Case Title: Scholz v. Delp

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11511, SJC-11621

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11511 
SJC-11621 
 
DONALD THOMAS SCHOLZ & another1  vs.  MICKI DELP. 
DONALD THOMAS SCHOLZ  vs.  BOSTON HERALD, INC., & others.2 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     November 4, 2014. - November 25, 2015. 
 
Present:  Spina, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. 
 
 
 
Libel and Slander.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Costs. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
October 12, 2007.  
 
 
The case was heard by John C. Cratsley, J., on a motion for 
summary judgment.  
 
 
After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial 
Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.  
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
March 11, 2010.  
 
 
The case was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J., on a motion 
for summary judgment, and a motion for costs was heard by her. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for 
direct appellate review. 
                     
1 The DTS Charitable Foundation, Inc. 
 
2 Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa.  
2 
 
 
Nicholas B. Carter (Edward Foye & Seth J. Robbins with him) 
for the plaintiffs. 
 
Kathy B. Weinman for Micki Delp. 
 
Jeffrey S. Robbins for Boston Herald, Inc. 
 
Bruce D. Brown & Gregg P. Leslie, of the District of 
Columbia, & Cynthia A. Gierhart, of New York, for Reporters 
Committee for Freedom of the Press & others, amici curiae, 
submitted a brief. 
 
 
DUFFLY, J.  In the mid-1970s, Donald Thomas Scholz, a 
musician, composer, recording engineer, and record producer, 
founded the rock band "Boston."  After many years playing in the 
band, Brad Delp, who was its lead singer, committed suicide on 
March 9, 2007.  The Boston Herald, Inc., published three stories 
regarding Brad's suicide, written by columnists Gayle Fee and 
Laura Raposa, who relied on information from Brad's former wife, 
Micki Delp,3 and various unnamed "insiders" and "friends."  
Scholz filed an action for defamation in the Superior Court 
against Micki, arguing that the statements made by her and 
reported in the newspaper articles insinuated that Scholz was 
responsible for Brad's suicide.  Scholz later brought an action 
in the Superior Court for defamation and intentional infliction 
of emotional distress against the Boston Herald, Inc., and its 
two columnists (collectively, the Herald), based on the same 
statements as reported in the three articles.   
The two cases were consolidated in the Superior Court after 
                     
3 Because they share a last name, we refer to Brad Delp and 
Micki Delp by their first names. 
 
3 
 
Micki had filed a motion for summary judgment.  In August, 2011, 
a Superior Court judge allowed Micki's motion, Scholz appealed, 
and the Appeals Court reversed.4  See Scholz v. Delp, 83 Mass. 
App. Ct. 590 (2013).  We granted Micki's petition for further 
appellate review.  Thereafter, in ruling on the Herald's motion 
for summary judgment, a different Superior Court judge concluded 
that Scholz could not establish a required element of his libel 
claim, i.e., that the articles contained any false statements of 
fact, and allowed the Herald's motion for summary judgment on 
the ground that the reported statements constituted 
nonactionable opinion.  The judge also allowed the Herald's 
motion for costs.  We granted Scholz's petition for direct 
appellate review, and paired the cases for argument. 
We conclude that the newspaper articles and statements 
                     
4 When the appeal was heard in the Appeals Court, Micki 
apparently had not sought, and the judge had not entered, final 
judgment on the claim against her.  The Superior Court docket 
sheet does not reflect that a motion under Mass. R. Civ. P. 
54 (b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974), was filed, or that a rule 54 (b) 
certification was issued. 
 
Where no final judgment had entered on that claim, Donald 
Thomas Scholz's appeal to the Appeals Court properly should have 
been dismissed as premature.  See Gangell v. New York State 
Teamsters Council Welfare Trust Fund, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 631, 632, 
(1978).  At this point, however, the judgment as to the Boston 
Herald, Inc., and its two reporters (collectively, the Herald) 
is final, the issues have been fully briefed by all parties, and 
the heavily interrelated claims are all before us.  Because 
remand for further proceedings in the Superior Court would not 
be consistent with judicial economy, we exercise our discretion 
to decide the issues raised in Scholz's appeal from the decision 
allowing Micki's motion for summary judgment. 
 
