Mimms v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

In action alleging that employees of defendant made defamatory statements against plaintiff when refusing to fill prescriptions written by plaintiff, defendant was entitled to judgment with respect to three of four statements at issue in instant lawsuit, since: (1) plaintiff needed to show that employees who made statements knew that their statements were false; (2) while plaintiff established that certain individuals within defendant knew that said statements were false, plaintiff failed to present evidence that employees/speakers knew that said statements were false; and (3) any knowledge that defendant had as organization regarding veracity of statements could not be imputed to individuals who actually made statements. Also, defendant was entitled to new trial on fourth statement that plaintiff was “under DEA investigation,” where Dist. Ct. improperly precluded defendant from establishing defense that plaintiff was actually subject of DEA investigation, where defendant proffered evidence that plaintiff’s former employer had received subpoena from DEA for records of plaintiff’s former patients.