Gupta, InfoUSA Refile Slander Case

THE COURTS will have another chance to determine whether a letter sent to the Indiana GOP defamed InfoUSA and its CEO Vin Gupta.

In February, a federal court dismissed a slander suit filed by Gupta and his firm. But the plaintiffs filed an appeal last month in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit concerns a Sept. 21, 2000 letter written by defendant Frank Sullivan, vice president and general manager of DataOne Direct, to Brad Goodrich, executive director of the Illinois Republican Party.

Sullivan noted in the letter that Donnelley Marketing, an InfoUSA subsidiary, had been awarded a contract to develop a nationwide voter data file for the Illinois GOP, a project DataOne Direct had bid on. According to the initial complaint, Sullivan wrote that Gupta was present “in one of the Clinton Lincoln Bedroom Pajama Parties,” and questioned whether “as a result, this data is readily available to the DNC and its union allies.”

Gupta has contributed significantly to Democrats and Democratic committees. But he also has made contributions to Nebraska Republicans.

Gupta, InfoUSA and Donnelley sued Sullivan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, claiming Sullivan defamed them by asserting that they would violate the RNC’s trust by giving political data to its rival during a presidential election. The suit was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

DataOne Direct, which creates databases for political, governmental, business and nonprofit organizations, is a division of Experian. Neither was named as a defendant.

Sullivan’s lawyers argued that “Mr. Sullivan’s words are mere rhetoric, overstatement and figurative speech, intended to make Mr. Sullivan’s point…that the RNC should not be spending contributor’s money to hire a firm owned by a major Democratic supporter.”

In dismissing the suit, Judge Charles P. Kocoras noted that if a statement can be construed as having an innocent meaning, it is not defamatory under Illinois law. “Stating that a person has the capacity to divulge secret information is not the same as saying that the person actually has or will.”

Kocoras also doubted that the statements in Sullivan’s letter disparaged the quality of InfoUSA’s services.

Briefs from both parties are due in July. Counsel for both sides declined comment on the case.