested $2 million from Chase?s father to ?make [the domestic violence case against. Chase] go away;? (emphasis added); The Defendants imply that this 11. According to the? First Story, apolitical consultant working for David money was intended to pay a bribe to Funk. Fletcher), whether by ejmail, telephone, or face'tO?face conversation, during his tenure as District Attorney. Via, a statement published by the Defendants on February.4,_ 2016, after the ?ling of the Complaint 'in this matter, Mr. Fletcher 12., Mr. Funk has had no contact with this politiCal consultant (Bill confirmed this fact2 was in the hands of Funk, who had apparently been, signaling for months that he was open to the possibility that there 'just might not be enoughevidence to continue Allegations made in media reports about my business. relationship with the Chase family with regard to criminal charges ?led and then dropped against David Chase are completely false. I have never p_r0pose_d any payments of any kind to anyone regarding the criminal case. I never had any contact at all with District Attorney Glenn Funk, anyonein the Office of the District Attorney, or anyone representing Mr. Funk or his of?ce in my representation of Mr. David Chase, his family or the DP. Chase will explore all my options to see to it that these false and scurrilous allegations are corrected on the public record. 13. Next, the .First Story goes on? to state, ?At the time, David Chase's fate the case.? 14. Then, the First Story reads as follows: Attorney. Manookian asked Sandy Chase, "Making it go away would have required. a decision on Glenn Funk?s part, Correct?" "Well," she answered, "Since he was in the control of the, dropping'the charges or not, I guess then the answer would beyes." "Did you get the sense that Bill Fletcher's request; for $2 million was to give to Glenn Funk?" the {00011408 3} 5 -Cbpy,. attorney asked. did not get that that feeling," Sandy Chase answered. didn't know what to think of'it." But David Chase had harsh Words for Funk. after learning. about the $2 million request, te'xting his mother? l'After today, Glenn Funk can rot in prison with everyone else."~ 15. The Defendants go on to claim that Mr. Funk not only solicited a $2 million bribe, but he also allegedly blackmailed?DavidChase into dismissing a civil lawsuit! A few days after the Chases ?red Bill Fletcher, according to the testimony, Funk's of?ce sent word that the charges, would be dismissed. But it turned out there was a catch. According to the testimony, David Chase was forced .to drop a separate federal lawsuit he had ?led against Metro for allegedly violating his civil rights a lawsuit where the DA himself could have becomea witness. Chase .sent this text1 "Iidropped the federal case against metro "Had to," he explained, "in order to get my stuffidropped after Funk blackmailed me," 16. Significantly, prior to the broadcast, the of?cial New'sChannel 5 Twitter account published the-following?TweetI 't ,NewschanneI5@NCSIv16h (BREAKING: Allegations of extortion, blackmail made against Nashville District Attorney, Glenn Funk. Details at 6pmWain? tw-??vw4 - Available .at (last visited Feb. 24,2016) 17. Also, on February 3, 2016, "prior to the broadcast of the First Story, NewsChannel 5 reporter Nick Beres' Twitter account published the following statement: MISS EXCLUSIVE I-Team report on David Chase. He. talks. {0001 1408' 3} 6 Copy Bribery, blackmail and he calls out the- DA. At tweet was publishedat all times from its original publication on February 3, 2016 through February 24, 2016?. 18. The same day the First Story was published, Mr. Funk published the statement attached hereto as Exhibit B, explaining that an Assistant District Attorney handled Mr, Chase?s case and that, after a thorough review of the evidence, the Assistant District Attorney: decided to dismiss the charges primarily based on inconsistent statements made under oath by Lauren Bull (the victim), as well as Other issues affecting .Ms. Bull?s credibility. The As'sistant District Attorney?s decision to dismiss the [charges Was approved by Mr. Funk. A true and correct copy of the-State?s Notice of Dismissali's attached hereto as Exhibit'Q. 19. Mix, .F'unk did. not blackmail or attempt to blackmail David Chase. Although the dismissal of Mr. Chase?s federal lawsuit, which included the Metropolitan NaShville, Police Department "as a defendant, was a' condition precedent? to having his criminal charges dismissed, conditioning dismissal of Criminal charges on dismissal ofa civil la'v'vsuit (referred to as a ?release'dismissal agreement?) is' routinely used by prosecutors throughout the United States, and such agreements were approved by the UnitedStates Supreme Court nearly thirty yearsago. 