4 
 
contained therein constitute nonactionable opinions based on 
disclosed nondefamatory facts that do not imply undisclosed 
defamatory facts.5  Because the statements even arguably 
attributing responsibility for Brad's suicide to Scholz were 
statements of opinion and not verifiable fact, and therefore 
could not form the basis of a claim of defamation, we conclude 
that summary judgment properly was entered for the Herald by the 
second motion judge, and that the first motion judge correctly 
allowed Micki's motion for summary judgment. 
1.  Background.  We summarize the undisputed facts, drawn 
from the summary judgment record.  The band Boston was founded 
in 1975, after Scholz and Brad obtained a recording contract 
with CBS/Epic Records, and Scholz hired band members Barry 
Goudreau, Sib Hashian, and Fran Sheehan to join the group.  The 
band toured very successfully for a number of years, but, 
approximately thirty years before Brad's death, there was a 
falling out between Scholz and the latter three band members.  
All of the original members of the group, other than Scholz and 
Brad, left the band.  Scholz continued to tour with different 
group members, including Brad, under the name "Boston."  Fran 
Cosmo joined the band as a backup singer for Brad, and as he got 
older and had more difficulty reaching the high notes for which 
Boston was known, Brad was dependent on Cosmo's voice as backup 
                     
5 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Reporters 
Committee for Freedom of the Press and twenty-five others. 
5 
 
to his.  In addition to touring with the band, Brad maintained 
his friendship with the former members of the group, who had 
discontinued all contact with Scholz, and played with them when 
he was able to do so.  
Brad had a long history of anxiety and depression.  He 
suffered from stage fright before performances with Boston and 
with another group with which he had played in the early 1990s.  
In 1991, Brad was prescribed anti-anxiety medication, which did 
not help.  Micki and Brad separated that year.  They were 
divorced in 1996, after sixteen years of marriage, due to Brad's 
mental health issues, but they remained friends.  Brad began 
dating Pam Sullivan in 2000; they were engaged on December 25, 
2006, and planned to marry in August, 2007.  Pam and her younger 
sister Meg6 moved into Brad's house. 
Sometime at the end of 2006, Scholz told Brad that Boston 
would be performing on tour in the summer of 2007, and that 
rehearsals for the tour would begin on March 24, 2007.  On 
February 28, 2007, Scholz told Brad that the initial summer 
performances had been confirmed.  While the plan had been that 
Cosmo would join the tour, that invitation was rescinded.  On 
March 1, 2007, Scholz sent an electronic mail message to Brad 
advising him that the summer tour was not confirmed.   
At around the same time, Meg discovered that Brad had taped 
                     
6 Because Pam and Meg Sullivan share a last name, we refer 
to them by their first names. 
6 
 
a small camera to the ceiling in her bedroom.  Brad sent 
electronic mail messages to Meg and her boy friend expressing 
his sorrow over having "victimized" her and saying that he had 
"committed the most egregious act against her."  Meg responded, 
expressing concern that Brad would do something to harm himself.  
Brad replied, "I don't think anyone could think less of me as a 
person as I am feeling about myself at this moment."  Two days 
later, Brad informed Pam of his installation of the camera; Pam 
also feared that Brad would harm himself.   
Brad committed suicide on March 9, 2007, having purchased 
the means to do so on March 8.  He left several suicide notes, 
including one addressed to Pam, one to Micki, one to his two 
adult children, one to Meg and her boy friend, and two for the 
public.  One of the notes that were made public said, "Mr. Brad 
Delp.  J'ai une solitaire.  I am a lonely soul," and, "I take 
complete and sole responsibility for my present situation."  The 
note also said, in reference to Pam, "[U]nfortunately she is 
totally unaware of what I have done." 
In March, 2007, the Herald published two articles 
concerning Brad's suicide.  The articles, written by Fee and 
Raposa, appeared in the newspaper's entertainment news column, 
"Inside Track."  The first article, published on March 15, 2007, 
was titled, "Suicide confirmed in Delp's death," and stated that 
7 
 
