No. 2-- 06--1055 Fil ed: 7-30-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ JOHN GREEN, ) Appeal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) of Du Page Coun ty Pl ai n tif f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06-- L--208 ) STEVEN ROGERS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Robert K. Ki

la nder Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ PR ESIDI NG

JU STI CE

GILL ER AN J OHNS ON

de l iv ered th e op ini on

of th e c our t: On March 3, 2006, the plai

ntif f, John Green, f il eda compl

ai nt agai nst the def

endan t, St even Rogers, then president of the Clarendon Hi lls Li tt le League (CHLL), all

egin g causes o f ac ti on f

or defamat ion per se an d c ivil c o ns pi r ac y. The p l ai n tif f su b sequ en tl y i ssue d s ub

poen asto eac h of t he in div idua l me mb ers of the CHLL

board. On May

10, 2006, t he trial

courtqua shed t he su bpo enas and stayed dis covery pe

ndi ng r es olution of

a m ot ion to dis miss the plai

ntif f' s compl ai nt. On Jul

y 13, 2006, the trial

court granted t he de fendant 's mot ion t o d ismi ss t he plaint iff 's first amende d co mplaint pur sua nt to sec ti on 2 --6 15 of the Code of Civ

il Pro cedure (t he Code) (7 35 ILCS 5/2- -615 (West 2006) ). The p l ai

n tif f f il ed a m oti on to recon si der the May

10 and Jul

y 13, 2006, orders. On Septembe r21, 200 6, t he t rial co ur t denied t he plaint iff 's mo t io n t o re co nsid er . T he p laint iff appeal ed f rom these or ders. T hi s court reversed the t rial cour t's d et erm

ina ti on a nd rem an de d the c as e f

or addi tional procee di ngs . Gr een v. Rogers , No . 2-

- 06

- - 10 55 ( 20 07 ) ( un pu blish ed o r de run de rSu pr emeNo. 2-- 06--1055

-2-

CourtRu l e 2 3). The d ef

en da nt f il ed a p eti ti on f or l ea v e to app eal. Our sup re me co ur t denied t he defen dant's peti tion but, under i

ts supervi sory authority , directed thi s c our t to v ac ate

ou r jud gment and re co nsid er it in light o f Imperi al Apparel , Ltd. v. Cosmo's Desi gner Di rect, Inc. , 227 Ill . 2d 381 (2008 ). We affirm in part , r ever se in pa rt , a nd r ema nd fo rad dit io na l pr o ce ed ing s c o nsis t en t wit h t his op inion. BACK GROUND The pla in tif f l iv es wi th hi s wi fe an d t hr ee c hildren in t he Village o f Clarend on H ill s (t he Vi ll age). He is a pr act icing dent ist a nd at t or ney, a nd f rom 20 00 to 20 04h e s er

v ed in som e c ap ac ity in CHLL . O n Mar ch 3, 200 6, t he plaint iff fil ed a co mplaint as ser t ing claims of de famat ion per se and civi l c onspi racy a gai nst the def

endan t. In his compl ai nt, the plai

ntif f al leged the fol

lowi ng. The plaint iff

had be en a vo lunt ee r fo r CH LL since 200 0 and had mana ged , c oa ched , a nd served as t he minor leagu e dir ect or . I n Dec ember 2 004 , t he plaint iff submitt ed his na me to co ach a CHLL team . In

January 2005, the plai

ntif f an nounced th at h e w asa c an

di da te f or V ill ag e tr

us tee wi th t he elect ion t o be hel d on A pri l 5, 2005 . On Ma r ch 4, 20 05 , t he de fen da nt se nt t he pla int iff an e- mail sta ting tha t the CHLL boa rd h ad de ci de d not t o a ssign t he pla

in tif f as a coach f or t he year. The email stated t hat the boa rd 's "dec i si on w as ba se d on

a l ong pa ttern of be ha vi or wh i ch [wa s] not co nsist ent with wh

at [t he CHL

L board fe

lt was ] acceptabl

e for our coaches." Prior to March 4, 2005, t he plaint iff

had ne ver been infor med by CHLL of a ny cond uct unac cep t able for co aching a nd had n ever been di sci

pli ned or advi sed as to any

compl ai nts about hi s coachi

ng. On Mar ch 7, 2005, t he pl ai ntif f s ent the defe

ndan t an e-mai

l i ndi catin g that he sought an im m ed i ate ap pe al of t he bo ar d's d ecisio n. T he de fendant re spo nded by lett er t hat denied t he plaint iff 's request for an appea

l h earin g. On March

11, 2005, t he def

endan t sent an e-m

ail to the plai

ntif f thatNo. 2-- 06--1055

-3-

cl arif ied t he bo ar d's r uling. T he defend ant explained t hat t he bo ar d's d ecisio n bar re d t he plai nti f f f rom being a co ach o r mana ge r o nly for t he 20 05 s eas on. The plaint iff was st ill eligible to be a p ar ent vol unte er. On t he sam

e date, th e p l ai

n tif f se n t a r ep l y in di ca tin g that h e " re sp ec tf

ul l y di sa gree d" wi th t he board's decisi

on to "not allow [him

] to coach [his] only

son." The plaint iff

implore d t he de fendant to "do the right thi

ng" and allo w t he p laint iff t o c oa ch his so n. T he de fendant sent a r eply indicat ing t hat t he bo ar d de clined t o r ever se it s de cision. In Ma rc h 20 05 , d ur ing t he p laint iff's p o litic al c amp aig n fo r t ru st ee o f t he V illage , t he p laint iff was advi sed

by two o f h is runni ng m ates that t rustee Terry Pociusand Vi ll age resident Mary

Church Brown in form ed them that t he pl

ai ntif f wa s de ni ed a c o ac hing po sit io n w it h C HL L be ca us e o f his temper and i nappropriate beh

avi or with chi

ldren . Pocius and B ro wn also indicat ed t hat t he defend ant was the sour ce of those co mm ents. The pla int iff al l eg edth at on or about March 4, 2005, the def endan t made an

d publ ished sta tem en ts about the plai

ntif f that he knew were fal se and were m ade t o hu mil

iate , e mbarr ass, and ha rm the pla in tif f as a ca ndidat e and damag e his re put at ion in t he co mmunity. S pec ifi cally, t he defend ant alle ge dly s t at ed t ha t t he pla int iff: " ( a) ** * e xhib it ed a lo n g p atte rn of m i sc on du ct w ith chi ldren whi ch was not acceptabl

e for CHLL c oaches; (b ) *** abused pla ye rs, coaches and um

pires in CHLL; and (3)*** was unf it to be assi

gned asa CHLL coach

to in si nuate to t he com

mun ity that t he pla in tif f was guil ty of i nappropriate beh

avi or with chi

ldren an d others

ass oci ated wi

th CH LL ." The pl ai n tif f al l eg ed th at th e defe ndant kno win

gly and i ntentionall

y m ade and publi

shed these defamator y state ments about the plaintiff to the CHLL bo ard, mem bers o f CHLL, an

d re si de nts of the Vill age.No. 2-- 06--1055

-4-

The pla in tif f f urther all eged that the defen

dant conspi

red with others to knowingl y a ll ow such def am atory s tatem ent s t o be disseminat ed be yond t he CH LL bo ar d. The defend ant denied t he pla int iff an o ppo rt uni tyto re spo nd t o t he false c har ges . T he de fendant also failed t o s et for t h any sp ec ific b eh av io ro f t he pla int iff t ha t jus t ified ba rr ing him as a c o ac h. T he pla int iff alle ge d t ha t in Jan uary 20 06 he ag ain su bmit t ed his n ame t o co ac h a CH LL t ea m an d h is a pp li cat ion w as ag ain deni ed. The pla

in tif f al leged that the defen

dant's def am ator y statements had dam agedhi s rep uta ti on in the comm

uni ty and hi s reputation as an at t or ney and den ti st. A dditi on al l y , th e p l ai n tif f h ash ad to en dure pu b l i c r i di cu l e a n d p er son al em b ar ra ss m en t. In co unt I o f the plaint iff

's co mplaint, alleging de famat ion per se , t he plaint iff re alleged t he for ego ing f

acts and al

l eg ed th at th e def en da n t i n ten ti on al l y made def am ator y an d f alse sta tem en ts ab out th e p l ai n tif f to one or more third parties , in cl udin g the CHLL b oard, members o f CHLL, and re si den ts of th

e Vi ll age. The defend ant 's st at ement s allege dly im pug ned t he plaint iff

