The Philadelphia Inquirer's "Counter" Lawsuit Against Stu Bykofsky is a Doozy
If you missed it on Thursday, the Philadelphia Inquirer lost a motion to toss the lawsuit filed by former columnist Stu Bykofsky. He’s suing the paper for defamation following the debacle at his 2019 going away party, which featured a butting of heads with colleague Inga Saffron, who cited his alleged “taste for child prostitutes in Thailand.” Saffron was rebuked by Bykofsky, who called the claim a “sack of shit lie” and “total fucking lie.”
Anyway, in a brief writeup of the story, we mentioned Victor Fiorillo, who first shared the party video. Fiorillo noted this:
Finally, a Pulitzer nod. Thanks @Kevin_Kinkead and @CrossingBroad. You might have missed the Inky's lawsuit against Byko as well as some of the filings, which contain VERY interesting things. I can't report on them. https://t.co/bxEL8yFNYQ
— Victor Fiorillo (@phillyvictor) October 6, 2022
Okay, I’ll bite. We’re not a Philly Courts blog, but I think people will be interested in knowing more about the “counter” suit.
I put counter in quotation marks because the Inquirer waited to sue Bykofsky, so in legalese I’m not sure if this would technically qualify or not. There are few stories on the Inky suit, the most detailed from former Inquirer writer Ralph Cipriano at BigTrial.net, who said:
On June 29th in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Inquirer filed a lawsuit against Bykofsky alleging that in defending his reputation, he had violated a non-disparagement clause that he signed three years ago when he took a buyout.
In the lawsuit, which the head of Bykofsky’s union says is unprecedented, the Inquirer is seeking to recoup from Bykofsky “gross pay in the amount of $58,738.56,” plus “payment of his COBRA medical expenses for a period of eight months.”
We obtained a copy of the suit, which is public record. You just have to pay for it. I think it came out to like $12.75, which is the price of a Wells Fargo Center IPA, or three gallons of gas in a crap economy.
Here’s some of the interesting stuff written in the lawsuit, copied verbatim from the notice (these are their words and not mine) –
- ‘Bykofsky’s girlfriend, Rose Cruz (“Cruz”), filmed the speeches made by Bykofsky’s colleagues at the party on her phone (the “Video”), including the speech made by Saffron’
- ‘Bykofsky was determined to make Saffron and the Inquirer look bad in any potential story written about the retirement party’
- ‘Bykofsky stated that Saffron’s speech made the Inquirer look bad’
- ‘Bykofsky stated that the Video made Saffron look like she was “a lying, bitter, malicious, crazy person”.’
- ‘On July 17, 2019, Philadelphia Magazine published a story on phillymag.com with the headline: Inga Saffron and Stu Bykofsky Absolutely Savaged Each Other at Stu’s Farewell Party. The online story prominently includes clips of Saffron’s speech from the Video provided by Bykofsky, which Bykofsky stated made Saffron look like “a lying, bitter, malicious, crazy person” and which he stated made the Inquirer look bad. Bykofsky was also quoted in the article saying “I can’t decide what I liked best – the demonstrable lies, the careless factual errors, the false impressions, or the guilt by association”’
- ‘Bykofsky breached the Non-Disparagement Clause of the Separation Agreement, by: providing the Video, which he described as making Saffron look like “a lying, bitter, malicious, crazy person”, to Philadelphia Magazine for the purpose of harming Saffron’s reputation, and thereby damaging the reputation of the Inquirer; providing the Video, which he described as making the Inquirer look bad, to Philadelphia Magazine for the purpose of harming the Inquirer’s reputation; providing a quote to Philadelphia Magazine stating “I can’t decide what I liked best – the demonstrable lies, the careless factual errors, the false impressions, or the guilt by association”; and his attorney and agent providing the Marimow (former Inky editor Bill Marimow) emails to Ralph Cipriano for the purpose of harming Saffron’s reputation, and thereby damaging the reputation of the Inquirer.’
- ‘As a result of Bykofsky’s breaches of the Separation Agreement, the Inquirer has suffered damage’
- ‘As a result of Bykofsky’s breach of the Separation Agreement, Bykofsky must be required to (i) repay to Plaintiff the value of the Separation Benefit provided to him in consideration of his agreement to, among other obligations, the Non-Disparagement Clause of the Separation Agreement; and (ii) compensate the Plaintiff for damages suffered as a result of his breach of the Separation Agreement.’
The CliffsNotes here is that the Inquirer believes Bykofsky disparaged Inga Saffron and the company and violated the terms of his buyout in the process of leaking the video and ultimately filing the suit. They allege that his girlfriend filmed the altercation, which was released to Philly Mag with the intent of shitting on the Inquirer. That Fiorillo story, of course, was aggregated by other outlets (like us).
Bykofsky’s lawyer, Mark Schwartz, asked for this to be tossed, calling it a “draconian reaction” to the original lawsuit filed in 2020. In the preliminary objections brief, he argues that Bykofsky did not disparage the Inquirer at all, noting that the counter-claim was not presented when the original lawsuit was filed two years ago.
Where this thing really goes sideways is when you get to deposition, which Cipriano mentions in his story (which, it should be pointed out, is not neutral, it is very critical of the Inquirer):
In a bloody exchange of excerpts from depositions in the case, Bykofsky admitted that he had patronized a 26 year-old prostitute three or four times during his infamous 2011 trip to Thailand.
That was something Bykofsky did not mention in the column that Saffron used to trash him at his going away party. As far as Schwartz is concerned, however, Saffron’s remarks were still defamatory.
“She said he had a taste for child prostitutes, but at no time did he have sex with a child prostitute,” Schwartz said.
What a story! It has a little bit of everything. Defamation allegations. Leaked video. Thai prostitutes. It’s a doozy!
I have zero understanding of the law, but this feels like a “chicken or the egg” argument. Who was first to disparage? Was Bykofsky defamed? In giving the video to Philly Mag, did he in turn DISPARAGE the Inquirer and violate his buyout agreement?
Honestly, I thought this thing was gonna be tossed. I’m surprised that we’re still going. The next step is jury selection for Bykofsky’s original suit, which Coggin and I have volunteered for. If not selected, maybe I’ll go down to the courtroom and check this out. Journalism!
(I imagine Fiorillo “can’t report” on this because he’s named in the Inquirer’s suit)