20. Further, at no point has .Mr. unk, solicited, been offered, or accepted any bribe, includingduringhis- tenure as District Attorney, 21. As of February 24, 2016, the title for the news story titled ?Explosive Allegations Emerge from Chase Case - Sworn testimony raises allegations of {000114083} 7 leery? iextortion, possible bribery, even blackmail "in the domestic 'violence case? appeared on the ?rst page of the NewsChannel 5 Investigates Web page for newschanne15.com; On February 24, 2016, if a person ?clicked? on this news story title, the person was directed to a story with a title: ?Explosive Allegations Emerge From David Chase Case: $2 Million Requested To Make Case ?Go Away'?. As of February 24, 2016, the news, story appearing below the above title began: It- was one 'ofthe' most controversial domestic violence cases in recent Nashville history. Last year, the case against Nashville developer David Chase went. away after Nashville DA Glenn Funk agreedfto drop the charges._ Butn?ow NewsChannel 5 Investigates has uncovered eVen more salaciOus allegations surrounding that case allegations of, extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail. Those allegations raise- questions about a "longtime Democratic political consultant, as well 'as' the. DA himself. 22; As of February 24, 2016, and at all times since its original publication "on February 3, 2016 through February 24, 2016, Phil Williams' Twitter account. published-a link to the above referenced article, 23. -As- of February 24,. 2016, and at alltimes from its initial publication on February. 3, 2016 up to and including February 24, 2016, the First 'Story was published on.newsch_annel5_.com. 24. As of February 24, 2016, the Facebook page for Defendant Phil Williams referenced the First Story, and provided a link?to. the full story. 25. As of" February 24, 2016, the First ?StOry was published on .NewsChann'el 5?s YouTube channel. {000114083} 8 .Ebgy, The-Second Stogz? 26; -As.evidenced by the record ?of this case, Defe?ndant'Williams was served "with the summons andcomplaint on February 4, 2016 at 4323 and Defendant Scripps Media, Inc. was served with the summons and complaint on February: 5, 2016 at 9140 am. 27, On, February 4, 2016, at 920.1 NewsChannel 5 caused to, be published yet a second story (the ?Second Story?) about Mr.-Funk, in which the, following false statements of Mr. Chase were'republishedi think the term used by Attorney General Funk was, "well if? he doesn't [dismiss his civil suit] then I may go to jail, but David ChaSe' de?nitely will go to jail. So'that was not just blackmail, 'it was a? threat-l?; and ?In my opinion [Funk] blackmailed me, using my criminal case and incarceration as leverage to get me to drop a federal civil case that I had grounds to ?le . A true and correct copy of the text of this story is attached hereto as- Exhibit. D. The video of the Second Story is available at prosecutor (last visited Feb. 26, 2016). 28. The interview of? David Chase, of which the Second Story consisted, took place prior-to-the' publication of the First Story. 29. Significantly, the Second Story?recounted Mr. Chase?s fstatement that ?fIYve talked to Bill. [Fletcher] about it, no that wasn't what it was supposed to be [a bribe]. It, was [to] make it go away meaning the negative press?. Given that the interview with David Chase was recorded prior to the publication of the First Story,- 1{0001 1408 3} 9 ,Cb?yn the Defendants knew there was no factual basis. that there was anybribe or that Mr. Funkwa?s involved with any bribe. I 30. Further, the SecOnd Story Comments 'on the instant lawsuit (which demands. a retraction) and states as follows: ?NewsChannel 5 stands by our story." Additional Evidence of Intentional Defamation 31. As of February 24, 2016, the title ,for the news story titled ?Explosive Allegations- Emerge from Chase Case Sworn testimony raises allegations of extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail in the domestic violence case? appeared on the ?rst page of the NewsChannel 5 Investigates web page for newschannel5.com. That Story was published on the web site newschannel5.com at all times from its, initial publication on February 3, 2016 up .to and including February 24, 2016.. 32. The fact that both the First Story and the Second. Story are ?still on the NewsChannel5' website, 'weeks after this lawsuit was filed and served,.is evidence Of. actual malice. 33. Defendants had no evidence whatsoever which would have supported the allegation that Mr. Funk had anything whatsoever to do with any. bribe, or that, there was any bribe involving anyone. That is egregious-enough. But, this case is made that much worse by the fact that Channel 5 has requed' to publish a retraction, and in fact, continues to publish the defamatory statements every single day deSpite Mr. Funk?s statement quoted above, despite the fact that'it has been 'sue'd in a lawsuit in which Mr. Funk unequivocally states that he has no knowledge {00011408 3} :10 63bit of any bribe, despite the, fact that Mr. Fletcher has provided Channel 5- with 'a statement unequivocally stating that he has noknowledge of any bribe, anddesp'ite the fact that David Chase, in? an interview with Channel 5, states that the request byer. Fletcher wasnot a bribe, but rather. Was to run a public relations campaign tomake the- negative press go away. 34; The above-referenced statements by' the Defendants, and the First Story. and .Second Story as .a whole, are reasonably capable of being understood as charging something defamatory against Mr. Funk, including, "but. notflimited to, ya defamatory allegation that Mr. Funk solicited, accepted or was somehow involved with a bribe. .35, The above'referenced statements that Mr. Funk?extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit are false. 