's cha ra ct er and in tegri ty asa den ti st a n d a n attor n ey an d d i sp ar ag ed h i s r ep uta ti on asa c om peten t coa ch f or y outh sport s. In cou nt II, f

orcivil consp iracy, t he plaint iff re alleged t he fo re go ing and further al leged that t he defend ant engaged in a scheme with ot her members o f the CHLL boa rd and w ith t he plaint iff 's poli tical o pp o nen t s t o pr eve nt t he p laint iff fr om be ing assig ned a s a CH LL co ach, t o ha rm t he plaint iff 's r ep ut at io n, an d t o emb ar r as s him p o lit ica lly and in the comm

uni ty. The pl ai ntif f reques ted com pen satory an d s pe cial da mag es in e xc es s of $50 ,00 0 a

nd pun iti ve da mag es in e

xc es s of $100,000. On Apr il 14, 2 006 , t he plaint iff is sue d su bpo enas t o e ach o f the individual members o f the CHLL board . The subpoenas each contained 28 deman ds for pro duction of do cuments. On Ap r il 26 and 27, respectivel

y, the def endan t fi led a m ot ion f or a pro tective ordert o s t ay disco ver y anda m oti on to quash the subpoenas, on b ehal f of al l of the parties to whom the

subpoenas

were served.No. 2-- 06--1055

-5-

In hi s m oti on to stay

di sc ove ry , th e d ef

en da nt i nd i ca ted tha t he wou l d b e f

il ing a m oti on to dism iss the pla in tif f' s compl ai nt. The defe

ndan t argued t hat the trial

court had the power

to stay di scovery in order to prevent unn

ecessary annoyan ce and ex pense. The

def en dan t requested tha

t the tri al court stay dis covery un

til the defe ndan t's m ot ion to dis miss was resol ved. On Ma y 2, 2 006 , t he de fendant fi led a m oti on to dism i ss th e p l ai n tif f ' s c om pl ai n t pu rs ua n t to section 2--619.1 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2--6 19.1 (W

est 200 6)). On May 10 , 2 006 , a hear ing was held o n t he defend ant 's mot ions t o q uas h t he su bpo enas and stay dis co ve r y. T he pla int iff's co un se l ind ica t ed t ha t t he su bp o en as wo uld provide i nf ormation that the pla in tif f woul d li ke to use in an

am en de d c om pl ai n t. Defens e co unse l arg ued t hat t her e wa s no po intin allowing su ch ext ens iv e di sco v er y un til th ere w asa r

ul in g on th e def en da n t' s m oti on to dism iss. The trial

co ur t not ed t hat t he do cument s being su bpo enae d fro m the member s o f the CHLL board wo uld be av aila

bl e through the defe

ndan t sin ce he was the president of the board. The trial courtdid no t find it ap pr o pr iat e t o su bp o en a in fo r mat io n fr o m t hir d p ar t ies un t il it was cl ear whether t he inf orm ati on w oul d b e a va il abl e f rom the defe ndan t. The tr ia

l cour t gr anted t he m

ot ion to quash an d t he mo t io n t o st ay d isc o ve r y. On June 5, 2006, the

plai nti f f f il ed a m oti on f or l ea ve to am en d h i s c om plai nt a nd a m oti on to vaca t e t he pr ot ect ive

ord er stayin

g discovery. In addi

tion to the or igi

nal all egations, the am

ended co mplaintall

eged t hat t he CHLL b oard h eld a mee t ing o n Mar ch 4, 200 5, t o s elect co ache s and man agers for t he 20 05 s eas on a nd t hat t he de fendant made t he al legedl y de fam ator y statements about th e p l ai n tif f to the b oar

d m em b er s a n d oth er Vi ll ag e res i den ts at that meeting. The pla in tif f n am ed t he board mem

bers as Da

vi d Ki ll pack, Hartwell

Morse, Eric Nolan , Steve Garnett, and Doug De nli nger. The pl ai

nti f f spe ci f i ed th at two of the Vi

ll age re si den ts were Terry Poci us a nd M aryNo. 2-- 06--1055

-6-

Church Brown. The pl ai

ntif f al so all eged that he ha d s ub mit t ed his na m e to be a coach in J an uary 2006. The plai

ntif f i ncorporat edthe origi

nal al legations an

d further al

leged that the defen

dant had ma de t he sam

e defa ma to ry s tatements to t he b oard mem bers an d Vil la ge residents ata Feb

ruary 27, 2006, CH LL bo ar d me et ing he ld t o se le ct c oac he s f or the 2006 season. The pl ai ntif f added a n addi tional co unt for defamat ion per se based on the de fen dant's F ebruary 27, 2006, statem

en ts. In sum , counts I and II of the ame nded co mplaint w er e fo r d efamat ion per se and c ou nt III was based o n c ivil c o ns pi r ac y. On Jun e 12, 2006, or al

argumen t was held o n t he plaint iff 's mot ion t o a mend his co mplaint and motion to vacate the protect iv e order stayi

ng di sco v er y. T he pla int iff ind ica t ed t ha t his ma in con ce rn asto hi s i na bi l ity to obta in d i sc ove ry wa s th e on e-y ea r s tatute of l im itati ons on d ef am ati on clai ms. The plai

ntif f ackn owledged, however, that t he statute was to ll ed by the fi li ng o f t he com pl ai n t. The pl ai nti f f ass erted th at there

were other pu bl i cations m

ade b y other th i rd parties that wo uld b e rev

ea l ed in th e s ub poen ae d rec ord s. The tr

i al cou rt i n di ca ted th at it was not concerned about o ther potential

def en dan ts and i nv ited the pl ai nti f f to fi l e add itional sui ts aga ins t any thi rd pa r t ies . T he t r ial c o ur t st at ed t ha t it wantedto h av e a n in iti al h ea ri n g on th e def en da n t' s m oti on to dism iss bef ore al l owing f urthe r di scovery . Theref

ore , th e tr i al cou rt g ra n ted th e p l ai n tif f ' s m oti on to amend and c ont inued t he pl ai n tif f ' s m oti on to v ac ate t he pr ot ect ive or der unt il after a hea ring o n t he motion to dism

iss. On June 16, 20 06, the de fendant fil ed a mot ion t o d ismi ss t he first amende d co mplaint pur sua nt to section 2--61 5 of t he Co de ( 735 ILC S 5 /2

-- 615 (Wes t 200 6) ). In his mo t ion, t he defend ant argue d t ha t t he alle ga t io ns di d n o t st at e a cla im fo rde fa mat io n o rciv il co ns pi r ac y. S pe cif ica lly, t he de fendant ar gue d t ha t t he al le ged st at eme nt s w er e n o t de fa mat o r y per se . T heNo. 2-- 06--1055

-7-

defend ant argued th at t her e wa s no nexus bet wee n t he allege d st at ement s re gar ding t he plaint iff 's sui tab il i ty t o be a litt le leagu e co ach a nd t he plaint iff 's abil ity as an attorn ey orde nt ist . Ad di t io na lly, t he defend ant argued that the all eged statemen

ts did n ot im pute the comm

is sion of a cri

mi nal off ense. The defend ant also ar gue d t hat t he st at ement s we re no t a cti onab l e b eca use they were su sc ep t ible t o a n innoce nt inter pr et at ion. The defendan t arg ued that "abuse" could m ean verbal abuse we ll bel ow the level

of cri mi nal conduct. Additional

ly, the defen

dant arguedth at " m

i sc on du ct" co uld me an somethi ng as in nocuous as t aking t he childr en t o D airy Qu een w itho ut t heir p ar ent s' pe rmission. F ina lly , the def

en dan t argued that the al l eged statem en ts were not acti onab l e b eca use they were expr essio ns of

opi ni on a nd not fact . T he de fendant ar gue d t hat t he al leged statements were gen eral and not support ed by

any speci fi c facts. For exampl

e, there was no expl

anati on of the plaint iff

's tem per, ther e was no descri

ption of an

y f orm of ab use, and there was n

o expl anati on of wh

y t h e pla int iff was unfit t o c oa ch. The def en dan t argued that the al l eged statem en ts were no t ac t io na ble because they were not tied to any particul ar veri fi abl e factual ci

rcums tance. On July 13, 200 6, a hea ring was hel d on the defe

ndan t's m ot ion. F oll owing a rgumen t, t he trial courtnoted wha

t it th ought we

re a n um be r o f pe cu l i ar iti espres en

t i n th e p l ai n tif f ' s c om pl ai n t. S pe cif ica lly, th e tr

i al cou rt noted th at th e c om pl ai n t al l eg ed th at the d efen

dant ma de the i dentic al def am atory sta tem en ts o n Ma rc h 4, 2 00 5, a

n d F eb ru ar y 27 , 20 06 . Th

e tr i al cou rt a l so n oted th at, in de f am ati on su it s, t he alle ge d d ef

ama t o r y stat emen

ts ar e us ually very spe cific and su rr ou nded by quot at io n mark s. T he t rial co ur t not ed t hat t he de famat or y sta t ement s allege d in t he plaint iff 's co mplaintsee med t o be sum ma tions of wh

at may have been

said. The trial

court al so noted t hat

t he co mplaintal

leged onl y tha t t he statemen

ts may have been

ma de to som e p eop l e, b

ut wa s n ot sp ec ific as to who was there when the s tatements were m ade.No. 2-- 06--1055

-8-

The reaf ter, the trial

court determi

ned that the pl ai

ntif f' s compl ai nt fai led to sta te a ca us e of ac ti on f or def am ati on or ci

vi l conspi racy . The

tria l court stated that the a

ll eged def am atory sta tem en ts wer e insufficient as a matt er of law t o s t at e a c laim f or defamat ion per se . The tria l court also f ound that the s tatem

en ts were si m pl y opini ons c apab l e of inn ocen t constru cti on. The trial

court thus dismissed c ou nt s I a nd I I fo r d efamat ion per se . T he t r ial c o ur t t he n d ismis se d c o un t I I I fo rciv il conspi racy because it wa s depe

nde nt on th e def am ati on cl ai m s i n c ounts I a

nd II. The

tria l court cl arif ied t hat it w as a dismissal witho ut pr ejudice and cautioned the p l ai nti f f to revi ew Su prem e Court Ru le 137 (155 Il

l . 2d R. 1 37) pri

or to fi l ing a ny f urthe r pl eadi ngs . The t rial co ur t denied t he plaint iff 's m oti on t o va cat e t he pr ot ect ive

order st aying dis co ver y. F inally, t he t ria l co ur t gr ant ed t he p laint iff 30 day s to fil

e an am ended pl eadi ng. On August 10, 2006, the pla

in tif f s to od on his

fi rst amen ded compl

ai nt and f il ed a m oti on to reconsidert he o rd er dismissing t hat co mplaint and t he o rd er denying him the r ight t o s ubpo ena re levant docum

en ts from third parti es i

n support of hi s clai

ms . OnSep t ember 2 1, 200 6, follow ing a hear ing, t he tria

l courtdeni

ed the m ot ion to reconsi der. Thereafter, the pla in tif f f il ed a tim el y n ot ic e o f ap pe al. AN AL YSIS On app eal, t he de fendant ar gue s t hat t he trial court er red in g ran ting the de f en da nt' s m oti on t o di smis s a nd in d en ying him t he r ig ht t o co nd uc t ad di t io na l d isc o ve r y.

