U Tennessee Track & Field Head Coach Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against “Untruthful, Derogatory and Offensive Statements” Plus More Commentary

From a Report and Recommendations today by Magistrate Judge Jill McCook (E.D. Tenn.) in Ross v. Lambert:

According to the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff is a former collegiate track and field champion, 2004 Olympian, and the current Head Coach and Director of Track & Field at the University of Tennessee.” In August 2022, Plaintiff hired Defendant “to serve as the track and field Recruiting Coordinator—which was a non-coaching, administrative position.” Plaintiff alleges that less than a year later, in May 2023, he “advised [Defendant] that he was being terminated from his position as Recruiting Coordinator at the University of Tennessee.” He claims that he “gave [Defendant] the option of ‘voluntarily resigning’ from his position in lieu of being fired for cause[,]” which Defendant accepted.

Plaintiff contends that on May 30, 2024, Defendant sent the Office of General Counsel at the University of Tennessee (“University”) a demand letter (“May 30 Letter”), “threatening to sue the University and [Plaintiff] for ‘wrongful termination and discrimination’ if he did not receive payment of $150,000 from the University.” According to Plaintiff, “Defendant … made a series of patently false and inflammatory allegations against [Plaintiff] in the [May 30] Letter and warned that he would go to the media with his allegations if the University did not settle.” Specifically, the Complaint asserts that “[Defendant] made … knowingly false and derogatory statements[,]” including:

1. “Past Misconduct: Duane Ross has a documented history of questionable behavior. He received a two-year suspension from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for using performance-enhancing drugs, disqualifying all his results since November 2, 2001. His involvement in the BALCO steroid case further underscores his troubled past.”
2. “Family Issues: His son, Randolph Ross Jr., has also been suspended for doping violations. Randolph Ross Jr.’s suspension through June 30, 2025, for whereabouts failures and tampering with an email raises questions about the environment and influence under Duane Ross’s watch. Where do you think he learned that from?“
3. “Athlete Violations. Under His Watch: Under Duane Ross’s leadership, North Carolina A&T faced multiple suspensions of top athletes for doping violations. Grace Nwokocha was suspended right before the World Championships for doping. Additionally, Ross used an athlete who was not cleared by the NCAA, resulting in the forfeiture of team titles and performances. These incidents, though they occurred before his tenure at Tennessee, are closely tied to him and paint a picture of ongoing integrity issues.”
4. “Mr. Ross is not representing your brand appropriately, nor did he follow your procedures or policies, and I’m sure you provided him with all the tools to succeed and comply with your standards. This lack of competence raises serious questions about his ability to lead a program as esteemed as the University of Tennessee. At this point, he has proven to be a liability rather than an asset to the University.”

The University rejected Defendant’s demand.

Plaintiff claims that “[o]n or about March 3, 2025, less than two weeks before [Plaintiff’s] team began competing at the 2025 NCAA Indoor National Championships, Defendant Lambert, under the pseudonym ‘G. Fury,’ released two songs on Apple Music and Spotify—titled ‘Vault Talk’ and ‘Recruiter to Parent.'” “Both songs[,]” Plaintiff alleges, “contain defamatory lyrics impugning [Plaintiff’s] character, including but not limited to allegations of drug use by [Plaintiff] and his athletes.” Plaintiff states that Defendant also “published ‘Vault Talk’ and ‘Recruiter to Parent’ in a public Facebook group titled[,] The Real Deal Track & Field Group.” “In early-to-mid March 2025,” Plaintiff avers that “Defendant Lambert a/k/a G. Fury released three additional songs on Apple Music and Spotify.” He asserts that one of those songs, “Laws of Attraction,” “targeted [Plaintiff] with false and disparaging allegations of scandal and fraud.” And later, Defendant sent “Laws of Attraction” to Plaintiff via text message.

“On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff submits that “Defendant … a/k/a G. Fury published another nine-track album titled, ‘To C.A.P’ on Apple Music and Spotify.” Plaintiff claims that “[a] majority of the songs on the album are directed at [Plaintiff] and most, if not all of these songs, contain untruthful, derogatory and offensive statements about [him]” [Id.]. For instance, Plaintiff states that Defendant: “(i) alleges that [Plaintiff] and his son—who is an Olympic gold medalist and famous track and field star in his own right—of using [performance enhancing drugs]; (ii) claims that [Plaintiff] runs a dirty program at Tennessee; and (iii) accuses [Plaintiff] of infidelity.” According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s “album caught the attention of various social media personalities, who published stories about [Defendant’s] music on various mediums.”

“At or around this same time,” Plaintiff represents that Defendant “began spreading rumors that [Plaintiff]—who is married with three children—had an affair with one of his female assistant coaches and fathered a daughter with that coach.” He claims that Defendant, “in an intentional attempt to harass and embarrass [Plaintiff], posted on his Instagram and Facebook accounts multiple AI generated/doctored photographs of [Plaintiff’s] three children along with the assistant coach’s daughter … but digitally modified the girl’s face to make it appear to be [Plaintiff’s] face.” Later, in June 2025, Plaintiff states that Defendant “released yet another song on Apple Music and Spotify titled ‘S.L.A.P.,’ which clearly and unmistakenly insinuates that a paternity test is needed to determine if [Plaintiff] fathered the assistant coach’s daughter.”