it was based on information from "unnamed insiders."7 
The March 15 article stated, in relevant part: 
"Friends said it was Delp's constant need to help and 
please people that may have driven him to despair.  He was 
literally the man in the middle of the bitter break-up of 
Boston -- pulled from both sides by divided loyalties. 
 
"Delp remained on good terms with both Tom Scholz, the 
MIT grad who founded the band, and Barry Goudreau, Fran 
Sheehan and Sib Hashian, former members of Boston who had a 
fierce falling out with Scholz in the early '80s. 
 
"Delp tried to please both sides by continuing to 
contribute his vocals to Scholz' Boston projects while also 
remaining close to his former bandmates.  The situation was 
complicated by the fact that Delp's ex-wife, Micki, is the 
sister of Goudreau's wife, Connie. 
 
"'Tom made him do the Boston stuff and the other guys 
were mad that they weren't a part of it,' said another 
insider.  'He was always under a lot of pressure.' 
 
". . . 
 
"Scholz' penchant for perfection and his 
well-chronicled control issues led to long delays between 
albums.  As a result, Goudreau, Delp and Hashian released 
an album without him, which led to an irretrievable 
breakdown. 
 
". . . 
 
"But the never-ending bitterness may have been too 
much for the sensitive singer to endure.  Just last fall 
the ugliness flared again when Scholz heard some of his 
ex-bandmates were planning to perform at a tribute concert 
at Symphony Hall for football legend Doug Flutie -- and 
then had his people call and substitute himself and Delp 
for the gig, sources say. 
 
                     
7 Testimony from Gayle Fee during the course of this 
litigation confirmed that the "insider" information in the first 
article came from Brad's former manager, Paul Geary, and his 
long-time friend Ernie Boch, Jr., who also was a friend of Barry 
Goudreau and Sib Hashian. 
8 
 
"In fact, the wounds remained so raw that Scholz 
wasn't invited to the private funeral service for Delp that 
the family held earlier this week. 
 
"'What does that tell you?' asked another insider. 
'Brad and Tom were the best of friends and he's been told 
nothing about anything.'" 
 
On the day the article was published, Fee made a radio 
appearance in which she said that Scholz had caused Brad nothing 
but "grief."  On the same day, both Herald reporters spoke with 
Micki, who ultimately had agreed to their request for an 
interview after initially declining to give one.  Following the 
interview, Fee sent an electronic mail message to Scholz's 
publicist, stating that Micki had said, "Brad was in despair 
because [Cosmo] was disinvited from the summer tour," and asking 
for comment.  Scholz responded that the decision to fire Cosmo 
had been a group decision.   
On March 16, 2007, the Herald published a front-page 
article entitled, "Pal's snub made Delp do it:  Boston rocker's 
ex-wife speaks."  The article stated, in relevant part: 
"Boston lead singer Brad Delp was driven to despair 
after his longtime friend Fran Cosmo was dropped from a 
summer tour, the last straw in a dysfunctional professional 
life that ultimately led to the sensitive frontman's 
suicide, Delp's ex-wife said. 
 
"'No one can possibly understand the pressures he was 
under,' said Micki Delp, the mother of Delp's two kids, in 
an exclusive interview . . . . 
 
"'Brad lived his life to please everyone else.  He 
would go out of his way and hurt himself before he would 
hurt somebody else, and he was in such a predicament 
professionally that no matter what he did, a friend of his 
9 
 
would be hurt.  Rather than hurt anyone else, he would hurt 
himself.  That's just the kind of guy he was.' 
 