"The qu estion pres ent ed by a s ect ion 2

-- 615 mot ion t o d ismi ss is whe t her t he allegat ions of the compl

ai nt, when v

ie wed i n a l igh t most fav orab l e to t he

pl ai nti f f , are suf fi ci ent to st ate a cause of action upon whi ch rel ie f can be gran ted. [ Cit at io n. ] I llino is is a fact-pl eadi ng j urisdi ction that re quir es a plaint iff

t o p re sent a lega lly

and fac t ually sufficientNo. 2-- 06--1055

-9-

com pl ai n t. [C itati

on .] Th e p l ai

n tif f i s n ot re qu i re d to prov

e h i s or her case, b

ut must al lege suf f i ci en t fa cts to state al

l the el em en ts of th e as serted caus e of action. [Ci

tation .] Wh en ruli ng on a s ect ion 2

- - 61 5 mo t io n t o dis miss , t he t r ial c o ur t sho uld ad mit all wel l-pl eaded facts as true and di

sregard legal

and f actual concl

usions that are

unsupported by al l egati ons of f act. [Ci tation .] If, aft er disre gar ding any lega l andfact ual co nclusio ns, t he co mplaintdo es no t allege s ufficient fac t s t o s t at e a c aus e o f act ion, t he t rial co ur t must gr ant t he m oti on to dis m i ss. [Citation .] The standard o f revi ew on a section 2-- 615 dism issal is de novo . [Ci tation .]" Neu ro sur ger y & Spine Surgery, S.C. v. Goldm an , 339 Ill . App. 3d 177, 182 (2 003). A. Re levant Case Law on D efamat ion Per Se A st at eme nt is d efa mat o r y if it "tends to cause such ha r m t o t he r ep ut at io n o f an o t he rt ha t it l owers tha

t pers on i n th e ey es of the com m un ity ordet er s t hird p er so ns fro m asso ciat ing wi th [h im ]." Bry son v. News A

me rica Publ ic ations, Inc. , 174 Il

l . 2d 77, 8 7 (199 6). "T o st at e a de fama t io n c laim, a plaint iff must pr ese nt fact s t hat a de fendant made a false st at ement abo ut a plaint iff , [ t hat ] t he defend ant ma

de an unpr ivil ege d pu blicatio n of t hat st at ement to a th i rd p arty, an

d th at th i s p ub l i ca ti on caused damages." Seith v . Chi

cago Sun-Tim

es, Inc. , 3 71 Ill. App . 3 d 1 24 , 1 34 (2 00 7) . I f a p laint iff al leges th at a

sta tement is de fa mat o r y per se , he ne ed no t ple ad o rpr o ve ac t ua l da mag es t o his re put at ion; s tat emen

ts t ha t ar e d ef

ama t o r y per se "a r e t ho ug ht t o be so o bvio us ly and mat er ially ha rm f ul to the plai

nti f f that i nj ury to [hi s] reputati on m

ay be pres um ed." Bry son , 174 Ill . 2d at 87. I llino is recog ni

zes fi ve catego ries o f st at eme nt s t ha t ar e d ef ama t o r y per se : ( 1) t hos e imput ing t he com m i ss i onof a crim in al offen se; (2) tho se im

puting in fection wi th a communi

cabl e disease; (3) t hose imput ing an

in abil ity to perf orm or wa nt of integri ty in th e di sc ha rge of duti es of of f i ce orNo. 2-- 06--1055

-10-

em pl oy m en t; (4) thos e th at p rej udi

ce a p arty or im pute lack of a

bi li ty i n the party' s trade, pr ofe ssio n, orbu sin es s; an d ( 5) t ho se imp ut ing ad ul t er y or f orni cation. Bry

son , 1 74 I ll. 2d a t 88- 89. The pla i nt iff al l eges that the def en dan t's s tatem en ts f al l wi thi n the f i rst, thi rd, an d f ourth ca tegories o f defamat ion per se . Even if a sta t ement fal

ls i nto o ne or more o f these catego ries, a statement wi ll not be deem

ed def am atory perse if it is r ea so na bly ca pa ble of an "i nnocent const ruct ion." Bry son , 174 Ill . 2d at 90. The "i nnocen t construct ion rul

e" "requi res a court t o consider

t he st at ement in cont ext and t o g ive t he words of the statement, and a ny im pli cat ions aris in g from them, thei

r natural an

d obvi ous m ean ing." So laia Tec hnolo gy, LL C v. Sp ecialt y Publishing Co. , 221 Il l . 2d 558 , 580 (2 006). A

court must inter pr et t he wo rd s o f the st at ement as t hey app ear t o ha ve been used and ac cording to the idea they wer e inte nded t o c onve y to t he reasonabl e rea der. Bry

son , 1 74 I ll. 2d a t 93. When t he defend ant clearly

in tended and un

mistaka bl y c onveyed

a d ef am atory m ea ni ng , a c ourt s houl d not st r ain to see an

inof f en si ve gloss on the s tatem

en t. Bry son , 174 Ill . 2d at 93. Th e prel im ina ry de term ina ti on of w het her t he inn

oce nt c onstruc ti on

ru le app lies is a que st ion o f law for t he co ur t , a nd whet her t he st at ement was unde rst oo d t o be de f am atory or to re f er to th e p l ai nti f f i s a que sti on f or t he jury if the inn

ocen t constru cti on i ssu e i s res olv ed i n the pl ai nti f f 'sf av or. Tui te v . C orbitt , 224 I ll. 2d 490, 50 3 (200 6). The i nn oce nt c onstruc ti on

rule h as been deem ed a proper gro und f

or dism is sal of a com pl ai nt pursuan

t to secti on 2--6 15. Tui

te v . C orbitt , 358 Il

l . App. 3d 88 9, 900 ( 2005) . Ad di t io na lly, if

a statem en t is def am atory per se , but not subject to an innoce nt co nst ru ct ion, it st ill may enjoy co nst itu t ional pr ot ect ion u nder t he first amendment . Solaia Technology , 221 Ill . 2d at 581 . T he first amendment t o t he Uni ted S tat es Constitut ion states, in part, that "Co ngress sha ll ma ke no law *** abr idging t he freedom of speech ***." U.S. Const., am

end. I. The Uni

ted St atesNo. 2-- 06--1055

-11-

Su pr eme Court has long held t hat its p ro visions a re also binding o n t he st at es t hro ugh t he due pro cess clause of th e f ourteen th am en dm en t. Imperi al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 393, ci ting Murdo ck v. Pe nns ylvan ia , 319 U .S. 105, 1 08, 87 L . Ed . 1292 , 1 295 -9 6, 63 S . C t . 8 70, 872 (1 943 ). The pr ovisio ns of the f

irst am endm ent have been

inte rpr ete d a s l im iting the rea ch of sta te d ef am ati on la w. Imperi al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 394. "Wh ether and to what extent the Constitution constrai ns state defa

ma tion law depends on t he ci rcum stan cesof th e ca se a t is sue . Tw o consi

de ra ti on s m us t b e ta ken in to ac coun t. The firs t is w he t he rt he pla int iff is a publ ic fi gure or o ff

icia l or i s, in stead, *** a private fi gure. The sec ond i s wh

ethe r the speec

h a t is sue i s of pub l i c concern . [Ci

tation .]" Imperi

al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 394. The question of

whether the pl

ai ntif f is a publ

ic or pr i va te f i gur e a f f ec ts th e s tanda rd of liab ilit y. If t he p laint iff

is a pu blic fi

gur e, t he fi

rst amendmen

t pr ecludes hi

m f rom obta in

in g redress in a d efa mat io n a ct io n u nle ss he ca n p r o ve t ha t t he alle ge dly def am atory sta tem en ts w ere m ade w ith actual mal i ce. Imperi

al Apparel , 2 27 Ill. 2d at 39 4. If t he p laint iff is a p riva t e fi gu re , th e fi rst amendment doe s n

ot im pos e a ny res tricti on on t he l i ab il ity stand ardsthat state s m ay adopt. Imperi

al Apparel , 227 Il

l . 2d at 39 4. In

Il l inoi s, ordi na ry ne gl i gen ce i s the l i ab il ity stand ard. Troman

v. W ood , 62 Il l . 2d 184 , 198 (1 975). In contr ast t o a plaint iff

's st at us, t he conten

t of the ch al l en ged speec

h bearson the

standard that must be sa t isfied in or der t o r eco ver puni tiv e dam ages . I mpe

rial Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 395. S pe cif ica lly, "[w ]he re t he ca use of a ct ion is bas ed o n defamat or y sta t ement s co ncer ning a m atter of pu blic co ncer n, p unit ive

damag es may no t be impos ed a bsent a sho wing of actual mal ice." Imperi

al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 395.No. 2-- 06--1055

-12-

In addi ti on to gov er n in g s tan da rd s r eg ardi n g f au l t, f alsi ty, and puniti