36. The above?referenced statements that Mr. Funk extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a? bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil laWsuit were made recklessly. The Defendants published these statements with knowledge of falsity or- with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity, particularly in light of the Second Story. 37. Defendants published the above?referenced statements without adequately investigating the statements. 38.- Defendants published the above?referenced statements even though they'had serious, doubts about their truth, particularly in light? of the Second Story. '{00011408 3} I1 39. The above-referenced statements and the First Story and Second. Story as a whole,?including the false allegations thatMr. Funk extortedmoney'from acriminal? defendant, solicited a bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit, have caused damage to Mr. Funk?s reputation in the community, which he has spent many decades building. 40. The First Story and Second Story are garbled and one'sided' accounts of the facts, and contain defamatory observations and'comments. 41. The Defendants have been pursuing a vendetta against Mr. Funk since he became the DiStrict Attorney, including intentionally publishing false and defamatory allegations against Mr. F'unk. As of February 24, 2016, the home page of NewsChannel 5 Investigates has tWeIVe ?headline? stories three of which relate to Mr. Funk including the First Story, theSecond Story and a story titled. ?Legal Expert Questions Deal.? Further, at the top of the home page, there are five main links. Four of the links are general: Investigates Home, Consumer Al'erti Policin'g'for Profit, Questions of Influence. But the ?fth link is notably ?The iDA?s? Deals.? That link takes the reader to no less than twenty'two (22) stories created and published by NewsChannel 5? all negative and all but two (2) written by Phil Williams; This vendetta provides further-proof of Defendants' actual malice in intentionally and defamatory statements regarding Mr.. Funk. {00011408 3} 12 Copy Defamation '~Libel 42-. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully 'set ferth . herein. . I DefendantSpublicized libelous statements regarding the Plaintiff. with actual malice, knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard. of the accuracy of the statements. 44. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of these statements._ Defamation by Implication. 45. The Plaintiff incorporates 'the foregoing allegations as if fully .set forth herein. 46. Defendants. publicized libelous statements regarding the Plaintiff With knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of the accuracy of the statements. 47. In publishing the statements, the Defendants juxtapose a series of facts so as to imply a defam?atory'connection between them. 48. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of these statements. F?ee Light 49. The Plaintiff tincorpOrates the foregoing. allegations as if fully set?fo?rth herein. 50?. Defendants gave publicityto matters concerning Plaintiff that placed the Plaintiff before the publicin' a false light. {000114083} 13 ,1 51. The false light in which the Plaintiff was placed would .be, highly o??ensive to a reasonable person. 52. Defendants had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and 'the? false. light in' which the Plaintiff would be placed. 53. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the Defendants? actions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief- 1. That the Defendants retract the above'referenced defamatory statements; 2.. All compensatory, consequential, andincidental damages-towhich the Plaintiff isentitled in- an amount in excess of $50,000,000.00} 3. Punitive-damages in excess of $150,000,000.00; .4. That all compensatory, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages be paid directly, and in its entirety, to non-pro?ts dedicated to supporting women who? have been 'victims of domestic assault and abuse?; 5. That, to the extent the Defendants are unable to satisfy the judgment, the assets of NewsChannel 5 be 'sold to satisfy'the "judgment; A jury of?six (6) to try this cause; 7; Post-judgment interest; {00011408 3} 14 .Cb?yw. 10. .{000114083} Discretionary costs; All costs be taxedagainst the Defendants; and Such further relief as this Court may deem proper, Respectfully submitted,? KAY, GRIFFI PLLC NKEMA COLBERT, Byi AME D. KAY, . (#11556) OH 13. ENKEMA (#16670) HAELA. JOHNSON (#30210) 222 Second Avenue North Suite 340M Nashville, Tennessee 37201 615-742-4800 Attorneys Ibr the Plaintiff 15 ?bde? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and Correct-COpy'of the foregoinghas'been served via hand delivery upon?- Ronald G. Harris Neal and Harwell, PLC 150? 4th Avenue North, Suite '2000 Nashville, 37219'2498' On? this 26th (la)I of February, 2016. {00011408 3} 16 COPY I 5?40 - . