STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COUET OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF WAKE 1 19 CVS 9702

ANNEBLYTHE, ). . . .

Plaintiff, I)

V. )
) COMPLAINT
THE NEWS AND OBSERVER )
PUBLISHING COMPANY, )
MGCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, )
ING, and EOBYN TOMLIN )
CARTER a/k/a EOBYN TOMLIN )
)
Defendants. )
)
NOW COMES plaintiff Anne Blythe, through counsel, and complains of

defendants The News and Observer Publishing Company, ]V[cGlatchy Newspapers,

Inc., and Robyn Tomlin Carter a/k/a Robyn Tomlin (collectively, "Defendants") as

follows:

PARTIES. JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Anne Blythe ("Ms. Blythe" or "Plaintiff) is a resident of

Orange County, North Carolina.

2. Upon information and belief, defendant The News and Observer

Publishing Company is a North Carolina corporation which maintains its registered

and principal offices in Wake County, North Carolina. The News and Observer

Publishing Company publishes The News and Observer newspaper in print form

and publishes and maintains the website www.newsobserver.com (unless otherwise

noted, the publishing company, the newspaper, and website are collectively

referenced as "The N&CV').

3. Upon information and belief, defendant McGlatchy Newspapers, Inc.

("JVtcClatchy ) is a Delaware corporation which was authorized to transact business

within the State of North Carolina and is a subsidiary of The IVtcGlatchy Company.

McClatchy regularly conducts business in North Carolina as the sole owner and

operator of The N&O, directing The N&O as part of a national media conglomerate

encompassing 30 media markets in 15 states, including two other North Carolina

newspapers.

4. Upon information and belief, defendant Robyn Tomlin Carter a/k/a

Robyn Tomlin ("]V[s. Tomlin") is a resident of Wake County and is neither infant nor

incompetent. M.s. Tomlin is executive editor of The N&O and JVIcGlatchy's regional

editor for the Carolinas, overseeing eight Me Clatchy-controlled newsrooms in North

Carolina and South Carolina (including The N&O).

5. At all times relevant to this action, Ms. Tomlin was acting within the

course and scope of her duties as an employee and agent of The N&O and

McClatchy and in furtherance of their business, such that The N&O and MlcClatchy

are liable for Ms. Tomlin's acts as described herein.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject

matter of this action, for which the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.00.
 7. Venue is proper in this Court as, inter alia, The N&O is a resident of

Wake County, North Carolina.

8. Ms. Blythe commenced this action on July 17, 2019, pursuant to N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 3.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Blythe has worked as a journalist for over 30 years. She began her

journalism career in 1986 as a reporter for The Chapel Hill News, a position she

held until 2000. The Chapel Hill News was owned by The N&O for much of Ms.

Blythe's tenure there, during which she regularly wrote stories that were published

in both newspapers.

10. In 2000, M.s. Blythe transitioned to The N&O, prior to its acquisition

by McClatchy. Ms. Blythe remained at The N&O for approximately 18 years, until

she was terminated on July 18,2018.

11. Ms. Blythe worked for The N&O and McClatchy as a staff writer

contributing to thousands of articles published both in print and online.

12. During the course of her career with The Chapel Hill News and The

N&O, M.S. Blythe won numerous North Carolina Press Association and national

awards and earned a reputation as a respected journalist.

13. By 2018, Ms. Blythe was one of The N&O's most senior writers on

staff, both in terms of her age and her longevity with the organization.
 14. Ms. Blythe reported primarily on public safety and legal issues, but

contributed to stories in other areas and supported other writers as needed.

15. During the course of her career, Ms. Blythe experienced a change in

The N&Os management style and general approach to journalism.

16. In recent years, McClatchy restructured The N&Os newsroom.

IVIcClatchy's restructuring increased demand on The N&O staff to "do more with

less", including an expectation to produce more bylines and more online pageviews.

17. Upon information and belief, up until her discharge, Ms. Blythe was

consistently among the most productive staff writers at The N&O, both in terms of

bylines and page views

18. More weeks than not, over 40 hours of work were reasonably necessary

for Ms. Blythe to fulfill the demands of her position.

19. Management at The N&O and MEcClatchy was aware that M.S. Blythe

and, upon information and belief, other staff from time to time, if not regularly,

worked in excess of 40 hours a week in order to fulfill their duties.

20. The culture and expectation of doing more with less created by The

N&O and McClatchy management disfavored employees reporting overtime hours.