ve damages, the fi

rst amendment im

pos es l im its on the ty pe of sp ee ch tha t m ay be the su bj ec t of stat e defam

ation actions. Imperi al Apparel , 22 7 I ll. 2d at 39 7. S pe cif ica lly, in Mi

lkovi ch v . Lorain Journal

Co. , 497 U.S. 1, 20, 11 1 L . Ed . 2d

1, 1 9, 1 10

S. Ct. 26 95 , 27 06 ( 19 90 ) , t he Su pr eme Co ur t he ld t ha t a s t at eme nt will re ceive fi rst ame nd men t pr o t ec t io n o nly if it "cannot be reasonably

in terp reted as stat in

g actual facts" about t he pla

in tif f. The Mi lkovi ch Court bal anced the f

irst am endm ent's guaran

tee of f ree, uni nhi bi ted di sc us si on with s ociety 's i

nterest in preventi ng an d redressi ng attacks on reputati on. Mi lkovi ch , 497 U.S. at 22, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 20, 110 S. Ct. at 2707-08. The Court rejected what it cal led "an artifi

ci al dic ho t o my

between opinion and fact" a nd n o t ed t ha t ex pr es sio ns o f o pin io n ma y o ft en imply asse rt ions of o bject ive

fact and, in such cases, would be considered actionable . See Mi lkovi ch , 497 U.S. at 19, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 18, 110 S. Ct. at 270 6; se e a l so Howell

v. Bl echarczy ck , 119 Ill . App. 3d 987 , 9 93 ( 198 3) (a st at ement of o pinion t hat impli es t he exi stence of an

und i scl osed def am atory f act i s ac tionab l e). To deter m in e wh eth er a s tate m en t re as on abl

y pres en ts orim pli es the exi stence of f acts about t he pla int iff, we r ev iew t hr ee co nsid er at io ns: "w he t he rt he st at eme nt h as a pre cis e a nd r ea dily unders tood me ani

ng, whether the s tatement i s veri fi abl e, and whe

thert he statement's

li terary or social co nt ext signal s that it has f actual content ." Solaia Technology , 22 1 Il l . 2d at 5 81. In

doi ng so, we bear in min d t ha t t he fir st ame nd men t pr o t ec t s o ve r ly l oose, figu r at ive , r he t o r ica l, o rhyp er bo lic la nguage, whi

ch n egates the im

pression that t he statemen t actual ly pres en ts f acts. Ho pew ell v. Vit ullo , 299 Ill . App. 3d 513, 518 (1998). Whether a statemen t quali fi es as consti

tut iona ll y protected speech und er the f i rst am en dm en t is a m atter of l aw f or the cour

t to deci de. Ho pe we ll , 299 Ill . App.No. 2-- 06--1055

-13-

3d at 518. To determi

ne wh ether a statement i s f

act oropi ni on, a c ourt m

us t ev al ua te th e tota l ity of the c i rcum stan ces . Piersa

ll v. Sport sVi sion of Chi

cago , 230 Il

l . App. 3d 50 3, 510 ( 1992) . "The pr in ci pl e th at a n al l eg ed l y de f am ato ry sta t ement is pro t ect ed by t he first amendment unl ess the plai nti f f sh ows tha t the sta tem en t i s f ac tua l ha s b ee n f

ou n d to ap pl

y to thr ee ty pe s of act ions : t hos e br ou ght by public officials, t hos e br ou ght by public figure s, a nd t hos e br ou ght by pr iv ate indi vi duals ag ai ns t medi a def

en dan ts." Imperi

al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 398 -9 9. "Whet her t he priv il ege aff orded by the f

irst am endm ent to st atemen

ts that are not factual al so ex ten dsto s tate m en ts ma de b y on e pri v ate par t y abou t ano t her on a matter o f purely private concern is uns ett led." Imperi al Apparel , 227 Ill . 2d at 399.

B. Defamat ion Per Se : Ap plica t io n o f Law to the Facts o f thi s Case 1. Defamat ion Per Sean d t he I nno ce nt Co nst r uc t io n R ule In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he allega t ions in t he p laint iff 's com plai nt state a c au se of ac ti on f or de f am ati on per se . T he plaint iff

alleged t hat t he defen

dant ma de three defam

ator y statements: (1) that t he plaint iff

exhibited a long pat t er n of misco nduc t wit h childre n, (2) t hat the plain tiff abused play

ers, coaches, and um

pires in CHLL;and (3) that th e p l ai n tif f wa s un f it to be as signed as a CHLL co ach. The com pl ai n t in di ca testh at, in

addi ti on to h av in g s er v ed asa C HL

L c oach f or th e 2 00 0 th roug h 2004 seasons, the pl

ai ntif f is a practici

ng attor ney

and d ent ist. The fi

rst t wo all eged statemen

ts are, at a m ini m um , def am atory unde r t he fo ur t h cat ego ry o f defamat ion per se be caus e the statem en ts are prejudici al to t he pl ain

tiff in hi s dental and l

egal professi

ons. "S tate m en ts that have b een deem

edde fa mat o r y per se by

Ill in ois courts under

the thi rd a nd /or f our th cat ego ries ha ve alwa ys been r elat ed t o jo b per for mance; t o s ucc eed , t he plaint iff must have been accused of l

acki ng ab ilit y in

hi s trade or do in

g somethi ng ba d in th e c ours e of

ca r r ying o ut hisNo. 2-- 06--1055

-14-

jo b ." (Em

pha si s i n ori gi na l .) Co dy v . Ha r r is , 409 F.3d 853, 857 (7 t h Cir. 200 5) , c iting Clara ge v. Ku zma , 34 2 Ill . App. 3d 573 (2003), and Parker v. House O'Li te Corp. , 324 Il

l . App. 3 d 101 4 (2001 ). For exam

ple , in Parker , t he plaint iff , w hos e job w as d ra fting light ing speci fi cations f or a new ho sp it al, was acc use d o f rigging t he sp ecificat ions so t ha t o nly his br o t he r - in- law wo uld be ab le to qu alify f or the j ob. Parker , 324 Ill . App. 3d at 1019. This al leg ed " 'want of int eg r it y' " w as in per for ming

t he plaint iff

's du t ies o f employment , a nd t he co ur t st at ed t ha t it con sti tuted de f am ati on perse . Parker , 324 Ill . App. 3d at 1025, quo ting Van H or ne v. Mul le r , 185 Il l . 2d 299 , 307 (1 998). Conversel y, attac ks rel ated to personal in tegrity an d character have not been deem ed def am atory perse . Cody , 4 09 F .3 d at 858 , c iting He ying v. Simo na it is , 126 Il l . App. 3d 15 7 (198 4). "In Heying , t he court hel

d that stat em

ents m ade by docto rs regardin

g personal

ity confl icts between t he plaint iff

nur se a nd her fel

low empl oyees did n

ot im pugn her abi

li ty as a nurse." Cody , 409 F.3d at 858, citin

g Heying , 126 I ll. A pp . 3d at 16 4. No ne t he les s, "[ i]n so me ca se s, pe r so na l int eg r it y is so inte rtwi ned w ith j ob skills, t hat an at t ack upo n it co uld co nst itu t e de famat ion per se ." Cody , 409 F.3dat 858, citin

g Kum aran v. Brotman , 247 Ill . App. 3d216 (1 993 ). In Kum aran , t he co ur t fou nd that t he plaint iff

st at ed a cau se o f act ion fo r d efamat ion per se wh er e a ne ws pa pe rar t icle al leged that t he plai nti f f ha d b rought s evera

l non m eri toriou s law su i ts t o " sca m" set t lement mo ney fro m the defendan ts. Kum aran , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 225 . T he co ur t co nclude d t hat t he accusations contain ed in t he ar t icle pr eju dic ed t he pla int iff in hi s profession as a substi

tut e teacher "because a t ea ch er wo uld be ex pe ct ed t o se t a g o o d e xa mple an d fu nc t io n a s a r o le mo de l fo rhis yo un g, impr es sio na ble studen ts." Kum aran , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 227. The c our t es se n ti al l y con cl ud ed th at p er son

al in tegri ty wasa j ob req

ui rem en t for b ei ng a teach er.No. 2-- 06--1055

-15-

The fact s in the pr ese nt cas e pr ese nt a sit uat ion s im ilar t o t hat in Kum

aran . The fi

rst t wo al legeddef am atory st at ement s ac cus e t he pla

in tif f of engagi ng i n m is conduct that co uld i

mpute a l ack of abi li ty and prejudi

ce t he pla int iff in his de nt al a nd leg al p r o fes sio ns. Simila rt o t he ho ldin g in Kum aran that personal i

ntegrity is a jo b requirem

ent for teachers, both the dental and l egal pr ofe ssio ns re qu i

re pe rs on s a dm itted to pr ac ti ce

to be of good m oral character . See 225 I LCS 25/ 9( b) ( West 200 6) ; 18 8 I ll. 2d R . 7 01( a) . Ad dit ionally, t he Ill in ois Den talPra cti ce A ct proh i b its enga ging in "d isho no r ab le, un et hic al, orunpr ofe ssio nal co nduc t of a char act er likely to *** har m the pub l i c." 225 IL

