Appeals court considers defamation claim over town procurement report and post-report statements

The final argument of the session addressed a defamation suit arising from a town procurement investigation and subsequent public statements. Jonathan Zepka, representing Ernest Cardillo, told the court an interview published in the Springfield Republican included statements that Cardillo changed the booksand cost the town roughly $83,000, and that those comments conveyed criminal wrongdoing beyond what the official report found.

Zepka said Cardillo had provided personal spreadsheets and records to town officials and that the boards later public statements equating those notations with criminal falsification were reckless and defamatory. abTo turn around two days after a formal hearing and accuse him of changing the books with the context of concealment is a reckless disregard for the truth,bb Zepka argued.

David Lawless, for the respondent, said the challenged statements were substantially true as the towns investigation and report documented incorrect or altered spreadsheet entries and that no evidence of actual malice existed. He urged the court to affirm the motion judges ruling in favor of the respondent. The court heard brief questioning about what constitutes town "books" versus personal spreadsheets and about how a jury would gauge actual malice, then took the case under submission.