From time to time, M.s. Blythe did report some, but usually not all, of the overtime

hours she worked.

21. In early 2017 Ms. Blythe was told by her supervisor, McClatchy's

North Carolina state politics editor, Jordan Schrader ("Mr. Schrader"), that she had
been reporting too many overtime hours. M.r. Schrader discouraged Ms. Blythe

from reporting overtime again, although Ms. Blythe understood that the work still

was expected to be done even if it required more than 40 hours in a given week to do

it.

22. Following this conversation with Mx. Schrader up through her

termination on July 18, 2018, M.s. Blythe continued to work the hours necessary to

perform her job, which continued to regularly exceed 40 hours, but she often did not

record and/or report hours in excess of 40 per week. Ms. Blythe from time to time

did still report limited overtime, but she did not report the full amount of hours she

actually worked for fear of displeasing management.

23. Among other changes in the way The N&O operated, in or around late

2016, The N&O implemented a "real-time news team." Upon information and

belief, this team's purpose was for "quick-strike" reporters to get news online

quickly to generate as many pageviews as possible, regardless of whether the real-

time news reporter had any knowledge of the subject matter or whether the story

fell within another writer's established beat. Beat writers, such. as Ms. Blythe, were

occasionally asked to pick up the stories after the first few paragraphs were posted

and develop them more fully. The resulting stories were typically a collaboration of

at least two writers and an editor; however, the byline attributed to a given story by

an editor did not necessarily indicate the writer who had done the most work on

that story.
 24. On the afternoon of July 18, 2018, Ms. Blythe was called into a

meeting with Ms. Tomlin, Mx. Schrader, and member of The N&OfM.cClsitchy

human resources department. In the brief meeting, Ms. Tomlin presented Ms.

Blythe with a printout purporting to be a report generated by an unknown software

program authorized by M.S. Tomlin and/or M.r. Schrader and implicitly accused M.s.

Blythe of plagiarism.

25. Ms. Blythe had been aware of one complaint regarding her attribution

of a specific story the prior month, a complaint which she understood to have been

resolved through a prior conversation with Ms. Tomlin. Ms. Blythe was not aware

that she was under investigation when she was called into the July 18, 2018,

meeting.

26. Upon information and belief, the sole purpose of the meeting was to

terminate Ms. Blythe, without giving her any chance to meaningfully review and

respond to Ms. Tomlin's accusations. Ms. Blythe was blindsided and upset by the

meeting and was not in a position to substantively respond at that time.

27. Ms. Blythe left the meeting that afternoon believing that she would

have an opportunity to review and meaningfully respond to Ms. Tomlin's

accusations.

28. Ms. Blythe believed that she still worked at the paper when she left

the meeting; however, upon information and belief, in less than an hour Ms. Tomlin

informed Tlze N&O's staff that Ms. Blythe no longer worked at The N&O. A short

6
time later, M.S. Tomlin posted, or caused to be posted, on The N&O's website under

her byline A note to our readers" (the Note") (a copy of the Note printed from the

website is attached hereto as Exhibit A).

29. The Note stated regarding M.s. Blythe, among other things, that

"plagiarism and inadequate attribution are a fundamental violation of trust. As

such, we have decided to part ways. It was through a friend who had viewed

either Ms. Tomlin s notification to the staff or the Note that Ms. Blythe learned she

had been terminated.

30. The Note contained a number of false and defamatory statements of

fact of and concerning Ms. Blythe which, read together and in context, falsely state

as fact that M.S. Blythe committed plagiarism at least a dozen times in the

preceding two-plus years and that, as a result, Defendants and Ms. Blythe had

agreed to "part ways."

31. M.s. Blythe did not commit plagiarism, as Ms. Tomlin stated as fact in

the Note.

32. M.S. Blythe did not agree with Defendants to leave her employment,

i.e., "to part ways", as Ms. Tomlin stated as fact in the Note. Indeed, M.8. Blythe

believed she would have an opportunity to collect herself following the July 18,

2018, meeting and to review and respond in rebuttal to M.s. Tomlin's accusations

before a decision would be made on her employment, and certainly before any such

decision would be announced online.

7
 33. Ms. Blythe did not improperly take information from the online stories

identified in the Note (either as originally published on July 18, 2018, or as updated

on July 23, 2018), as Ms. Tomlin stated as fact in the Note.