"Cosmo, who had been with Boston since the early '90s, 
had been 'disinvited' from the planned summer tour, Micki 
Delp said, 'which upset Brad.' 
 
"But according to Tom Scholz, the MIT-educated 
engineer who founded the band back in 1976, the decision to 
drop Cosmo was not final and Delp was not upset about the 
matter.  (Cosmo's son Anthony, however, was scratched from 
the tour.) 
 
"'The decision to rehearse without the Cosmos was a 
group decision,' Scholz said in a statement through his 
publicist.  'Brad never expressed unhappiness with that 
decision . . . and took an active part in arranging the 
vocals for five people, not seven.' 
 
". . .  
 
"Sullivan told police that Delp 'had been depressed 
for some time, feeling emotional (and) bad about himself,' 
according to the reports. 
 
"According to Micki Delp, Brad was upset over the 
lingering bad feelings from the ugly breakup of the band 
Boston over 20 years ago.  Delp continued to work with 
Scholz and Boston but also gigged with Barry Goudreau, Fran 
Sheehan and Sib Hashian, former members of the band who had 
a fierce falling out with Scholz in the early '80s. 
 
"As a result, he was constantly caught in the middle 
of the warring factions.  The situation was complicated by 
the fact that Delp's ex-wife, Micki, is the sister of 
Goudreau's wife, Connie. 
 
"'Barry and Sib are family and the things that were 
said against them hurt,' Micki said.  'Boston to Brad was a 
job, and he did what he was told to do.  But it got to the 
point where he just couldn't do it anymore.'" 
 
On July 2, 2007, the Herald published a third article 
concerning Brad's suicide.  The article, entitled "Delp tribute 
on," included a paragraph stating that Scholz and the original 
10 
 
members of the band Boston "have been at odds for decades and 
the lingering bad feelings from the breakup of the original band 
more than 20 years ago reportedly drove singer Delp to take his 
own life in March." 
2.  Discussion.  a.  Standard of review.  Summary judgment 
is appropriate where, "viewing the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been 
established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 
matter of law."  Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 
117, 120 (1991).  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 
Mass. 1404 (2002).  The moving party bears the burden of 
demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact on every 
relevant issue.  See Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of 
Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 32 (2006).  "[The] party moving for 
summary judgment in a case in which the opposing party will have 
the burden of proof at trial is entitled to summary judgment if 
[the moving party] demonstrates . . . that the party opposing 
the motion has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential 
element of that party's case."  Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 
Mass. 627, 629 (2003), quoting Dulgarian v. Stone, 420 Mass. 
843, 846 (1995).  "Because our review is de novo, we accord no 
deference to the decision of the motion judge."  Caron v. Horace 
Mann Ins. Co., 466 Mass. 218, 221 (2013), quoting DeWolfe v. 
Hingham Ctr., Ltd., 464 Mass. 795, 799 (2013).  The use of 
11 
 
motions for summary judgment is favored in defamation cases.  
See New England TractorBTrailer Training of Conn., Inc. v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., 395 Mass. 471, 480 (1985), citing Cefalu v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., 8 Mass. App. 71, 74 (1979), cert. denied, 444 
U.S. 1060 (1980).   
b.  Plaintiff's case on a defamation claim.  To withstand a 
motion for summary judgment on a defamation claim, a plaintiff 
must have a reasonable expectation of proving four elements:  
first, the defendant made a statement, of and "concerning the 
plaintiff, to a third party"; second, the "statement could 
damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community"; third, the 
defendant was at fault for making the statement;8 and fourth, the 
statement caused economic loss or, in four specific 
circumstances, is actionable without economic loss.  See 
Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, supra at 629-630. 
Furthermore, to be actionable, the statement must be one of 
fact rather than of opinion.  "Statements of pure opinion are 
constitutionally protected," King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 
Mass. 705, 708 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940 and 485 U.S. 
                     