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ?sham SON COUNTY, TENNESSEE GLENN R. FUNK, 1"5'733 3? mm . ca has; Plainti??, . - C. Case No. M33 v. . JURY DEMAND SCRIPPS MEDIA, INC., and PHIL WILLIAMS, Defendants. COMPLAINT TheilBlaintiff, for his Complaint against the Defendants, states as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff is the District Attorney General for the 20th Judicial District in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Funk is a veteran trial attorney with twenty nine years of experience. Mr. Funk is a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church and serves on the board of directors of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, Tennessee Voices for Victiinsf the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center Leadership Council, the Rochelle Center, Room in the Inn and the Child Advocacy Center. He has also volunteered with the Special Olympics since 1994, and has served on the board of directors for the Down Association of Middle Tennessee, Dismas House, and. The Arc Davidson County, an organization that represents children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Copy 2. Defendant Scripps Media; is; a Delaware company duly authorized to do business in Tennessee. Scripps Media, Inc. owns and operates NewsChannel 5 (WTVF) in Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Defendant Phil Williams is chief investigative reporter for NewsChannel 5 and an employee of Scripps Media, Inc. II. JURISDICTION VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 16-10-101. 5. This Court is the proper venue to hear this dispute pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 20-4-104. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. This is a lawsuit for defamation, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act arising out of a patently false story published by the Defendants which alleges that Mr. Funk, in his role as District Attorney, extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and even blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit. 7. On February 3, 2016, the Defendants published a defamatory story about Mr. Funk on the NewsChannel 5 website and via broadcast-television with the headline ?Explosive Allegations Emerge From David Chase Case: $2 Million Requested To Make Case ?Go Away??. A true and correct copy of this story is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the ?Story?). The written version and video are both Copy available at (last visited Feb. 4, 2016). 8. The Defendants begin the Story as follows: It was one of the most controversial domestic violence cases in recent Nashville history. Last year, the case against Nashville developer David Chase went away, after Nashville DA Glenn Funk agreed to drop the charges. But now NewsChanneI 5 Investigates has uncovered even more. salacious allegations surrounding that case allegations of extortion, possible bribery, even blackmail. Those allegations raise questions about a longtime Democratic political consultant, as well as the DA himself. (Exhibit A (emphasis added).) 9. According to the Story, a political consultant working for David Chase requested $2,000,000.00 from Chase?s father to ?make [the domestic violence case against Chase] go away.? (emphasis added). The Defendants imply that this money was intended to pay a bribe to ?someone.? 10. Mr. Funk has had no contact with this political consultant (Bill Fletcher), whether by e-mail, telephone, or face-to-face conversation, during his tenure as District Attorney. 11. Next, the Story goes on to state, ?At the time, David Chase's fate was in the hands of Funk, who had apparently been signaling for months that he was open to the possibility that there just might not be enough evidence to continue the case.? 12. Then, the Story reads as follows: Attorney Manookian asked Sandy Chase, "Making it go away would have required a decision on Glenn Funk?s part, correct?" "Well," she answered, "since he was in the control of the, dropping the charges or Copy not, I guess then the answer would be yes." "Did you get the sense that Bill Fletcher?s request for $2 million was to give to Glenn Funk?" the attorney asked. did not get that that feeling," Sandy Chase answered. didn't know what to think of it." But David Chase had harsh words for Funk after learning about the $2 million request, texting his mother: "After today, Glenn Funk can rot in prison with everyone else." 13. The Defendants go on to claim that Mr. Funk not only solicited a $2,000,000.00 bribe, but he also allegedly blackmailed David Chase into dismissing a civil lawsuit: A few days after the Chases ?red Bill Fletcher, according to the testimony, Funk's of?ce sent word that the charges would be dismissed. But it turned out there was a catch. According to the testimony, David Chase was forced to drop a separate federal lawsuit he had ?led against Metro for allegedly violating his civil rights a lawsuit where the DA himself could have become a witness. Chase sent this text: dropped the federal case against metro and [the] "Had to," he explained, "in order to get my stuff dropped after Funk blackmailed me." 14. Signi?cantly, prior to the broadcast, the of?cial NewsChannel 5 Twitter account published the following Tweet: j; NewsChannel6?NCS~16h l? M- h? . BREAKING: Allegations of extortion, I blackmail made against Nashville District i 1 Attorney, Glenn Funk. Details at 6pm. 4? 