34. Ms. Blythe did not breach standards or core values of The N&O, the

McClatchy organization, or the journalism profession as a whole, as Ms. Tomlin

stated as fact in the Note.

35. Upon information and belief, Defendants' investigation supporting the

Note and its decision to terminate M.S. Blythe was at best a conclusory, one-sided

review that did not take into account any number of potentially relevant factors,

including, but not limited to, whether the passages in question were in fact

substantially similar enough to warrant a good faith accusation they had been

lifted , whether sources may have given similar quotes to more than one reporter,

the extent to which certain passages highlighted by Defendants report may have

been edited after Ms. Blythe submitted them, whether other organizations' online

stories may have been updated to add information which Ms. Blythe first reported,

and whether certain articles were a collaboration of writers, including the real-time

news team, and whether M-s. Blythe was aware.

36. The next day, July 19, 2018, the Note ran on the front page of The

N&O's print edition in the bottom left corner.

8
 37. Shortly after its initial publication, the Note was picked up by wire

services, including the Associated Press, and was republished across the United

States in a variety of media.

38. On July 23, 2018, Defendants updated the Note online to list

additional stories from which M.S. Tomlin falsely stated Ms. Blythe plagiarized.

Upon information and belief, the Note may have been updated and/or edited since

July 23, 2018. The Note remains available online as of the date of this filing at

https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/article215128000.html.

39. M-s. Blythe's professional reputation has been significantly harmed as

a result of the libelous statements published in the Note. Ms. Blythe has attempted

to obtain fulltime employment as a journalist since July 18, 2018, but remains

unable to do so. She is informed and believes that Defendants publications of their

plagiarism accusations have stigmatized her and are the deciding factor in her

present inability to find fulltime work.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Libel Per Se
(Against All Defendants)

40. Ms. Blythe repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations

previously stated herein.

41. The "Note" included numerous false and defamatory statements of fact

of and concerning M.S. Blythe.

42. Defendants' false statements of and concerning Ms. Blythe were

9
published to third parties, including, but not limited to, on The N&O's website on

July 18, 2018, on the front page of The N&O's July 19, 2018, print edition, and in a

July 23, 2018, update to the online story. The online story remains available at

https://www,newsobseryer.com/latest-news/article215128000.html as of the date of

this filing.

43. Portions of Defendants' false and defamatory statements of and

concerning M;s. Blythe were picked up by national wire services and were widely

republished across the country. The widespread republication of Defendants' false

and defamatory statements was foreseeable by Defendants, who well understood

the full impact of their actions as members of the news media.

44. Defendants are responsible for all republications of their false and

defamatory statements and are liable to Ms. Blythe for damages resulting

therefrom.

45. Defendants false and defamatory statements of and concerning Ms.

Blythe as set forth herein were made in the absence of privilege or justification.

46. Defendants false and defamatory statements of and concerning Ms.

Blythe were made with actual malice. At the time they published the Note,

Defendants knew or should have known that their statements of and concerning

M.S. Blythe were false; recklessly disregarded information strongly indicating that

the statements were false; or, at a minimum, negligently failed to take reasonable

steps to ascertain whether the statements were true or false.

10
 47. Defendants' false and defamatory statements constitute libel per se in

that they directly impeach Ms. Blythe in her profession and otherwise tend to

subject her to ridicule and disgrace by impugning her integrity.

48. Defendants' false and defamatory statements have caused and

continue to cause injury to Ms. Blythe's reputation, having irreparably tarnished

her professional credibility and left her unable to find fulltime work as a journalist

after over 30 years of service in the profession. Further, Defendants' false and

defamatory statements have caused Ms. Blythe severe emotional distress, mental

anguish, and humiliation.

49. In making the false and defamatory statements as described herein,

Defendants acted with malice or engaged in willful or wanton conduct in that they

made the false and defamatory statements with either knowledge of their falsify or

with reckless regard for their truth, while fully understanding the extent of damage

their defamatory publications would cause Ms. Blythe.

50. M.S. Tomlin s statements constituting libel per se as described herein

were made in her capacity as an authorized agent of The N&O and IVtcClatchy and

were in the course of scope of and in direct furtherance of their business.

51. To the extent that all Defendants are not deemed directly responsible

for their roles in publishing the false and defamatory statements of and concerning

Ms. Blythe as described herein, The N&O and McClatchy are vicariously liable to

Mrs. Blythe through the doctrines of respondeat superior and/or agency for their

11
agent M.s. Tomlin's statements constituting libel per se as described herein.