8 "The level of fault required varies between negligence 
(for statements concerning private persons) and actual malice 
(for statements concerning public officials and public 
figures)."  Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 630 
(2003).  Here, because Scholz concedes that he is a limited 
purpose public figure, to prevail he must prove that the 
challenged statements were made with actual malice.  See Astra 
USA, Inc. v. Bildman, 455 Mass. 116, 143-144 (2009), cert. 
denied, 560 U.S. 904 (2010). 
12 
 
962 (1988), "[b]ut there is no constitutional value in false 
statements of fact."  National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. 
Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 227 (1979), cert. 
denied, 446 U.S. 935 (1980), quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, 
Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 (1974) ("However pernicious an 
opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the 
conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other 
ideas").  Whether a statement is a factual assertion or an 
opinion is a question of law "if the statement unambiguously 
constitutes either fact or opinion," and a question of fact "if 
the statement reasonably can be understood both ways."  King v. 
Globe Newspaper Co., supra at 709, quoting Aldoupolis v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., 398 Mass. 731, 733 (1986).  See Howell v. 
Enterprise Publ. Co., 455 Mass. 641, 671 (2010).  While "[a] 
statement of fact is not shielded from an action for defamation 
by being prefaced with the words 'in my opinion,'" Levinksy's, 
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir. 
1997), quoting Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 
1227 (7th Cir. 1993), a statement that does not contain 
"objectively verifiable facts" is not actionable.  Levinksy's, 
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra, quoting Haynes v. Alfred 
A. Knopf, Inc., supra.  See Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting 
Co., 386 Mass. 303, 312, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1037 (1982) 
(statements which cannot be proved false cannot be deemed 
13 
 
statements of fact).   
As we have noted, "it is much easier to recognize the 
significance of the distinction between statements of opinion 
and statements of fact than it is to make the distinction in a 
particular case. . . .  Nevertheless, sensible lines must be 
drawn."  King v. Globe Newspaper Co., supra at 709.  In 
determining whether a statement reasonably could be understood 
as fact or opinion, a court must "examine the statement in its 
totality in the context in which it was uttered or published," 
and "must consider all the words used, not merely a particular 
phrase or sentence."  Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 
supra at 309, quoting Information Control Corp. v. Genesis One 
Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir. 1980).  See Driscoll 
v. Board of Trustees of Milton Academy, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 285, 
297 (2007).  Factors to be considered include "the specific 
language used"; "whether the statement is verifiable"; "the 
general context of the statement"; and "the broader context in 
which the statement appeared," see Milkovich v. Lorain Journal 
Co., 497 U.S. 1, 9 (1990), quoting Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio 
St. 3d 243, 250 (1986); as well as any "cautionary terms used by 
the person publishing the statement."  Lyons v. Globe Newspaper 
Co., 415 Mass. 258, 263 (1993), quoting Fleming v. Benzaquin, 
390 Mass. 175, 180 (1983). 
c.  Claims against the Herald.  Scholz contends that the 
14 
 
Herald articles are actionable because they impliedly assert 
that Scholz was responsible for Brad's death.  To support his 
argument that the articles contain actionable statements of 
fact, Scholz points in particular to the headline of the March 
16, 2007, article, "Pal's snub made Delp do it:  Boston rocker's 
ex-wife speaks."  We do not agree. 
We begin with the observation that, ordinarily, 
ascertaining the reason or reasons a person has committed 
suicide would require speculation; although a view might be 
expressed as to the cause, rarely will it be the case that even 
those who were close to the individual will know what he or she 
was thinking and feeling when that final decision was made.  
While we can imagine rare circumstances in which the motivations 
for a suicide would be manifestly clear and unambiguous, this is 
not such a case.  
The statements at issue could not have been understood by a 
reasonable reader to have been anything but opinions regarding 
the reason Brad committed suicide.  "[I]f it is plain that the 
speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a 
theory, conjecture, or surmise, . . . the statement is not 
actionable."  Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., supra at 1227.  
See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., supra at 9.  See, e.g., 
Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142, 1147-1148 
(8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that "anyone is entitled to 
15 
 
