Miltenberg specifically ought to be ashamed of himself, cashing checks instead of telling Stone "no" (which, I suspect, more reputable firms told her to before she found her way to Miltenberg). The defamation portion is little more than paper terrorism, seeking to cause distress (and possibly expense for representation/advice) to those who spoke to investigators, reporters, and the administration. Two quotes from the story alone undercut any potential of this surviving first contact with a judge:
RE the 'too many chiefs' quote: "Miltenberg characterized it as a “common phrase” that “many of us have used.”" Paraphrasing the reply as "I said it, but not the way they say I did", this concedes the point. She said it. Referencing that statement or using it to emphasize other offensive interactions is not defamation.
RE hazing and the environment: "Stone characterized those who have spoken out against her as a “small number” of people who “have not felt supported."" This concedes nearly everything else. Stone, an obvious public figure, needs to prove actual malice to win defamation charges. In this context, rather than 'truly disliked', 'actual malice' is best thought of as saying untrue things despite knowing (or recklessly avoiding learning) they were untrue. Stone, acknowledging that the hazing claims came from athletes who did not feel supported, can no longer turn and claim they were defamatory. I empathize that she feels the picture painted by The Athletic's and The Globe's reporting is inaccurate and unfair to her, but that's not defamation. As with the 'Chiefs' quote above, Stone is not owed anyone accepting her version of the story, her professed intent, or reading events in the light most favorable to her.
While Massachusetts is one of the states with an anti-SLAPP law, the narrow scope may prevent Stone's targets from meaningful relief. A robust anti-SLAPP law, the sort we need on a federal level, modifies the typical procedure in order to protect those who speak up on matters of public interest. From the earliest steps of the process, a plaintiff like Stone is forced to prove that what she's filed isn't a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation" designed to punish her targets for speaking about a matter of public concern. If she fails to (as Stone would), she is on the hook for her targets' legal expenses. Absent such a law, the routine pre-trial aspects of a case impose significant financial and emotional cost on the target, possibly getting through expensive, time-consuming, and stressful processes like discovery and depositions. It's abuse by process ('paper terrorism', as above) and even "victory" with an award of fees 9 months later fails to address the stress of the process and the cost & opportunity cost of spending that money and time defending yourself from a hopeless charge. Anti-SLAPP statutes force the plaintiff to first prove their victim should be subjected to that bar, which often stops these nuisance defamation claims in their tracks.