62. M.s. Blythe has satisfied the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99-1

such that Defendants had ample opportunity to retract and/or correct the Note in

furtherance of the public policy underpinning section 99-1. A copy of counsel's

November 29, 2018, letter to Defendants' counsel, Steven J. Burns, Esq., is attached

hereto as Exhibit B. As recently as July 8, 2019, Defendants refused to take any

action to correct and/or retract the Note, even when informed in writing that Ms.

Blythe intended to take legal action prior to the one-year anniversary of the Note's

initial publication.

53. All Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, to Ms. Blythe for

damages as a result of their false and defamatory statements of and concerning Ms.

Blythe as described herein.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Libel Per Quod
(Against All Defendants)

54. Ms. Blythe repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations

previously stated herein.

55. The Note included numerous false and defamatory statements of fact

of and concerning Ms. Blythe.

56. Defendants' false statements of and concerning Ms. Blythe were

published to third parties, including, but not limited to, on The N&O's website on

July 18, 2018, on the front page of The N&O's July 19, 2018, print edition, and in a

12
July 23, 2018, update to the online story. The online story remains available at

httT3s://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/article215128000.htinl as of the date of

this filing.

57. Portions of Defendants false and defamatory statements of and

concerning Ms. Blythe were picked up by national wire services and were widely

republished across the country. The widespread republication of Defendants false

and defamatory statements was foreseeable by Defendants, who well understood

the full impact of their actions as members of the news media.

58. Defendants are responsible for all republications of their false and

defamatory statements and are liable to Ms. Blythe for damages resulting

therefrom.

59. Defendants' false and defamatory statements of and concerning M.8.

Blythe as set forth herein were made in the absence of privilege or justification.

60. Defendants false and defamatory statements of and concerning Ms.

Blythe were made with actual malice. At the time they published the Note,

Defendants knew or should have known that their statements of and concerning

Ms. Blythe were false; recklessly disregarded information strongly indicating that

the statements were false; or, at a minimum, negligently failed to take reasonable

steps to ascertain whether the statements were true or false.

61. Defendants' false statements in the Note are defamatory when

considered with innuendo, colloquium, and the circumstances in which they were

13
made, thus constituting libel per quad.

62. Defendants' false and defamatory statements have caused and

continue to cause injury to Ms. Blythe's personal and professional reputation and

have wrongfully stigmatized her and subjected her to public ridicule and contempt.

Further, Defendants false and defamatory statements have caused Ms. Blythe

severe emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation.

63. In making the false and defamatory statements as described herein,

Defendants acted with malice or engaged in willful or wanton conduct in that they

made the false and defamatory statements with either knowledge of their falsify or

with reckless regard for their truth, while fully understanding the extent of damage

their defamatory publications would cause Ms. Blythe.

64. Ms. Tomlins statements constituting libel per quod as described herein

were made in her capacity as an authorized agent of The N&O and McClatchy and

were in the course of scope of and in direct furtherance of their business.

65. To the extent that all Defendants are not deemed directly responsible

for their roles in publishing the false and defaraatory statements of and concerning

Ms. Blythe as described herein, The N&O and McClatchy are vicariously liable to

Ms. Blythe through the doctrines of respondeat superior and/or agency for their

agent Ms. Tomlins statements constituting libel per quod as described herein.

66. Ms. Blythe has satisfied the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99-1

such that Defendants had ample opportunity to retract and/or correct the Note in

14
furtherance of the public policy underpinning section 99-1. A copy of counsel's

November 29, 2018, letter to Defendants' counsel, Steven J. Burns, Esq., is attached

hereto as Exhibit B. As recently as July 8, 2019, Defendants refused to take any

action to correct and/or retract the Note, even when informed in writing that M-s.

Blythe intended to take legal action prior to the one-year anniversary of the Note's

initial publication.

67. All Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, to Ms. Blythe for

damages as a result of their false and defamatory statements of and concerning Ms.

Blythe as described herein.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Wage and Hour Act
(Against All Defendants)

68. Ms. Blythe repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations

previously stated herein.

69. Ms. Blythe was an employee of The N&O, with an hourly wage of

$28.65 at the time of her termination.

