Defamation

The Litigation Privilege and Collateral Defamation Actions

Spawning Litigation Actions
I get the same question a couple of times a week, so I decided that a article on the litigation privilege is in order, so I will have a place to send potential clients for a detailed discussion. (I also briefly discuss the police report privilege.)

The question from potential clients almost always comes up in the context of wanting to start a collateral action* for defamation in response to something that is being said in some other court action. Here are the most common examples:

— A husband is going through a divorce, and his wife or a witness or the wife’s attorney filed a declaration with the court stating that he was physically abusive to the children. He wants to file an action against his wife (or the witness or the attorney) for defamation for the false claims made in the declaration.

— Someone is seeking or has obtained a restraining order against the caller, and in support of the request for a restraining order the person filed false declarations and gave false testimony in court. The caller has absolute proof, including emails and recordings, showing that the statements were false. The caller wants to sue for defamation because of all the false statements, which are now a matter of public record.

— An attorney sent a letter to an employee’s employer, claiming that the employee stole property and trade secrets from his former employer, and threatening to sue if the property is not returned or if the employer makes use of any of the trade secrets. Based on the letter, the company fires the employee rather than to run the risk of a lawsuit. The employee did not take any property from the former employer and is not using any trade secrets, and wants to sue the former employer and its attorney for defamation.

— An employee is suing for wrongful termination, and the deposition of one of his former co-workers is taken. At that deposition, the co-worker falsely claims that she was sexually harassed by the employee suing for wrongful termination. As a result of this claim, the court grants a motion for summary judgment and throws out the action, and the employee’s marriage is severely strained because of the claim of infidelity. The employee wants to sue the co-worker for defamation for what she said at her deposition.

— A person is sued for fraud, and in the complaint there are dozens of false allegations, stating that the defendant engaged in illegal conduct and made misrepresentations to the plaintiff in order to cheat her out of money. After the complaint is served, the plaintiff dismisses the action, but the complaint is now a matter of public record, and anyone doing a search on the Internet can find this complaint with all its lies. The defendant wants to sue for defamation.

Statements Made in Conjunction with Litigation are Privileged

None of the above circumstances would permit an action for defamation. A quick definition is necessary to explain why. Defamation requires an UNPRIVILEGED false statement. Therefore, if a statement is privileged, it cannot be defamatory.

The statements that are privileged are set forth in Civil Code section 47, which states in part:

47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made . . . (b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law . . . .

Thus, any statement made in conjunction with a “judicial proceeding” is privileged, and cannot form the basis of a defamation action. It’s that simple.

When I explain this to potential clients, I typically get a response that goes something like this:

“So you’re telling me, they can falsely accuse me of rape, and there’s NOTHING I can do about it?!”

“Well, your question was whether you could sue them for defamation, and no, you cannot sue them for defamation.”

“But I can prove that they knew what they said was false.”

“It’s not a question of being able to prove it’s false, you can’t sue them for defamation if the statement is made in conjunction with litigation.”

“So you’re telling me, they could falsely claim I murdered 50 people, and there’s NOTHING I can do about it?!”

And so it goes, with the caller coming up with greater and greater examples of outrageously false statements, apparently thinking that I will ultimately see the foolishness of what I am claiming, and respond, “Oh, well, if he falsely accuses you of killing 20,000 people, then THAT would be enough to sue for defamation.”

It doesn’t work that way. The litigation privilege is absolute, and once you understand the public policy behind this rule, you will probably agree that it is essential. I will also show you why it really doesn’t make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

A World Without the Litigation Privilege

Imagine a legal system without the litigation privilege. Let’s put you into a garden variety personal injury action as an example. You went to a bar and had a couple of beers, but you were there for many hours, so you were stone cold sober on your drive home. When you stopped for a red light, someone rear-ended you, and you are now suffering serious back problems as a result. You are suing the person who rear-ended you for your medical expenses and pain and suffering.

During discovery before the trial, the attorney representing the defendant who rear-ended you contacts your family members and employer, and asks them about your “drinking problem.” Following the conversation with the attorney, your boss calls you in and says you will no longer be permitted to use the company car, because he has concerns about your drinking.