CS 25 /23(11 ) (We st 2006 ). Acco rd ingly, the allegat ions t hat t he plaint iff had a long pattern of m is conduct with ch

il dren and abused pl

ayers, coaches, and um

pires in CHLL i mpute a l ack of abi li ty and are prejudi

ci al to the pl ain

tiff 's d ent al and leg al pr ofe ssio ns since s uch p ro fessio ns requi re a high leve l o f m o r al c ha r ac t er . Mis co nd uc t an d a bu se , es pe cia lly as t o ch ildr en , is un do ub t ed ly

the ty pe of be ha vi or t ha t wo uld lower the publ ic 's perception of the plai ntif f' s m oral ch ar ac t er . Mo r eo ve r , t he st at eme nt s a r e p r eju dic ial t o t he pla int iff in his dental profession because it is li kely tha t so me of t he plai ntif f' s patients are chil

dren. The parent s of those childre n wo uld be rel uctan t to send th

em to a den tis t who "e

xh i bi ted a l ong pa tternof misco nduc t wit h childre n" and "abu sed " childre n. Tu rning to the thi

rdal leged statement--that the plaintiff was unfit to be assigned as a CHLL coach--we hold that

it is n o t de fa mat o r y per se , b ec au se it do es no t pr eju dic e t he p laint iff or i m pu te a l ack of ab il ity i n h i s prof ess i ons. Rath

er, i t is capa bl e of an inn ocen t constru cti on. In Ander so n v. Vanden Dorpel , 172 Ill . 2d 399, 415 (1996), our supreme court held that an em pl oyer ' s c om

m en ts to an emplo yee's p ro spe ct ive employer t hat she di d not "f oll ow up on

as si gn m en ts" an d di d not get along wit h he r c ow or ker s co uld r eas ona bly be cons t ru ed t o s ignify "no t hing mor e t han t hat t heNo. 2-- 06--1055

-16-

pla int iff di d not f it in wi th [the d ef en dan t's] org an i zation an d perf orm w el l in th at parti

cul ar posi tion ." The court determi

ned that, because i

t was cap ab l e of

su ch an inn oce nt c onstruc ti on, it woul d not supp ort an ac t ion fo r d efamat ion per se . A nd ers on , 17 2 I ll . 2d

at 416 . T he de fend ant's al leged st at ement th at th

e p l ai n tif f wa s un f it to coach ca n re ason ab l y be cons trued i

n a si m il ar f ash i on. It co uld mea n no t hing mo r e t ha n t ha t t he pla int iff did not fit in with t he bo ar d member s o f CHLL. As i t ca n b e i nn oce ntl y con strued , i

t doe s n ot su ppor t an ac ti onfor defamat ion perse . A nd ers on , 172 Ill . 2d at 416. We m us t n ex t con si de r w h eth er th e fi rst t wo all

eged def am ator y statements, whi

ch we determi ned t o be de fa mat o r y per se , ar e c ap abl e of

an inn oce nt c onstruc ti on . C ons t ru ing t he co mplaintin the li

ght most fav

orable to the plai

ntif f, we h old thatthe defendant's al

leged statements, when they are considered in

context and thei

r words a nd implicat ions a re given t heir nat ur al and obvi ous mea ning , ar e n o t r ea so na bly ca pa ble of a n i nn ocen t constru cti on. A

l though there ar e var ying lev els o f m

i scon duct an d ab use of chi l dren , an y degree of

suc h beh avi or can

ha rdl y be cons i dere d in n oce n t. In thi s context, we cannot fi nd a n i nnoc ent construction for the def endan t's al leged stat emen ts. In his app ellee brief, t he de fendant re lies on Harrison v . Chi cago Sun-Tim

es, Inc. , 34 1 I ll. App. 3d 555 , 57 0 (2 003 ), f or the p ropos iti on

t ha t t he de fen da nt 's a lleg ed st at eme nt s a r e s us ce pt ible of a n innoce nt co nst ru ct ion. In Ha rri son , the defen

dant publ ished a n ews story thatstated t hat

t he p laint iff ha d ki dna pped he r ch il d. Ha rri son , 341 Ill . App. 3d at 560. The plai ntif f argued th at the de fe ndant 's ne ws st o r y wa s d ef ama t o r y per se because

it i mputed the com

missi on of a c rimina l off ense. Ha rri son , 3 41 I ll. App. 3d a t 562 -6 3. Eve n t hou gh t he wo r d " kid na pp ed " c ar r ied a s pe cific meaning de no t ing a c r ime under the Illi nois cri mi nal stat utes, t he co ur t fo un d t ha t it wa s s us ce pt ibleNo. 2-- 06--1055

-17-

of an i nnocent const ruct ion because there were al so non cri m ina l m ean ings of th e word . See Ha

rri son , 341 Ill . App. 3d at 570-71 (not in g that in c

ustody an d Hag ue Co nve nt io n c o nt ex t s t he r ea so na ble cons tructi on of

the w ord "ki

dna pped " doesnot ref

er to the v

i ola tion of a cri m ina l statute). Ha rri son may ha ve be en pers uas ive

he re if the def en dan t's a ll eged statem en ts were def am atory perse on t he bas is tha t t hey imput ed t he co mmiss io n o f a c r iminal o ffen se . I t is reasonabl e to argue that t her e may be no ncr imi nal co nt ext s for miscond uct wit h childre n and abuse o f play ers in CHLL. However, becauset he de fe nd an t 's alle ge d s t at eme nt s a r e d ef ama t o r y per se because

they prejudi ce the p l ai nti f f in h i s prof ess i ons, Ha

rri son is not persuasiv

e. 2. F i rs t Am en dm en t Prote cti on Fin ally, as e xplained in Imperi al Apparel , we m

ust add ress whethe r the a ll eged def am atory sta tem en ts are prote cte d by

th e f i rs t am en dm en t, th us pr e cluding o r c ons t ra ining the plaint iff 's de f am ati on clai ms. Rel ative to firstam

endm ent constrain

ts on stat e defa

ma tion law, we must address t he st at us o f t he pa r t ies , t he st an da r d o f liab ilit y , and the standard for puniti ve damages. The f

irst con si derati on is w he t he rt he pla int iff is a pub l i c of f i ci al or is m erel y a pri va te f i gure. In h i s c om pl ai n t, t he pla int iff

al l eg ed th at i n Ja nua ry 20 05 h e a n n oun ce d that h e w asa c an

di da te for Village t ru st ee a nd t hat t he elec t ion wa s t o be h el d on A pr il 5, 2 00 5. C an

di da tesf or p ubl i c of f i ce h av e b een h el d to be pu blic of f i cial s f or def am ati on purpos es. Mon

itor Pa triot Co. v . Roy, 401 U.S . 265 , 272 , 28 L. Ed. 2d 35, 41, 91 S. Ct. 621, 625 (1 971 ) ( st at ing t hat t he first amendment "has it s fullest and mo st ur gent ap pl i ca ti on pre ci sel y to the con duct of campa igns for poli

tical off ic e"). Accordin

gly, the plai

ntif f was a pub l i c of f i cial f ordefam ation purposes f

rom the tim

e he an nounced h

is cam pai gn fo rt r us t ee un t il t he ele ct io n inApril

2005. Co unt I is b ased on al leged defa

ma to ry s tatements m

ade on March 4, 2005. Si nc e the se statem

en ts were durin g the pla in tif f' s poli tical cam pai gn, he is a publ

ic off icia l a sNo. 2-- 06--1055

-18-

to count I. Ho wever, count II is b ased on statemen ts that were

made on Feb ruary 27, 200 6. T his court can take j udicia

l n otice of th e D u P ag e C oun

ty El ec ti on Com m i ss i on we b si te t hat sho ws t he pla int iff l ost h i s c am pa i gn f orVil la ge trustee . Nord

ine v. Il l inoi s P owe r Co. , 32 Ill . 2d 421, 428 (1965) (court s m

ay take judi ci al notice of pub l i c record s) ; s ee

al so ww w.d

upa ge el ec ti ons .com

( Ap r il 5, 2005, consoli

dated el ection). Ac cordi

ngl y , the p l ai nti f f i s a priva te f i gure as t o c ou nt II and t he li abi li ty standard i s ordina

ry n egl ige nce. See Troman , 62 Ill . 2d at 198. Wi th resp ect to the l

i ab il ity stand ard

o f count I, we must next address wh ether the al

leged def am atory statements relate to the pla in tif f' s off icia l co nduc t . I n New York Tim es Co. v. Sull

ivan , 376 U. S. 2 54, 2 79-8 0, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 706, 84 S . Ct. 710, 726 ( 19 64 ) , t he Su pr eme Co ur t he ld that t he f irst and f ourte en th a m en dm en ts requi re " a f ed era l rul e th at p roh

i bi ts a pub l i c of f i cial f rom re co ver ing damages f

or a d efam

ato ry f alseh oo d relating to his off

icia l c onduct unl

ess he proves that t he statement was ma

de wi th 'actual ma li ce'--that is, wi

th knowledge that it was false or with reckless di sreg ard of whether

it was f al se or not. " (Emphasi s added.) That the actual m al ic e standard appl

ie s o nly to co m m en ts re lating to "off

icia l c onduct" has b een b

roadly construed to reach "an

ythi ng wh ic h mightto uch on an off

ici al' s fi tness for offi

ce." Gar riso n v. Lo uisiana , 379 U.S. 64, 77, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125, 13 4, 8 5 S . C t. 209 , 21 7 (1 964 ). A s m an y thi ng s c an touc h on so meo ne 's " fit ne ss fo ro ffice , " t his re str i cti on to the actua

l mal i ce s tand ard i s rare

l y appl i ed. Di xon v. In tern ati ona l Broth erh ood of Poli ce Of f i cers , 5 04 F .3 d 73 , 8 8 ( 1st Cir. 200 7) . As e xplained in Mon itor Pa triot Co. , 401 U.S. at 274-75, 28 L. Ed. 2d at 42, 91 S. Ct. at 627-28: "Indeed, whatever v

ital ity the 'off icia l con du ct' con ce pt m ay re tai n wi th re ga rd to oc cu pa n ts of publ ic off ic e, [citation] i

t is cl ea r lyof l ittl e a ppl i ca bi l ity in th e c onte xt of an el ec ti on campa ign. T he pr inc ipa l ac t ivit y o f a c an did at e in our po li tical syst em *** co nsist s in put t ingNo. 2-- 06--1055

