Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg has taken his long-simmering frustration with The Palm Beach Post to court, filing a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday that accuses the paper and its corporate owners of repeatedly peddling a false story about his role in the Jeffrey Epstein saga. The suit claims the Post wrongly told readers that Aronberg blocked release of Epstein’s 2006 grand-jury transcripts. He is asking for compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial, and the complaint was processed by the Palm Beach County clerk this week. His attorneys say the coverage distorted what his office actually did and note that no retraction has been issued.
Who Aronberg sued
The lawsuit names CA Florida Holdings LLC (publisher of The Palm Beach Post), USA Today Co., Gannett Media Corp., Post editor Holly Baltz and the paper’s outside attorney Stephen Mendelsohn. It accuses them of knowingly repeating the claim that Aronberg “opposed” release of the grand-jury materials. According to BocaNewsNow, the filing says the Post and its attorney knew by October 2019 that Aronberg’s office had already turned over everything in its possession related to Epstein.
Long legal fight over the Epstein records
The defamation case drops into the middle of a years-long legal tug-of-war over access to Epstein’s 2006 grand-jury materials, a dispute that has spawned dozens of filings and at least one appellate ruling. A May 10, 2023 opinion from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal is part of the procedural record Aronberg points to in the complaint, and earlier court papers show the Post has repeatedly pushed for disclosure of the files. As detailed in the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion, the appeals process has been a central front in the fight over whether those records must be unsealed.
What Aronberg says the Post got wrong
At the core of Aronberg’s complaint is a July 3, 2024 Post article that, according to the suit, quoted Mendelsohn as saying the transcripts “could have been released sooner were it not for opposition from current State Attorney Dave Aronberg.” The filing labels that statement false, asserting that Aronberg’s office never had the grand-jury records in the first place and that releasing them would have been a criminal act under Florida law. The complaint also says the Post doubled down by repeating the theme in follow-up coverage and a letter to the editor, according to BocaNewsNow.
Legal hurdles for public officials
Because Aronberg served as an elected prosecutor, courts could treat him as a public official or public figure, which makes his path to a libel win significantly tougher. Under the Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan precedent, a public-official plaintiff has to show “actual malice,” meaning the defendant published a falsehood while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true. That constitutional standard will sit at the center of the case if it survives the early rounds of motions and moves into discovery; see New York Times v. Sullivan for the controlling rule.
What happens next
The complaint sets up a civil clash that revisits questions reporters and prosecutors have been fighting over for years: who controls grand-jury material and how aggressively news outlets can characterize battles over access. If the case moves forward, expect an opening volley of motions over privilege and jurisdiction, debate over whether the Post’s repeated coverage adds up to actual malice, and then discovery if a judge lets the suit advance. Any formal responses and a schedule for motions will appear on the court docket in the coming weeks.
