conduct leading up to the time of publication. Friedman’s subjective beliefs or purported ill will toward Jews are therefore irrelevant to the Voice’s liability. See Chaiken v. W Publishing Corp., Order, March 16, 1994, 1994 WL 876418 (Preska, J.). In addition, there is no evidence that the Voice was aware of Friedman’s purported biases when it published the article. To the contrary, Friedman wrote many of the articles detailed in “Poison Pen” after 1985. See Plaintiffs’ Ex. I at p. 61. Friedman also had no contact with the Chaikens before travelling to Israel in 1985 to write the article. . Nor is the article so “inherently implausible” as to put the Voice on notice that the story would require independent verification. See Gaeta, 62 N.Y.2d at 340, 477 N.Y.S.2d 82, 465 N.E.2d 802 (<HOLDING>). Friedman travelled to Hebron in the wake of
holding that a publishing company had no constitutional or other right of access to pretrial documents not filed with the court and declining to overturn the district courts denial of a motion to vacate a protective order to which the parties had stipulated holding that plaintiff had no standing because he had no intention of seeking further medical advice or treatment from defendant holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence holding failure to investigate before publishing is not sufficient to prove actual malice holding newspaper and reporter had no duty to make further inquiry before publishing an article in part because the facts had inherent plausibility