-19-

bef ore the voters ev er y concei vable aspect of his publ

ic and pri vate l if e that he thi

nks m ay le adt he ele ct o r at e t o ga in a go o d imp r es sio n o f him. *** An y test adequate to sa

f egua rd Fir st Amen dme nt gu ar an t ee s in this area m ust go farbeyond t he cu st omar y meaning of t he phrase 'of f i ci al cond uct.' Giv en the reali ties of our po li tical li fe, it i s by no me ans easy to see what sta tem en ts about a candi

date mi ght be al to gether withoutrelevan

ce to hi s fi tness f or the of f i ce h e se eks ." Based on the foregoin

g, we concl

ude that t he al

legedde f am atory sta tem en ts c onta ined i n c oun t I of t he plai ntif f' s fi rst amendedcom

pl ai n t, acc us in g th

e p l ai n tif f of a l on g p atte rn of m i sc on du ct w ith chi ldren and ab use of ch il dren and others i

n CHLL , relate to t he pl

ai ntif f' s f itnes s f or o ff ic e and that the act ual m

ali ce standard app li

es. Under the New Y orkTim

es standard, a statement has been ma de wi th actual m

al ic e if i t was ma de "with knowledge that it was fals e or wi th reckl ess di sreg ard of

whethe r i t was f al se or n ot." New York Tim

es , 376 U.S. at 280, 11 L. Ed. 2 d at 706 , 84 S. C t. at 726. In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he pla int iff properly al leged actual

ma li ce. Specif

ic al ly, in paragraph

24of h i s f i rs t am en de d c om pl ai n t, t he plaint iff

st at ed t hat t he def

en dan t ma de the al l eged def am atory statem en ts "wh i ch he kne w were f al se." See Kr ue ge rv. Le wis , 34 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 46 7, 47 3 ( 20 03 ) ( ac t ua l malic e w as su fficie nt ly al leged where t he com pl ai nt stated that the statem en ts were ma de by the defe ndan t " 'i n f ull knowledge that they were un t r ue o rin r ec kle ss dis r eg ar d o f t he ir t r ut h o rfals it y' ") . T hu s, t he pla int iff ha s p r o pe r ly al legedthe el em en ts of a def am ati on cl ai m asre qu i re d by th e f i rs t am en dm en t an d s uf f i ci en t to sur vive a se ct ion 2

-- 615 mot ion t o d ismi ss. In su mmary, t he plaint iff is a pu blic official as to co unt I and a pri va te f i gure a s to count II. Th

e pl ai nti f f ha s prope

rl y al l eged actual mal i ce i n c ount I.No. 2-- 06--1055

-20-

The second consi

deration i s whether the speech at iss ue is o f pu blic co ncer n. I f so, punit ive dam ages may not be im

posed absent a showing of actual mal ice. Thi s c on side ra ti on is r elevant becauset he pl ai

nti f f reque sted pu

ni tiv e dam ages in c ounts I a

nd II. Wh ether a publ

ic ation addresse s a ma tt er of publ

ic concern "m

ust be determi

ned by the c ont ent , form, an d context of a giv

en sta tem en t, as revealed b

y the whol

e recor d." Conn

i ck v . My ers , 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 72 0, 10 3 S . Ct . 16 84 , 16 90 ( 19 83 ) . A mat t er o f pu blic c o nc er n is a ny mat t er o f po lit ica l, so cia l, or o ther concern i

n the com mun ity , rather than m

erely a personal

grievance. Conni

ck , 461 U.S. at 146, 75 L. Ed. 2 d at 719 , 103 S. Ct. at 1690. W he ther s tatem

en ts addr ess a m atter of p ubl i c concern is a que sti on of

l aw. La nd strom v. Ill in ois Departm

ent of Ch il dren & F am il y Serv ic es , 892 F.2d 670, 678-7 9 (7th Ci

r. 1990 ). In t he p re se nt ca se , t he d efe nda nt alleg ed ly indica t ed t hat t he p laint iff exhibited a long pattern of m is conduct with ch

il dren and a

bused pl ayers, coaches, and um

pires in CHLL. This co nt ent is a ma tt erof publ

ic concern to the Vil

la ge comm uni ty. See Terry v. Dav

is Comm uni ty Ch urch , 131 Ca l. App. 4t h 1 53 4, 15 47 , 33 Ca l. Rptr. 3d 145, 154 (2005) (youth group leader's al leged m is conduct was ma tt erof publi

c concern because publi

c has i nterest in m

at te rs affect ing its yout h); T ur ne rv. De vlin , 174 Ari z. 201, 205, 848 P.2d 286, 290 (1 993 ) ( po lice co nduc t , e spe cially wit h re spe ct t o t re at ment of ch ildr en , wa s ma t t er o f pu blic c o nc er n) . T he fo r m an d c o nt ex t o f t he st at eme nt s a ls o fav or a de term ina ti on t hat t he alleged defamat or y sta t ement s ar e a mat t er of p ublic co ncer n. T he sta tem en ts were made by t he de f

en da n t, as p re sident of CH LL, dur ing t imes tha t t he CH LL bo ar d wa s cho os ing coaches and mana ger s for t he up com in g s ea son . A

l th oug h th e a ll eg ed sta tem en ts we r e ma de o nly to a limi t ed nu mber o f peo ple, t hey are not t her eby dep rived of first amendment pr ot ect ion. See Cio ffi v. Av eril l Park Ce ntral Sch ool Di stri ct B oard of Edu ca ti on , 444 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir. 2006)No. 2-- 06--1055

-21-

(although a def am atory l etter was sen t onl y to one pers on an

d the m em be rs of the b oardof e duc at ion, t his f ac t di d not rem

ove it f rom f i rs t am en dm en t prot ec ti on ). M oreov

er, the sta tem en ts a re n ot mer ely a pe rsonal

gr ie van ce. Rather, sin

ce the statemen

ts were made wh

en the CHL

L board was cho os ing co ache s and manage rs fo r t he up co ming se as on , th

e p ur pos e of th e s tate m en ts w asto al

ter pu blic opi ni on or t o br ing alleged wr ong do ing t o light . S uch a pur po se indica t es t hat t he sta tem en ts are a m atter of publ

ic concern. See Li

nha rt v. Gl atfel

ter , 771 F.2d 1004, 1010 (7th Cir. 1985) (speech is a m atter of pu b l i c c on ce rn if it wa s m ade f or th e p ur pos e of b ri n gi n g wrongd oi

n g to light or to rais e i ssu es of

pub l i c concern , rathe

r than to furth er som e pure l y pri va te intere st). Ac co r di ng ly, becausethe statements at i ssue are a m atter of publ

ic concern, puni

tive da ma ges ma y not be impos ed a bsent a sho wing of actual m al ic e. As stated, the plai

ntif f properly al leged actual malice in cou nt I, which wa s re quir ed be cau se t he plaint iff is a pu blic official as to t hat co unt . T he plai ntif f also pro perly

all eged actu al m

ali ce as to count II. S pecif

ical ly , in paragraph 33 of the fi rst am ended com pl ai n t, th e p l ai

n tif f al l eg ed th at th e def en da n t m ade th e def am ator y sta tem en ts "whi ch he knew were f

al se." See New York Tim es , 376 U.S. at 280, 11 L. Ed. 2d at 7 07 , 84

S. Ct. at 726 ( a st at eme nt ha s be en mad e w it h a ct ua l malic e if it was made wi th knowledge that it was false). Thus, th e p l ai n tif f ' s r eq ue sts f or p un itiv e d am ag esare l eg al l y suf f i ci en t. Having determi

ned the constrai

nts the f irst am endm ent pla ces o n t his defam

ation suit, we must next address whet her t he allege d st at ement s ar e co nst itu t ionally pro t ect ed u nder t he first amendment as stat in g actual fact. As stat ed above, co urt s consider several factors i n det er mini

ng w he ther a st at ement i s f

actual . First , c ou rt s loo k t o w het her t he st at ement ha s a pre ci se an d re adil y unders tood me ani ng. Solaia Technology , 22 1 I ll. 2d at 5 81 . Th

e te rm "m i sc on du ct" i s def

ined a s " [a] derel

i cti on of duty ; u nl aw f ul or i m prop er behav

i or ." Bl ac k's

Law Di cti onary 1013 ( 7th e d. 1999 ). The termNo. 2-- 06--1055

-22-

"a b use ," relati

ve to the tr eatmen

t o f others, i s def

in ed as "ph ys ic al or mental

ma ltreatmen t, o ften re sult ing in men t al, emo t io na l, sexual , or phy sical in jury ." Black' s La

w Di cti onary 10 (8th ed. 20 04). Here, the statements that the pl ai ntif f "e xhi bi ted a long pa

tt ern of m is conduct" and "ab

used play ers, coaches, an d u mpir es " h av e a r ea dily u nd er st o o d me an ing . Su ch st at eme nt s w o uld conj ure up im ages in the li steners' m in ds of verbal

abuse, sex

ual abuse, or some ty

pe of physi

cal abuse . However, t he sta tem en ts ar e n o t pr ec ise in

t he se nse t hat t hey do not give insight into th e e xa ct ty pe of ab us e or misconductt o w hich the de f en da nt w as ref err ing . Th us , thi s c ons i derati

ondo es no t sig nific an t ly aid our anal ysi s. We next co nsid er wh et he rt he st at eme nt s a r e s us ce pt ible t o be ing o bje ct ive ly ver ifiab le as true or fa l se. Solaia Technology , 2 21 I ll. 2d a t 581 . V iewing t he co mpla int in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le to t he plaint iff