70. Ms. Blythe was not classified as an exempt employee and, by law, was

to be paid "time and a half for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

71. As set forth herein, Defendants wrongfully caused The N&O to fail to

fully and properly pay M.s. Blythe for overtime hours worked in violation of North

Carolina's Wage and Hour Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 95, Article 2A). Inter alia,

Defendants violated N.G. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.4 and 95-25.6 fcy actively discouraging

15
M-s. Blythe from reporting hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week and by

failing to pay Ms. Blythe the full wages accruing to her on or before the regular

paydays on which those wages were due.

72. Each of the Defendants is an "employer" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. §

95-25.2(5) and is subject to liability for causing The N&O to fail to pay Ms. Blythe

the compensation which she was, and is, due.

73. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-25.22(a), Ms. Blythe is entitled to

recover her unpaid wages from Defendants, jointly and severally, plus interest at

the legal rate from the regular paydays such wages were due.

74. As described herein, Defendants acted intentionally and in bad faith to

discourage Ms. Blythe from reporting overtime and in wrongfully causing TheN&O

to withhold overtime wages from Ms. Blythe.

75. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.22(al), Ms. Blythe is entitled to

liquidated damages from Defendants, jointly and severally. M.8. Blythe further

requests an award of her reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 95-25.22(d).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ms. Blythe respectfully prays that the Court:

1. Enter a monetary judgment in favor of Ms. Blythe and against all

Defendants, jointly and severally, for all actual and presumed damages suffered by

Ms. Blythe as a result of Defendants' statements of and concerning her which

16
constitute libel per se, plus prejudgment interest, and to grant Ms. Blythe injunctive

relief including, but not limited to, an Order requiring the retraction, correction,

and/or removal of Defendants' libelous statements as described herein;

2. Enter a monetary judgment in favor of M.S. Blythe and against all

Defendants, jointly and severally, for all actual and presumed damages suffered by

M-s. Blythe as a result of Defendants' statements of and concerning her which

constitute libel per quod, plus prejudgment interest, and to grant Ms. Blythe

injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an Order requiring the retraction,

correction, and/or removal of Defendants' libelous statements as described herein;

3. Enter a monetary judgment in favor of M-s. Blythe and against all

Defendants, jointly and severally, for their violations of North Carolina s Wage and

Hour Act, plus interest, liquidated damages, and attorney fees as allowed by N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 95-25.22;

4. Impose punitive damages on each Defendant in an amount to be

determined at trial as sufficient to punish each Defendant and to deter similarly

situated parties from engaging in similar conduct;

5. Tax all costs of this action against Defendants, including Ms. Blythe s

reasonable attorney fees, to the extent allowed by applicable law;

6. Conduct a trial before a jury on all issues so triable; and

7. Grant IVIs. Blythe such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

17
Respectfully submitted, this the 6th day of August, 2019.

EVERETT GASKINS HANCOCK LLP

(Vh.l^_
Jafne^ M:. Hash
N.CT^ar No. 38221
PO Box 911
220 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
Raleigh, NO 27602
Telephone: (919) 755-0025
Facsimile: (919) 755-0009
i ames@eghlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Anne Blythe

18
 TheNews&Observer JH

LATEST NEWS

A note to our readers

BY ROBYN TOMUN

JULY 18,2018 06:12 PM

^ f a ^

To our readers:

Recently, a writer from another publication complained that one of our stories included passages
taken from one of her published stories without attribution.

A review of that article raised concerns, and we subsequently examined more than 600 stories
published since January 2016 by staff writer Anne Blythe. We found at least a dozen that
contained phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs, lifted from other publications.

TOP ARTICLES

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, persona-Kzati
 ''

<^SS»^-

Bye bye Bird and Lime. New electric scooters arrive in

Raleigh this week.

Anne has been with The News & Observer and our affiliated publications for more than 30 years.
She has been a treasured colleague who has done some important work, but plagiarism and
inadequate attribution are a fundamental violation of trust. As such, we have decided to part
ways.

We are appending a note to each of these online stories (listed below) explaining that information
was improperly taken from sources without attribution. We will add disclosures to any other
stories that surface and are shown to have similar flaws.

Journalism is a daily act of faith. It's a contract between our journalists and you, the reader, that is
built on a foundation of trust that we will produce stories we believe to be both accurate and
original.

While we rely on other writers and publications to inform our research and reporting process, we
have an obligation to attribute facts and information that we glean from those sources and to
ensure that the words we write and publish are our own.

We take violations of our core values seriously, and I apologize to both our readers and to the
writers and publications from whose work passages were taken.