Plaintiff contends that Defendant “remained silent over the next several months until resurfacing on November 12, 2025, when he directly texted [Plaintiff] criticizing [his] recent signing of a new track and field recruit.” But on December 5, 2025, Plaintiff states that Defendant “dramatically ramped up his malicious campaign of harassment and disparagement against [him].” According to Plaintiff, Defendant:

1. sent a defamatory and wildly inappropriate email to hundreds of individuals in the collegiate track and field community, including members of the University of Tennessee’s athletic department as well as members of the athletic departments of various rival schools such as Vanderbilt University, the University of Florida, the University of South Carolina, the University of Alabama, and the University of Texas … The six-page email includes a bizarre fictional script ridiculing [Plaintiff] as well as links to over 50 songs (including each of the defamatory songs detailed above) recorded by [Defendant] and released on Apple Music and Spotify. An overwhelming majority of these songs target [Plaintiff] and are intended to defame, demean, and humiliate him[;]
2. posted a video on Instagram and Facebook of a fake newscast about the BALCO steroid doping scandal from the early 2000s (which [Defendant] has repeatedly tried to link to [Plaintiff]) and its purported connection to the University of Tennessee Track and Field program under [Plaintiff; and]
3. between December 12 and December 25, 2025, Defendant Lambert posted more than 20 videos on Instagram and Facebook attacking [Plaintiff’s] character with blatantly false allegations of wrongdoing and/or creating highly offensive and demeaning fake videos using AI.

With respect to the AI generated videos, these include “video clips depicting [Plaintiff] … with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant continued making videos targeting him, which included accusations “of infidelity and impregnating (and then firing) his former assistant coach at the University.”

Plaintiff contends that “on January 6, 2026, a few days before Tennessee’s initial track and field meet of the 2026 season, Defendant … sent [Plaintiff] a text message in which he boasts that his campaign of defamation and cyber-harassment likely prevented [Plaintiff] from signing the top high school track recruit in the country to Tennessee’s 2026 recruiting class.” Plaintiff states that Defendant included in the text message “audio copies of two newly published songs by [Defendant] a/k/a/ ‘G. Fury’— titled ‘3-years-left’ and ‘kinda-nice’—both of which defame [Plaintiff] and various athletes in the Tennessee program.” According to Plaintiff, “[His] reputation—both professionally and personally—has been greatly damaged as a result of Defendant[‘s] … improper and wrongful conduct[,] and that [Defendant’s] defamatory and offensive social media posts, music, and videos have been disseminated throughout the track and field community in the United States.”

Plaintiff sought a TRO and preliminary injunction “enjoining Defendant from (1) contacting Plaintiff, (2) sending communications to various individuals, (3) publishing defamatory, disparaging, or offensive material that relate to Plaintiff or his family, and (4) making any public statements about certain topics {[i.e.,] about this litigation or about Plaintiff’s conduct as a publicly employed coach at a state university}.” But the Magistrate Judge recommended that no such injunction be issued; an excerpt:

“The First Amendment prohibits ‘abridging the freedom of speech,’ and the United States Supreme Court has interpreted this prohibition to forbid, among other things, ‘prior restraints.'” “[P]ermanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.” … “[I]n the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself.” The plaintiff’s burden to establish that a prior restraint is warranted is heavy but “not impossible to overcome.” Even so, “[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on the First Amendment rights.” …

[Plaintiff] asks the Court to enjoin Defendant from communicating with Plaintiff and others about Plaintiff, publishing statements about Plaintiff, and making any public statements about certain topics. In other words, he asks the Court to regulate Defendant’s speech….

Plaintiff does not argue that the injunction is warranted to prevent an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Instead, Plaintiff claims that “the relief sought is narrowly tailored to protect [him] from serious and consequential harm while placing only minimal limitations on Defendant Lambert’s First Amendment right to free speech.” That is not sufficient to restrict Defendant’s First Amendment rights at this juncture.

Moreover, although Plaintiff characterizes his proposed injunction as “narrow in scope,” the Court finds otherwise. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from sending “defamatory or disparaging statements” to various individuals and entities. “An injunction against defamatory statements, if permissible at all, must not through careless drafting forbid statements not yet determined to be defamatory, for by doing so it could restrict lawful expression.”

He also seeks to enjoin Defendant from “[m]aking any public statements” about certain topics. This is overly broad….

“[I]t would be extraordinary for a federal court to enter a preliminary injunction on a defamation claim.” … “It appears wholly unprecedented, however, for a federal court to enter a preliminary injunction in a defamation case. In those defamation cases upholding the constitutionality of restraints on future speech, the injunctions were entered after the claims were adjudicated on the merits, and the injunctions were limited to the speech that was actually found to be defamatory by the fact-finder.”

{Plaintiff relies on Lothschuetz v. Carpenter (6th Cir. 1990) and In re Conservatorship of Turner (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014), stating that they recognize or adopted the “modern rule” that permits injunctions restricting defamation. But the modern rule to which Plaintiff refers relates to courts entering injunctions after a determination on the merits…. “Six federal circuit courts of appeal have held that injunctions are permissible to prevent libel, but only after a finding on the merits that the speech is unprotected.” … “… [A]lthough the usual rule provides that defamation may be remedied only by an action for damages, even application of the modern rule bars plaintiffs’ requested injunction” because “there has been no final determination that defendant’s statements are false and libelous.”

I think that’s right; for more, see the analysis in Anti-Libel Injunctions.