, w e believe t ha t t he de fen da nt 's s t at eme nt s a r e s us ce pt ible t o be ing o bje ct ive ly veri fi abl e. The plai

ntif f' s am ended com

pla in t all eges thathe hadbeen

a CHLL coach

for the 2000 through 2004 seasons. Inf ormation coul

d be gathered f

rom those who i

nteracted wit h t he pla int iff durin g those seasons to determin e if the def

endan t's al legations are true. Fina lly , we con sider whether the statemen ts' socia l c ontext signal s that they h ave f actual con ten t. Solaia Technology , 221 Ill . 2d at 581 . I n Gregory v. McDonn el l Douglas Corp. , 17 Ca l. 3d 596, 552 P. 2d 4 25, 131 Cal. R pt r. 641 (1 976 ), t he Ca lif or nia Su pr eme Co ur t not ed t hat t he social co nt ext in which wo rd s we re use d had t o be co nsider ed w hen cha ra ct er izing those words as f ac t or op inion: "Thus, where potential

ly defam ator y statements are publ ished i n a publi c debate, a heated l ab ordis pute, o r in another setting i

n wh ic h the audi ence ma y anticipa te eff ort s by the parties to pers uade

otherst o t heir p os itio ns by use of epi thets, fiery rh

etor ic or hyperb ole, l anguageNo. 2-- 06--1055

-23-

whi ch gene ra lly mightbe consi

dered as sta

tem en ts of f ac t may we ll as su m e th e c ha racter of sta tem en ts of opini on." Gregory , 17 Cal. 3d at 601, 552 P.2 d at 428 , 131 C al . Rptr. at 644. In the pres ent ca se, t he so cial co nt ext signals t hat t he de fendant 's allege d st at ement s have factual co nt ent . A CH LL bo ar d meet ing wher e t he m em be rs ar e pick ing co ache s for t he co ming se as on is not t he ty

pe of soci al

context where one would ex pect t he us e o f "e pit he t s, fier y rh et o r ic orhyper bole. " Mo re ove r, t he de fendant 's allega t ions w er e no t merely t hat t he pla int iff was abus iv

e, rude, or incapa ble of ap pr op riat ely managing a l ittle l eague team. The def

endan t all egedl y stated t hat t he pla in tif f "e x hi bited a long pat t er n of misco nduc t " and "abu sed " CH LL player s, c oa ches , a nd umpi res. A "pattern" of m

is conduct im

pli es thatt he plaint iff

enga ged in a

series of acts of m

is conduct agai ns t chi l dren . Se e B l ack' s Law

Di cti on ar y 11 49 (7 th

ed. 1999) (defi

ni ng "pattern" as "[a] m

ode of beh avi or o r series

o f ac t s t ha t ar e r ec o gn iza bly co nsis t en t ") . He r e, by u sing t he t er ms "exh ib ited a l ong pa ttern of m i scon duct" a nd " abuse d," the def

en dan t im pl i es th at his statem

en ts are based on sp ec ific factual

even ts. See Mo riar t y v. Gr eene , 3 15 I ll. App. 3d 2 25, 235 (2 000 ), quo t ing Hay nes v. Al fred A . Knopf

, Inc. , 8 F.3d 1222, 12 27 ( 7t h C ir. 19 93 ) ( a s t at eme nt is a ct io na ble if a defend ant is claiming

t o be in p o ss es sio n o f o bje ct ive ly veri fi abl e facts, rat her than e

xpl oring a " subj ective vi

ew, an in terpret ation, a theory, conj ecture or surmi se" ); se e a l so Ho we ll , 119 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 993 (a statem en t that i m pl i es th e ex i sten ce of an und i scl osed def am atory f act i s ac tionab l e). Unde r t he r ele va nt co nsid er at io ns, t he de fen da nt 's a lleg ed st at eme nt s c an be r ea so na bly in terpret edas st at ing act ual fact s abo ut t he plai ntif f an d are, t herefore, not entitled to firstamendment pr ot ect ion. See Mi

lkovi ch , 497 U .S. at 20, 11 1 L. Ed . 2d at 19 , 110 S. Ct. at 2706. Th us , th e plaint iff 's fi rst amen dedco mpla int st at es a cau se o f act ion fo r d efamat ion per se . I n lig ht o f t his deter m in ati on , w e rev

er se th e tr i al cou rt' s or de r di sm i ss in g th e p l ai n tif f ' s a m en de d c om pl ai n t.No. 2-- 06--1055

-24-

In so ru ling, we not e t hat in Imperi al Apparel the cou rt s tate d th at this pri nci ple , that an al legeddef am atory st at eme nt is pr ot ect ed by t he first amendment unless t he plaint iff sho ws t hat t he st at ement is fa ct ua l, ha d b ee n a pp lied t o ac t io ns b y pu blic o fficia ls. T his is t he sit uat ion p re sent ed by co unt I. Howev

er, the court further noted that whether t he pr ivil ege affor ded by the firs t amendment to statements that are not factual extends to statements m

ade by one private party about another on a mat t er o f pu r ely pri

va te conc ern

wasuns ettled. Imperi

al Apparel , 22 7 I ll. 2d at 39 9. Ad di t io na lly, t he su pr eme co ur t did no t co mment o n whet her t he priv il ege has b een ex tended to st atemen

ts made by a pri v ate pa rty to a nonm

edi a d ef en da nt on a mat t er of p ublic co ncer n, t he sit uat ion p re sent ed by co unt I I of t he plaint iff

's amend ed c omp laint. No net heless, as in Imperi al Apparel , we

need not re so lve these i ssues, because the statemen ts at issue purportedly

state actual fact and are not aff orded first amendment pr ot ect ion. We f ur t her not e t hat t he de fendant re lies on Do her t y v. Kahn , 289 Ill . App. 3d 544, 55 7 (1997 ), abrogated on ot her grounds , Soh v. Target Marketing Sy stems, Inc . , 353 I ll. App. 3d 126, 131 (2 004 ), and Wy

nne v. Loyol a Uni versi ty of Ch ic ago , 318 Ill. App . 3 d 44 3, 452 (2 000 ), in arg uing that t he st at ement s at issue a re mere e xpr essio ns o f op inion. In Doh er ty , t he plaint iff

fil ed a co mplaint f ordefamat ion per se base d o n st at ement s t he de fendant alleged ly m ade t o t he plaint iff

's po t en t ia l landsc aping cus tomer s. Doh er ty , 2 89 I ll. App. 3d a t 554 . T he de fendant alleged ly stat ed t hat t he pla int iff "was ' in competent,' 'l

azy ,' 'di shones t,' 'cann

ot ma nage a busi ness ,' and/or 'l

acks th e a b il ity to perf orm l an dsc api ng s ervi ces .' " Doh

er ty , 2 89 I ll. App. 3d a t 554 . T he r eviewing court found that these statem

en ts were m ere ex pres si ons of opini on. Doh er ty , 289 Ill . App. 3d at 556. In t he pr ese nt case, unlike in Doh

er ty , t he de fe nd an t di d n o t simp ly s tate tha t the plai nti f f wa s a bu si ve , ru de , or un f i t, ha d a ba d te m per, or wa s inc ap ab le of

coa ch in g a CH LL tea m . A s e xpl ai n ed ab ov e, in con tex t,No. 2-- 06--1055

-25-

t he de fen da nt 's a lleg ed st at eme nt s imp lied t ha t t he r e w as a s pe cific fac t ua l ba sis for his stat emen ts. Thus, we do not fi

nd Doh er ty persuasi ve. In Wynne , t he plaint iff

's claim for d efamat ion per se was bas ed on a m em o t hat t he de fendant had wri tten reg ardi

ng th e pl ai nti f f . Wynne , 318 Ill . App. 3d at 447. In the mem o, th e de fendant wrote t hat t he plaint iff

made " 'b i zarr e tel ep h on e c al l s' " to c ol l ea gu es ; th e p l ai

n tif f " ' appe ared

to wheedl e, per sua de, nag, and domi neer' " for chan

ges i n the un iv ersi ty's special ed uc at io n p r o gr am;