Robyn Tomlin

Executive Editor

Stories:

Popular Raleigh blogger and friend awarded $5 million for Fyre Fest debacle

NC sues dmgmaker accused of bribing doctors to prescribe powerful opioid spray

n1- - 1 J I-

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personaKzati
AueranmmaLe siungugnL, iN^pnsuny uruereu lu Lreuuus views UKeuLuenaiLus

NC attorney general sues Trump over separating parents and kids, asks if any are housed here

Families Belong Together': Raleigh crowds protest Trump s separation and detention policies

Supreme Court upholds part of Stanford law professor's redistricting plan for NC

With Kennedy gone from Supreme Court, what's next for NC gerrymandering case?

Rare red wolf is found dead in NC; reward offered to find shooter

DACA recipients rally in NC: 'We were not born illegal. ...We are here to stay^l

Is NC partisan gerrymander case up next after Supreme Court punts' on Wisconsin and
Maryland?

Upset with citizenship question, NC takes Trump administration to court

Don't reward gamesmanship and obstinacy, NC gerrymander challengers say

Exotic dancer s lawsuit in Colorado could have impact on Raleigh club

US attorneys focus on prescription opioid and heroin abuse

crisis? NC s attorney general is investigating

He was wrongfully convicted. Now he s getting ^4 million.

NC law replacing HBz is still a bathroom bill that discriminates, challengers claim

NC among states suing Betsy DeVos over delays to student loan protections

NC appeals court rules on eugenics cases

Families ofNC eugenics victims no longer alive still have shot at compensation

Surviving families ofeugenics victims lose latest round in court fight to get compensation

Manchester bombing renews Raleigh family's resolve to fight Twitter and ISIS in court

Former UNC player Chris Hawkins charged with violating sports agent law

Aeent pleads emltv to ehdne monev to UNC football players

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analyfcics, personafizati
 EVERETT GAS KINS H.ANCOCKu.p
Attorneys and Counsdots at law

JAMES M:. HASH

james@eghlaw. corn

Via U.S. Mail and E-mail: steve@sburnslaw.com

November 29, 2018

Stephen J. Burns, Esq.

Law Offices of Stephen J. Burns
3620 American River Drive, Suite 218
Sacramento, CA 95864

Re: Anne Blythe and The News & Observer

Dear Steve:

Thank you for speaking with me on August 1 regarding Anne Blythe and The
News & Observer ("The 2V&0"). My takeaway from our conversation was that The
N&O was fuUy "dug in" behind Robyn Tomlin's July 18, 2018, Note to Readers that
accused Amie of plagiarism, as well as the manner in which her dismissal was
handled. Anne's world was shattered by being terminated based on Ms. Tomlin s
front page plagiarism accusations. Having overcome the initial shock of the faUout
from that day, Anne is now resolved to take action to restore her professional
reputation and to make sure that her side of the story is fully told.

Anne vigorously disputes Ms. Tomlin's plagiarism accusations, which Ms.

Tomlin and The N&O no doubt understood at the time of publication would destroy
Anne's career. Rather than affording a longtime "treasured colleague" a chance to
meaningfuUy review the passages at issue and fully respond to any concerns, The
N&O abruptly determined to "part ways" with Anne without having heard her side
of the story. As you shared with me when we spoke, The N&O had decided before
the July 18 meeting that Anne was no longer going to be working for the
newspaper. The only question remaining going into the meeting was how her
employment would end.

A tenet of journalism is fair and balanced reporting; however, The N&O

published only a conclusory account of its one-sided review. Indeed, Ms. Tomlin
failed to explain the manner in which the review was conducted or to note that
Anne had not been given the chance to participate in the process. Neither The N&O

The Historic Briggs Hatdware BuUding • 220 Biyettville Stteet, Ste. 300 • Ital^^NorihCaiolina 27601
P.O. Box 911 • Raleigh, North CaioUaa 27602
Telephone: 919-755-0025 • FacsiflulK 919-755-0009 • Wcbsite: •www.eg?il2wcom EXHIBIT

B
 EVBRETT GASKINS HANCOCKt

Stephen J. Burns, Esq.

November 29, 2018
Page 2

review nor its reporting of the situation are consistent with Anne's understanding of
the newspaper's "core values" of which Ms. Tomlin pronounced her in violation.
Undergraduates in journalism school are taught to seek the whole truth and to
report all sides of the story, yet that unfortunately did not happen here.

