They don’t need to prove that he’s missing work, drunk all the time and that his job is on the chopping block. They don’t have to prove anything. The onus is on Patel to prove that they acted with actual malice which means that either they knew the information was false or had good reason to suspect their information was wrong (besides his denial and threats) and printed it anyway.

Yes, proving those statements were all truth is an absolute defense to defamation, but they only need to defend themselves from the accusation of absolute malice.

Given they attributed everything that said to various (and many) different sources in multiple departments of the government, it seems clear that the only way that that is happening is if they made up these quotes wholecloth, if had reason to think a dozen plus government employees both in and outside of his department are giving false witness about him, or if they have in the possession overwhelming evidence that the witnesses are mistaken. Good luck proving that.

They don’t need to do much but let Patel drag this story through court, bring more attention to it, and coast off of the publicity.