speculate on a person's motives from the known facts of his 
behavior," and that statements that plaintiff "pushed [the 
decedent] over the edge," was "the straw that broke the camel's 
back," and "was the reason for [the decedent's] death" were 
nonactionable because they did not express objectively 
verifiable facts, but, rather, were defendant's "theory" or 
"surmise" as to decedent's motives in taking his own life 
[citation omitted]).  Cf. National Ass'n of Gov't 
Employees/Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers v. BUCI Tel., Inc., 118 
F. Supp. 2d 126, 131 (D. Mass. 2000) ("the interpretation of 
another's motive does not reasonably lend itself to objective 
proof or disproof").  
In addition, the use of cautionary terms in the articles, 
such as "may have" and "reportedly," relayed to the reader that 
the authors were "indulging in speculation."  See King v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., supra at 713.  See also Milkovich v. Lorain 
Journal Co., supra at 31 ("[c]autionary language . . . put[s] 
the reader on notice that what is being read is opinion" 
[quotation omitted]); Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 
supra at 309, quoting Information Control Corp. v. Genesis One 
Computer Corp., supra at 784 ("the court must give weight to 
cautionary terms used by the person publishing the statement").  
The most extreme language appeared in the headline, which a 
reasonable reader would not expect to include nuanced phrasing.  
16 
 
See Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 603 
F. Supp. 2d 584, 589 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("A newspaper need not 
choose the most delicate word available in constructing its 
headline; it is permitted some drama in grabbing its reader's 
attention, so long as the headline remains a fair index of what 
is accurately reported below").  See, e.g, Dulgarian v. Stone, 
420 Mass. 843, 850-851 (1995) (title of television news series, 
"Highway Robbery?," reporting on automobile insurance 
appraiser's business, constituted "rhetorical flourish or 
hyperbole, which is protected from defamation liability").   
Moreover, the Herald articles appeared in an entertainment 
news column.  See Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., supra 
at 309, quoting Information Control Corp. v. Genesis One 
Computer Corp., supra at 784 ("the court must give weight to 
. . . the medium by which the statement is disseminated and the 
audience to which it is published").  "While not on the 'op-ed' 
page of the newspaper, the article[s were] replete with 
rhetorical flair."  Howell v. Enterprise Publ. Co., supra at 
671-672.  In context, a reasonable reader would consider the 
statements about the cause of Brad's suicide to have been 
nothing more than conjecture or speculation, reflecting the 
opinion of the speaker.  See Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 
F.3d 310, 314 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 875 (1994) 
(context of statements "helps determine the way in which the 
17 
 
intended audience will receive them"). 
Scholz argues that, even if we conclude that the articles 
contained statements of opinion, rather than facts, the use of 
the words "insiders" and "friends" in the "Inside Track" column 
indicated the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts.  We 
recognize that there is no "wholesale defamation exemption for 
anything that might be labeled 'opinion.'"  Milkovich v. Lorain 
Journal Co., supra at 18.  Even a statement that is "cast in the 
form of an opinion may imply the existence of undisclosed 
defamatory facts on which the opinion purports to be based, and 
thus may be actionable."  King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 
705, 713 (1987).  By contrast, an opinion "based on disclosed or 
assumed nondefamatory facts is not itself sufficient for an 
action of defamation, no matter how unjustified or unreasonable 
the opinion may be or how derogatory it is."  Dulgarian v. 
Stone, 420 Mass. 843, 850 (1995), quoting Lyons v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., supra at 262. 
We conclude that, here, "[t]he logical nexus between the 
facts and the opinion was sufficiently apparent to render 
unreasonable any inference that 'the derogatory opinion must 
have been based on undisclosed facts.'"  Lyons v. Globe 
Newspaper Co., supra at 266, quoting Restatement (Second) of 
Torts § 566 comment c, second par. (1977).  The first article 
stated that Brad "tried to please both sides," and was the "man 
18 
 
