An excerpt from Sunar v. Gray Local Media, Inc., issued today by Judge Kenneth Bell of the Western District of North Carolina:
The defendants, Gray Local Media, Inc. and Gray Media, Inc. (together referred to as “WBTV”), correctly reported on Dr. Sunar’s arrest and, at the request and with the approval of his attorney, on the subsequent dismissal and expungement. WBTV, however, chose not to erase its reporting, thereby preserving the historical record.
Dr. Sunar has claimed defamation arising from WBTV’s coverage and has brought suit seeking substantial damages in the tens of millions of dollars and the removal of WBTV’s articles from its archives. Although his aim of undoing the past is understandable, his legal claims against WBTV fail. The articles are indisputably truthful and fall squarely within the long-settled privilege of the media to report accurately on criminal proceedings.
On September 11, 2024, Dr. Sunar—the Charlotte-based dentist who has practiced in the area since 2002—was arrested and charged with misdemeanor child abuse and threatening communications. The following day, WBTV published an online article about the arrest under the headline “Charlotte dentist charged with child abuse, records show.” In pertinent part, the article stated:
A Charlotte dentist is facing child abuse charges after he was arrested last week, court records show. Jail records revealed 61-year-old Ramesh Kumar Sunar was arrested on Tuesday, Sept. 10, and was charged with misdemeanor child abuse and communicating threats. An arrest warrant said Sunar ‘inflicted physical injury’ on a child younger than 16 years old. The injury allegedly caused bruising on the child’s torso and neck, and was not caused by ‘accidental means.’ The warrant further stated that Sunar told a man ‘he would beat the [expletive] out of him.’ According to the warrant, both incidents happened on Sept. 2…. Sunar is listed as the lead doctor on Charlotte Dental Implant Center’s website.
WBTV also broadcast a report about the arrest, containing similar details and displaying Dr. Sunar’s mugshot. The mugshot was also posted on WBTV’s social media accounts with a link to the First Report. Dr. Sunar acknowledges that the First Report was accurate at the time it was published.
More than a year later, in October 2025, Dr. Sunar’s attorney informed WBTV that the charges had been dismissed and expunged. Counsel asked WBTV either to remove the First Report or to publish an addendum disclosing the dismissal and expungement. WBTV replied that it could “offer [Dr. Sunar] a new article that states the outcome of the case,” but that the original post would not be removed or altered due to its accuracy. The attorney for Dr. Sunar responded, “Yes please.”
On November 11, 2025, WBTV released the requested second article with the headline “Charges dropped against Charlotte dentist accused of child abuse in 2024,” and the subheading “Charges expunged in October 2025, officials confirm.” The Second Report summarized the charges against Dr. Sunar and confirmed that they had “been expunged on Oct. 10, 2025,” explaining that the expungement meant he “was cleared of the charges, and they were dropped from his public record entirely.” WBTV provided Dr. Sunar’s attorney with a link to the Second Report. The attorney replied, “Thank you!”
Nevertheless, the following month, Sunar sued for defamation and related claims. The court held that any claims arising from the First Report and associated social media posts were barred by North Carolina’s one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims. As for the Second Report, the court concluded:
Dr. Sunar does not contend, nor could he, that any statement in the Second Report is inaccurate. Moreover, the substance of the report is not defamatory, stating that Dr. Sunar had been cleared of the charges against him and his public record expunged. And finally, the Second Report was prepared at the request of Dr. Sunar’s attorney, who responded positively to its publication. In other words, Dr. Sunar seeks to recover on a defamation claim for a truthful publication put out at his request. The law cannot support such a result.
{Additionally, the media’s fair report privilege would support dismissal of Dr. Sunar’s defamation claim. The privilege arises from “the absolute privilege which attaches to statements made in the due course of a judicial proceeding.” Accordingly, with respect to reporting on court proceedings, “[p]laintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the statement was materially false. If a statement is substantially true, it is not materially false. It is not required that the statement was literally true in every respect. Slight inaccuracies of expression are immaterial provided that the statement was substantially true.” Once again, there is no claim of falsity here.}
