In this Thursday, Jan. 15, 2015 photo, students participating in rush pass by the Phi Kappa Psi house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va. AP Photo/Steve Helber Three University of Virginia graduates on Wednesday filed a defamation lawsuit in New York against Rolling Stone magazine, its publisher Wenner Media, and a journalist over a now-debunked 2014 article describing a fraternity gang rape.

The three men, all 2013 graduates and members of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity at the center of the story, claim the magazine was negligent in publishing an article called "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. They are seeking damages for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

The fraternity announced in April that it would be suing the magazine, although no lawsuit has yet been filed. A UVA dean — Nicole Eramo — filed a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone in May.

After Phi Kappa Psi announced its planned lawsuit, David Ardia, a professor at the University of North Carolina law school and co-director of the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy, told Business Insider that a plaintiff could have a strong case against the magazine because of an investigative report into Rolling Stone's questionable reporting and editorial decisions conducted by Columbia Journalism School.

The Columbia review — which Rolling Stone asked for — found the magazine's article had failings that included "basic, even routine journalistic practice."

Erdely and the magazine's editors have also been criticized for not reaching out to key people involved in the story, specifically those with supposed knowledge of a fraternity gang-rape described by UVA student "Jackie."

"In hindsight, the most consequential decision Rolling Stone made was to accept that Erdely had not contacted the three friends who spoke with Jackie on the night she said she was raped. That was the reporting path, if taken, that would have almost certainly led the magazine's editors to change plans," the report stated.

Columbia's review may prove to be a double-edged sword for Rolling Stone, according to Ardia.

"The ethics of journalism is to admit when you made a mistake, and Rolling Stone has done something quite laudable by getting this report done in the first place and then sharing it," he said.

On the other hand, Ardia said, admitting its faults may make the Rolling Stone case more difficult to defend in court. "They have made a bed," he said, "that's going to be very difficult to sleep in."

Another thing that may work in favor of the three plaintiffs is that they will likely be considered private figures in the lawsuit.

If a private figure brings a defamation case, they simply have to prove the media outlet was negligent. As Ardia explained, a private figure's case is based on the standard of whether a "reasonable person" would have published that statement.

The determination of a plaintiff's status as a public or private figure is typically made by a court.

Rolling Stone apologized in December for "discrepancies" in the account, after the story sparked a national debate over sexual violence on college campuses.

Rolling Stone declined to comment on the lawsuit when reached by Business Insider.