Rabbi appeals, will fight on in defamation case

If Rabbi Pinchas Lipner thought he had nothing to lose when he brought a defamation suit against the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation, Richard Goldman and the U.C. Regents, he was mistaken.

He lost, and the court ruled that he owed U.C. lawyers more than $70,000 plus legal costs borne by the JCF and Goldman's lawyers.

As promised, the dean of San Francisco's Hebrew Academy has appealed the ruling — and postponed the legal bills.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald E. Quidachay ruled in February that Lipner allowed the one-year statute of limitations to expire prior to filing the $10 million defamation suit in 2002. The suit was a result of highly critical comments directed against Lipner and his school by Goldman in a 1992 oral history interview of past Jewish Community Federation officials conducted by U.C. Berkeley's Regional Oral History Office.

Lipner and Hebrew Academy's lawyer, Paul Kleven, said they don't plan on altering their plan of attack much with the court of appeals.

"We'll be making similar arguments. I hope we're successful. Cases do go both ways, and we're hoping the court of appeals will see the issue our way," Kleven said.

Quidachay "refused to apply the rule of discovery to toll the statute of limitations. There was a time period after the publication of the transcript when my clients were not aware of the publication. And a rule called the rule of discovery states that, in certain instances where the plaintiff is unaware something has been stated, the statute will not begin to run until the plaintiff reasonably discovers that it has occurred."

Brad Zamczyk, an attorney for both Goldman and the federation, said he was expecting the appeal. He also expects Lipner will, once again, be reversed.

"The court destroyed [Lipner's argument]. It was a public document and he doesn't have to have actual knowledge of it," he said.

Zamczyk said the extensions of the statute of limitations Kleven is seeking is usually reserved for circumstances involving fraudulent concealment of documents or inherently private records such as credit reports or personnel files.

"I do think the law is clearly in our favor and the appellate court will follow the law as it stands today: That the statute of limitations has run out and he can't go forward on his claims."

Zamczyk noted that Lipner's appeal will delay his court-ordered payment of the U.C. Regents' legal fees (and, if he is successful, get him off the hook altogether). The legal action will, however, augment those fees, and Zamczyk believes he, too, will be entitled to appeal for Lipner to pick up the tab for Goldman and the federation's lawyers — perhaps as much as $10,000.

Lipner is also liable for roughly $4,500 in costs racked up by Goldman and the federation's lawyers, but not full legal fees. The U.C. Regents' lawyers filed a special motion to strike claiming Lipner was quashing their free speech rights. That motion, which was granted in September, contained provisions allowing recovery of legal fees.

The 1992 interview was one in a series of oral histories funded by the federation and undertaken by the Regional Oral History Office of U.C. Berkeley's Bancroft Library. In addition to Goldman, more than a dozen former federation presidents and executives have given extremely candid interviews for the project.

Forty pages into the 100-page interview, questioner Eleanor Glaser asked Goldman, the federation's president from 1981-82, about Hebrew Academy. His page-and-a-half of discourse on the matter included a number of statements unflattering to Lipner, whom he referred to as "self-serving" and "an embarrassment."

In seeking $10 million in damages, Lipner claimed the interview tarnished both his and Hebrew Academy's reputation, induced emotional distress and damaged the school's ability to raise funds.

In the 20 years preceding the lawsuit, the federation had allocated roughly $6.33 million to the school, while the Jewish Community Endowment Fund contributed more than $1 million toward a new building.

Zamczyk speculated that the appellate court would provide a briefing schedule within the next two months. He guessed that the conflicting sides might be ordered to attend a mediation session in order to hammer out a compromise, though he believes it is "unlikely" the two sides will ever see eye-to-eye.