Anne, as well as others who have compared her stories to the stories from
which she has been accused of plagiarizing, is perplexed at some of the passages
which The N&O apparently contends were improper. As respected columnist D.G-.
Martin wrote in a column published in the Winston-Salem Journal on August 6, "I
looked at several of these articles and the source. I could not identify an example of
substantial passages that 'were taken in large part or in whole' from the source
article. Surely there were some, but like [Gary] Pearce, you have to ask 'like what?'
and 'like which?'" https://www.iournalnow.com/oT}mion/colummsts/d-g-martin-two-
hard-earned-reputations-unnecessarily-at-risk/article f94eed46-99aa-lle8-abe9-
9f076e6325c5.html

Mr. Martin, was referring to a July 31 blog post by Gary Pearce, a former
press secretary for Governor Jim Hunt and a former member of The N&O family, in
which Mr. Pearce commented:

The editor wrote, "We... examine d more than 600 stories published
since January 2016 (by Blythe). We found at least a dozen that
contained phrases, sentences or, in some cases, whole paragraphs,
lifted from other publications."

A dozen, out of 600? Containing "phrases, sentences or, in some cases,

whole paragraphs" (like what?) "lifted from other publications" (like
which?).

Insiders say Blythe wasn't given a chance to explain- or defend herself.

Was that fair to a 30-year employee? Certainly, the N&O would
demand more answers if the Governor, or Trump, fixed somebody that
way.

As an N&O alum, I care about how the paper treats its people. This
decision strikes me as an unfair and unjust overreaction.

https://talldngaboutpolitics.com/clicking-on-the-no/#.W 7vRflKxvE
 EVERETT GASKINS HANCOCKI;

Stephen J. Burns, Esq.

November 29, 2018
PageS

Even among the passages at issue that do have similarities to stories written
by others, most involve quotes or facts, often from publicly available court
documents or press releases, already within the public domain. In other instances,
Anne personally interviewed individuals. who, not surprisingly, apparently gave
similar statements to other reporters. There are other stories from which Anne is
accused of plagiarizing that she is confident she had not read as part of her
research. There are also other questions, such as the extent to which passages were
edited after Anne submitted them, how Ms. Tomlin determined who reported what
first, and the extent to which some of the stories were the result of collaboration
between Anne and other staff writers, such as members of the "real-time" news
team (the 2016 red wolf story is an example of a piece that was the result of a
collaboration, Anne's recollection is that the story was primarily written by another
reporter yet placed under her byline as a result of an editorial decision).

The N&O and Ms. Tomlin apparently took none of this into account, but
instead disregarded the possibility that there might be more to the story and
recklessly rush-ed to publish career-ending allegations in the Note to Readers. Anne
did not even know that she had been fired after her meeting with Ms. Tomlin. She
learned that The N&O had "parted ways" with her from a friend who read it on The
N&O's website only a short time after she left her meeting with Ms. Tomlin and
before she had a chance to even complete her review of the report she had been
blindsided with that afternoon

Anne loved her job. She weathered the pay cuts and furloughs imposed by
McClatchy in recent years. She took on more and more work as ]\<Ic01atehy
systematically trimmed staff, often working overtime because she cared deeply
about The N&O, her colleagues, and the journalism profession. Over the past
several months, Anne has tried without success to obtain a new job in journalism.
Ms. TomUn's accusations appear to have rendered Aane unemployable in the
profession to which she has dedicated over 30 years of her life. Anne is prepared to
push forward and use the resources available to her to restore her reputation, but
first she wants to reach out one final time to her former colleagues at The N&O in
an effort to right this wrong.

I hope that we are able to work together to, as Mr. Martin aptly put it,
achieve "[a] careful and deliberate reevaluation by The N&O of Blythe's situation
to "prevent unnecessary damage to two hard-earned reputations." To that end,
please let me hear from you by December 10 to discuss an amicable way forward.
 EVERETT GASKINS HANCOCKI

Stephen J. Burns, Esq.

November 29, 2018
Page 4

While we hope we can find a resolution, I must remind The N&O, The
McClatchy Company, and their affiliates of their legal duty to preserve aU evidence
that is potentially relevant to this matter, including all electronically stored
information in any form. This duty specifically includes the suspension of all data
destruction and/or disposal. I request the issuance of an appropriate preservation
hold to aU custodians of potentially relevant information to ensure the preservation.
of evidence in the event that this matter goes to litigation.

Sincerely yours,

EVEEETT GASKINS HANCOGK LLP

is M. Hash

ec: Anne Blythe