in the middle of the bitter break-up"; that "[Scholz] made him 
do the Boston stuff and the other guys were mad they weren't a 
part of it"; and that, consequently, Brad "was always under a 
lot of pressure."  The article then commented that "the never-
ending bitterness may have been too much for the sensitive 
singer to endure." 
The second article stated that Brad "was driven to despair 
after his longtime friend . . . Cosmo was dropped from a summer 
tour, the last straw in a dysfunctional professional life that 
ultimately led to the sensitive frontman's suicide."  This 
conclusion was based on Micki's statements that "[n]o one can 
possibly understand the pressures he was under"; Brad "was in 
such a predicament professionally that no matter what he did, a 
friend of his would be hurt"; Brad lived his life to please 
everyone else and was the "kind of guy" who, "[r]ather than hurt 
anyone else, . . . would hurt himself"; Brad was upset that the 
invitation to Cosmo to join the band's planned summer tour had 
been rescinded; Brad was still upset over the lingering bad 
feelings from the breakup of the band; and Boston was a job, he 
did what he was told, but "it got to the point where he just 
couldn't do it anymore."9  The second article also stated that 
Brad "had been depressed for some time."  The third article 
                     
9 The second article noted also that, according to Scholz, 
"the decision to drop Cosmo was not final and Delp was not upset 
about the matter." 
19 
 
referred back to the previous two articles in stating that 
"lingering bad feelings from the breakup of the original 
band . . . reportedly drove [Brad] to take his own life." 
By laying out the bases for their conclusions, the articles 
"clearly indicated to the reasonable reader that the proponent 
of the expressed opinion engaged in speculation and deduction 
based on the disclosed facts."  See Lyons v. Globe Newspaper 
Co., supra at 266.  It does not appear "that any undisclosed 
facts [about Scholz's role in Brad's suicide] are implied, or if 
any are implied, it is unclear what [those might be]."  See Cole 
v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 386 Mass. 303, 313 (1982).  
Moreover, it is entirely unclear (even assuming that facts are 
implied) that they are defamatory facts.  See id.   
Because the statements are nonactionable opinion, and 
Scholz therefore cannot prevail on his defamation claim, he also 
cannot establish the derivative claim of intentional infliction 
of emotional distress.  See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 
485 U.S. 46, 57 (1988); Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky, 431 Mass. 748, 
755 (2000). 
d.  The Herald's motion for costs.  Scholz also challenges 
on appeal the allowance of the Herald's motion for costs, in the 
amount of $132,163.89, for stenographic services, deposition 
transcripts, fees for service of subpoenas, and court filing 
fees.  We review a decision awarding costs for abuse of 
20 
 
discretion, see Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co., 413 Mass. 
320, 328 (1992), and discern none here.   
Scholz argues that many of the depositions were not 
reasonably necessary to decide the case, because the judge's 
decision rested "solely on a reading of the [newspaper] 
articles," and, accordingly, the decision to allow the Herald's 
motion for costs must be reversed.  In the alternative, Scholz 
argues that costs should have been awarded only as to the 
depositions that he sought and conducted, and not as to 
depositions sought and conducted by the Herald.  We reject 
Scholz's claim that, in deciding whether to award costs, a judge 
may consider only the cost of depositions that were noticed by 
the party against whom summary judgment entered.  It is evident 
from the decision on the Herald's motion for summary judgment 
that the judge relied extensively on the deposition record; 
Scholz's claim that the depositions did not affect that decision 
is unavailing.  Moreover, deposition costs may be awarded 
"whether or not the deposition was actually used at the trial."  
Mass. R. Civ. P. 54 (e), as amended, 382 Mass. 829 (1981).  See, 
e.g., Federico v. Ford Motor Co., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 454, 462-463 
(2006) (awarding costs for depositions even where parties 
eventually settled and defendant was dismissed from case).  The 
judge's decision on the motion for costs reflects careful 
evaluation of the deposition costs, as required by Mass. R. Civ. 
21 
 