" 'nothing ev

er seemed to sat isf

y [the plai ntif f]' ";t he de fendant fou nd meet ings involving t he pla int iff to be " 'unifor mly

unp leasant ' "; and t he plaint iff " 'beg an st riking va rio us d eals' " w ith t he de an. Wynne , 318 Ill. App . 3 d at 452 . At the start o f the m em o, t he def endan t had cautioned that what

was writtenwas " 'simply

a su mmary of [t he defend ant 's] o wn feelings a bou t [he r] expe rience s wit h [t he pl ai nti f f ].' " W ynne , 318 I ll . App. 3d at 452. T he revi ewin g cour t det ermi

ned that none o f these words we r e d ef

ama t o r y per se , b ec au se

the y we re n ot cap able o f verificat ion and t he defen dant was m erel y ex pres si ng h er opi ni on. Wynne , 318 Ill . App. 3d at 452. Wynne i s also un

pers uas ive . A s expl

ai ned by the Wynne

co ur t : "in o ne se nse a ll opinions imply facts, the qu es ti on of wh eth er a sta tem en t of opi ni on i s a cti ona bl e a s def am ati on i s on e of degree; the vaguer an

d more gene

rali zedthe opi

ni on, the m ore li kel y the opini on is nonacti onabl

e as a matter of l

aw." Wynne , 31 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 45 2. Vie we d in co nt ext , t he st at ement s in Wynne were vaguer an d mo r e g en er al t ha n t he st at eme nt s a t iss ue in the pr ese nt cas e and it w as c lear t hat t he Wynne de fen da nt wa s s imply st at ing her op inion. I n t he pr ese nt cas e, t he st at eme nt s t hat t he p laint iff exh ib ited a l ong patter n of m

is conduct and abus ed pl ayers, coaches, and um pires in CHLL, wh

en vi ewed in context, were more speci fi c and i mpl ied that t he def

endan t had a fa ct ual b asis fo rhisNo. 2-- 06--1055

-26-

stat emen ts. Addit ionally, unlike in Wynne , t he r e w as no sp ec ific indi cation tha t the statem

en ts were merely t he de fendant 's o pinion. C. Di scov ery The plaint iff

's se con d c onte nti on on ap pe al i s that th e tri al court ab us ed its d i screti on when it st ayed d isco ver y unt il i

t ru led o n t he def

en dan t's m otion to dis m i ss. " A trial

courthas great l atitude in rul ing on di scovery matters. [C itation .] A trial court 's rul

in gs on such

ma tt ers wi ll not be disturbed abse nt a man

if est abuse of discretion." Adki ns Ene rgy , 347 Ill . App. 3d at 380-81. "A courtabuses it s di sc r et io n o nly w he r e it s r ulin g is ar bit r ar y, f an cifu l, o run r ea so na ble , o rwh er e n o r ea so na ble pers on would adopt the cou rt's view." Evitts v. Dai ml erChry sl er Moto rs Corp. , 359 Ill . App. 3d 504, 513 (2005) . We cann ot say t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in st aying disco ver y pending a ru ling on th e def en da n t' s m oti on to dis miss. See Adki

ns Ene rgy , 3 47 I ll. App. 3d a t 381 (r eviewing court fou nd that t he trial

court di d not abus e its discr et ion in st aying disco ver y unt il i t re so lved whe t her t he plaint iff 's co mpla int st at ed a c au se o f ac t io n) . T he t r ial c o ur t ex pla ine d t ha t t he in fo rmat ion being subpoenaed

f rom th e C HL

L boar d m em b er s sh oul

d hav e b een av ai l abl e f rom th e def en da n t a s pr eside nt of

the CHLL . Th

e tri al court di d not f ind i t appropri ate to sub poen a i nf orma tion f rom th i rd parties unt il i

t was clear whet her t he infor matio n wo uld be a vailable fro m the de f en da n t. A t a hear ing on the pla in tif f' s m ot ion to vacate the protect iv e order stayi

ng di scovery , the plai

ntif f as serted that his mai n concern with the i

nabi li ty to obtain dis covery was the one-year st atut e of l im itati ons on de f am ati on clai ms. The plaint iff

ack now ledge d at t he hea ring, how ever , t hat t he statut e was toll ed by t he filing o f t he co mpla int . Un de rt he se cir cu mst an ce s, t he t r ial c o ur t 's d et er mi n ation w as not unreasonab

le . Moreover, because we determi ned that t he pl

ai ntif f' s f irst am ended com

pla in t stat edNo. 2-- 06--1055

-27-

a caus e of action f or d ef amat ion per se , t he pr ot ect ive or der st aying disco ver y did no t har m the pla int iff. See Adki

ns Ene rgy , 34 7 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 381 (i ndi cati ng that an

order stay

ing d i scovery woul d be ha rm f ul if di scovery

were ne ces sary

to resi st a m

otion to dis m i ss). D. Civ il Conspi racy Fi na ll y , we ad dres s wh ethe r the tri al court properl

y di sm i ssed coun

t III, t he pla int iff's cla im f orcivil consp iracy. " 'Civil consp iracy co nsist s o f a co mbinatio n of t wo or mor e pe rso ns for t he purpo se of a cco mplishing by so me concert ed action either an unlawful purpo se or a lawful

purpo se by unl awful mean s.' " Ka r as v. St r ev ell , 227 Ill . 2d 440, 466 (2008), quo ting Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd. , 164 Il

l . 2d 54, 6 2 (199 4). "Co nspira cies ar e o fte n intent ionally 'shro ude d in myster y,' which by na ture ma kes i t dif fi cul t for the plai

ntif f to all ege wi th compl ete specif ici t y all o f t he de t ails of t he conspi racy ." Tim

e Savers, Inc. v . LaSal

le Bank, N. A. , 371 Ill. App . 3 d 75 9, 771 (2 007 ), quo t ing Adcock , 164 Ill . 2d at 66. Howeve r, "the com pl ai nt m ust con tain m ore than the c oncl usi on tha t there was a conspi

racy, i t must al lege speci fi c facts from wh

ic h the exi stence of a cons

piracy ma y pr o pe r ly be in ferred." Fr

itz v . Joh nston , 209 Il

l . 2 d 302, 318 (2 00 4) . " Th e me re cha ra ct er iza t io n o f a com bi na ti on of acts as a co nspi

racy i s in suff

ici ent to withstand a motion to dism iss." Buckn er v . Atla ntic Pl ant Mai ntenan ce, Inc. , 182 Il

l . 2d 12, 2 3 (199 8). In t he pr ese nt cas e, in addit ion t o inco rp or at ing t he allega t ions contain edin th e d ef am ati on cl ai ms , the plai

ntif f al leged: "53. On i nf ormation an

d bel ie f, Def endan t engaged in a sc he me w it h H ar t we ll Morse and E r ic No lan, a nd with Pl ai ntif f' s poli tical opponents, inc ludi

ng Terry Poci

us, Mary Church Brown and Pau l Ped er so n, t o d efame Plaint iff by disseminat ing false st at eme nt s a bo ut Pla int iffNo. 2-- 06--1055

-28-

being involved in a lo ng pa t t er n of misco nduc t and be ing unf it to co ac h

in CH LL so a s to ha rm Pl ai nti f f 'sreputati on an d to em ba rrass hi m in th e com m uni ty." The pla int iff

ad dit io na lly alle ge d t ha t , in fu r t he r an ce o f t he co nsp ira cy, t he de fen da nt int en t io na lly publ ished an d ot herwi se di ssem

in ated the defam

ator y statements at is sue. T he pl ai nti f f 's al l egati ons f ai l to state a ca

use of a cti on f or ci vi l conspi racy . "In Ill i noi s, a pla int iff must plead t he fact s ess ent ial to hi s c au se of ac ti on;un su

ppor ted con cl us i ons are not enough." Buckner , 182 Il l . 2d at 24 . Here , the c omp l ai nt doesnot al

l ege a ny conc ert of

ac ti on on t he pa rt of H ar t well Mo rse , E ric N olan, and Paul Pede rson. The compl

ai nt never iden

tif ie s Morse, No lan, or Ped er so n, o r t he r oles t hey played in t he case. The com pla in t merel y i ndi cates that Nolan and Mor se

we re tw o of the pe opl e to w hom

the defa ma to ry s tatements were m

ade and that

Ped ers on was a p ol i ti ca l opp on en t. W ith respect to Pocius and Brown, the compl ai nt in dic ated that Po ci

us was a prior Vi ll age trustee and that Bro wn was a resident of the Vil lage. The complain

t also in dic ated that Po ciu s a nd Br o wn info r med t he pla int iff's r un ning mat es , du r ing t he pla in ti f f 's ca m pa i gn f or Vil la ge trust ee, of the def

endan t's al legeddefam

ator y statements m

ade in Marc h 200 5. Ho weve r, t he fact that Poci us a nd B rown m

ay ha ve repea ted the def en dan t's a ll eged def am atory sta tem en ts i s n ot evi dence o f aco ns pi r ac y. See McCl ure v. Owens

Cornin g Fi berglas Corp. , 188 Ill . 2d 102, 133-34 (1999) ("[ a] ccide nt al, inad ver t ent , o r ne gligent par t icipat ion in a co mmon sche me do es no t amou nt to con sp ir ac y ") . Th

e p l ai n tif f h aspr ov i de d n

othin g m ore th an a c on cl us ory al l eg ati on th at a conspi racy exi sted. Such concl

usory al legations are n

ot suf fi ci ent to st ate a c au se o f a cti on f or co ns pi r ac y. See Buckner , 182 Ill . 2d at 24. Altho ugh t he t rial co ur t dismissed t he co nsp ira cy c laim on th e b as i s that i

t wa s dep en

de nt on the de f am ati on cl ai m s, w e m ay af f i rm onany basis ap pea ringNo. 2-- 06--1055

-29-

in the r eco rd re gar dless o f the t rial co ur t 's reas oni ng. Bell Le as in g B rok

er ag e, LL C v . R oge r A uto Servi ce, Inc. , 372 Il

l . App. 3d 46 1, 469 ( 2007) .

CONCLUSION For the forego in

g reasons, we reverse the j udgme nt of the ci

rcuit court o f Du Page

Coun ty dismissing t he plaint iff

's claims for defamat ion per se (counts I and II) and r em and f or additional proceedings cons i sten

t with this opi

ni on. However, we aff

irm the dis missal

of the plai nti f f 's cl ai m f or ci vi l conspi racy (coun t III). Af fi rmed i n part and revers ed i

n part; cause rem

anded. BOW MA N an d HUTC HINSO N, JJ ., concur.