13 6 no Available at (last visited Feb. 4,2016) 15. The same day the Story was published, Mr. Funk- published the statement attached hereto as Exhibit B, explaining that an Assistant District Copy Attorney handled Mr. Chase?s case and that, after a thorough review of the evidence, the Assistant District Attorney decided to dismiss the charges primarily based on inconsistent statements made under oath by Lauren Bull (the victim), as well as other issues affecting Ms. Bull?s credibility. The Assistant District Attorney?s decision to dismiss the charges was approved by Mr. Funk. A true and correct copy of the State?s Notice of Dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 16. Mr. Funk did not blackmail or attempt to blackmail David Chase. Although the dismissal of Mr. Chase's federal lawsuit, which included the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department as a defendant, was a condition precedent to having his criminal charges dismissed, conditioning dismissal of criminal charges on dismissal of a civil lawsuit (referred to as a ?release-dismissal agreement?) is routinely used by prosecutors throughout the United States, and such agreements were approved by the United States Supreme Court nearly thirty years ago. 17. Further, at no point has Mr. Funk solicited, been offered, or accepted any bribe, including during his tenure as District Attorney. 18. The above'referenced statements by the Defendants and the Story as a whole are reasonably capable of being understood as charging something defamatory against Mr. Funk. 19. The above-referenced statements that Mr. Funk extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit are false. Copy 20. The above'referenced statements that Mr. Funk extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit were made recklessly. The Defendants published these statements with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. 21. Defendant Williams published the above-referenced statements without adequately investigating the statements. 22. Defendant Williams published the above-referenced statements even though he had serious doubts about their truth. 23. The above-referenced statements and the Story as a whole, including the false allegations that Mr. Funk extorted money from a criminal defendant, solicited a bribe, and blackmailed a criminal defendant into dismissing a civil lawsuit, have caused damage to Mr. Funk?s reputation in the community, which he has spent many decades building. 24. The Story is a garbled and one-sided account of the facts, and contains defamatory observations and comments. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION Lib?91 25. The Plainti?? incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. Copy 26. Defendants publicized libelous statements regarding the Plaintiff with actual malice, knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard of the accuracy of the statements. 27. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of these statements. Defamati_or_1 by I_Igplication 28. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants publicized libelous statements regarding the Plaintiff with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of the accuracy of the statements. 30. In publishing the statements, the Defendants juxtapose a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them. 31. The Plaintiff su?'ered actual injury as a result of these statements. False Light 32. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 33. Defendants gave publicity to matters concerning Plaintiff that placed the Plainti?? before the public in a false light. 34. The false light in which the Plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Copy 35. Defendants had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. 36. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the Defendants? actions. Civil Conspiracy 37. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants held a common design to accomplish by concerted action an unlawful purpose and/or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. 39. Defendants committed various overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit the torts of libel, defamation by implication, and false light, as set forth above. 40. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the conspiracy. Tennessee Consumer Protection Act 41. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 42. As set forth above, the Defendants have disparaged the services or business of the Plaintiff by false or misleading representations of fact in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief- Copy 10. 11. That the Defendants retract the above?referenced defamatory statements; All compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled in an amount in excess of $50,000,000.00; Punitive damagesin excess of $150,000,000.00; Treble damages and attorneys? fees pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 47? 18-109; That all compensatory, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages be paid directly, and in its entirety, to non-pro?ts dedicated to supporting women who have been victims of domestic assault and abuse; That, to the extent the Defendants are unable to satisfy the judgment, the assets of NewsChannel 5 be sold to satisfy the judgment; A jury of six (6) to try this cause; Post-judgment interest: Discretionary costs; All costs be taxed against the Defendants; and Such further relief as this Court may deem proper. Copy Respectfully submitted, KAY, GRIFFIN, ENKEMA COLBERT, PLLC By: um? D. KAY, JR. 556) JOH B. ENKEMA 6670) HAEL A. JOHNS 222 Second Avenue North Suite 340M Nashville, Tennessee 37201 6157424800 Attorneys for the Plain tit? 10