P. 54 (e).  
e.  Defamation claim against Micki.  While the Herald 
articles cite statements about the causes of Brad's death from a 
number of people who knew Brad, the bulk of the statements noted 
are reported as having been made by Micki.10  For the same 
reasons that the Herald articles are nonactionable, we conclude 
that Micki's statements contained therein likewise are 
nonactionable.  See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 
1, 9 (1990), quoting Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio St. 3d 243, 
250 (1986).  A reasonable reader of the Herald articles would 
conclude that Micki's statements either asserted nondefamatory 
facts or were opinions that did not imply undisclosed defamatory 
facts.  Even if the statements could have appeared to a 
reasonable reader to contain defamatory connotations, the facts 
upon which the opinions were based were "apparent and 
disclosed."  See National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. 
Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 226 (1979).   
A reasonable reader might reach a determination that the 
statements that Brad was upset about the lingering bad feelings 
from the breakup of the band, and about the decision to rescind 
the invitation to Cosmo to join the tour, were factual.  These 
statements, however, do not defame Scholz.  A reasonable reader 
also could conclude that Brad was under pressure as a result of 
                     
10 In her deposition testimony, Micki asserted that she had 
made the statements attributed to her. 
22 
 
tensions between members of the band, in reliance on Micki's 
statements that "Brad lived his life to please everyone else"; 
Brad "was in such a predicament professionally that no matter 
what he did, a friend of his would be hurt"; and "[n]o one can 
possibly understand the pressures he was under."  These 
statements also do not defame Scholz.  See Yohe v. Nugent, 321 
F.3d 35, 40-41 (1st Cir. 2003).  
A reasonable reader also could decide, based on Micki's 
statements in the articles, that in Micki's opinion, pressure 
from the band caused Brad to commit suicide.  According to the 
articles, Micki believed that Brad was the "kind of guy" who 
would hurt himself rather than hurt anyone else; "Boston to Brad 
was a job, and he did what he was told to do.  But it got to the 
point where he just couldn't do it anymore"; and dropping Cosmo 
from the tour drove Brad to despair and ultimately to suicide.11  
Whether Brad's motive rested, alone or in combination, on any of 
the reasons propounded by Micki -- Brad's growing weariness at 
being the middleman between the warring former band members, 
despondency about the possible cancellation of the tour and the 
absence of Cosmo from the tour, distress over the bitter feud 
and Scholz's role in it, or preexisting depression and 
anxiety -- is no longer capable of verification.  As discussed 
supra, statements that cannot be proved false cannot be deemed 
                     
11 Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to 
Scholz, we attribute this last statement to Micki. 
23 
 
statements of fact.  See Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 
supra at 312.  Moreover, as noted, it is unclear what, if any, 
undisclosed defamatory facts are implied by Micki's opinion that 
Brad committed suicide because of the general pressure of being 
caught in the middle of feuding band members and the specific 
stress of the withdrawal of the invitation to Cosmo to join the 
band's tour.  See Yohe v. Nugent, supra at 41-42. 
Based on any of the above combinations, reasonable readers 
would conclude, in these circumstances, that the statements 
concerning Brad's motivations in deciding to take his own life 
were opinions, given the context and the speculative nature of 
the comments on the multiple proffered reasons for Brad's 
suicide.  "[A]nyone is entitled to speculate on a person's 
motives from the known facts of his behavior."  Haynes v. Alfred 
A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 1227 (7th Cir. 1993).  See Yohe v. 
Nugent, supra.  See also, e.g., Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., 
Inc., 666 F.3d 1142, 1147-1148 (8th Cir. 2012).  
3.  Conclusion.  The judgment granting summary judgment to 
the Herald defendants is affirmed, and the order allowing the 
Herald's motion for costs also is affirmed.  The order allowing 
Micki's motion for summary judgment is affirmed.  The matters 
are remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.