The bartender is deposed and testifies that he saw you drinking before the accident, and recalls that you had ten beers, when in fact you only had two.

At trial, the defendant testifies that you stopped abruptly in the middle of the road for no reason, and that is what caused the accident. He claims that when you got out of the car, you apologized for the accident, stating that you were too drunk to be driving. Both statements are false.

As a result of the testimony of the bartender and the defendant, the jury finds in favor of the defendant. In the hallway following the verdict, the jurors all tell you that you should seek help for your drinking problem. You have to pay thousands in court costs to the defendant.

In this world without a litigation privilege, what do you do? Well, you can’t let stand all those false claims, so you file two more actions, suing the bartender and the defendant for defamation. For good measure, you file a third action against the attorney for talking to people about your alleged drinking problem.

Thus, your one action has now spawned three more. Now, when you testify in those three actions that the bartender, defendant and attorney were all lying, how should they respond? They can’t allow those accusations to go unchallenged, so they each file lawsuits back against you for calling them liars. Our original personal injury action has now spawned six new actions. In fact, since you claimed that the person who rear-ended you was negligent, and he proved that he wasn’t, he probably already sued you for lying about him in the first action.

And there is a collateral effect. The bartender testified to what he thought was the truth. He remembered you as having ten beers, but he had confused you with someone else and was just wrong. For coming to court and telling what he thought was the truth, he bought himself a lawsuit. He now must pay an attorney thousands of dollars to defend him against your defamation action. Would anyone ever agree to testify in court if they could be sued for what they say? They could be compelled to attend with a subpoena, but you can bet they are going to testify that they don’t remember anything in order to avoid being sued.

Thus the reason for the ABSOLUTE litigation privilege. If you allow anyone to be sued for what they say in conjunction with a lawsuit, the system would fall apart. Every action would spawn many more, and the courts would be unable to keep up. No one would be willing to testify, so cases would often be impossible to prove.

The frustration of the callers is understandable, especially when they have proof that the statements were false. They understand generally the reasons for the litigation privilege, but feel that there must be an exception when there is irrefutable proof that the other side knowingly make false statements. But consider that for a moment. If there was an “I have absolute proof that the witness knew he was lying” exception, how would that work? That exception would defeat the rule, because then anyone could file an action claiming to be in possession of such proof. The action would still have to be litigated in order to look at the proof.

The only “exception” is that the statements have to made in furtherance of litigation. Anything said in court or in a court document is obviously privileged, but so too are the statements by the attorney when he contacted potential witnesses.

Collateral Actions Accomplish Nothing.

Before you rail against this necessary public policy, claiming that there should be a consequence for lying, understand also that it really doesn’t make much difference. Here is why.

A caller will tell me that during divorce proceedings, his wife lied about him abusing the children, and as a result he got limited visitation. He wants to sue for defamation for all the lies about the abuse.

But wait a minute. “Didn’t you explain during the divorce proceedings that you did not abuse the children?”, I ask.

“Yes, and all my family members testified that I was a wonderful father who never hit my children, the children testified that I never hit them, and we had an expert witness, a social worker who testified that there was no indication that I ever abused the children.” But my wife testified that I did beat the children, some of her friends testified that long before the divorce she had told them about me beating the children, and her expert witness testified that the behavior of the children was indicative of abuse by the father. For whatever reason, the judge believed her witnesses and not my witnesses.”

“OK, so with every opportunity to tell your side of the case, the judge did not believe you and you lost. Why would the result be different in a new case?”

“Well I have more witnesses, and she introduced hospital records of one of my children being taken to the hospital for a broken finger, and claimed that I broke that finger, but I can prove that I was away on business on that day.”

“Did something prevent you from introducing those travel records to the judge in the divorce action?”, I ask.

“Well, no, but it was so obvious that I did not abuse the children I didn’t think I needed to.”

So you see why a collateral action, even if permitted, would not accomplish anything. If the party could not prove their position in one court, there is no reason to believe they will have a different result in another. And if there was more evidence that could have been presented, it should have been presented in the first action. The strong public policy supporting the litigation privilege does not need to bend to give you a second bite at the apple – just put on all your evidence in the first action. If despite all your evidence the judge gets it wrong, then you should appeal from that case, not file a new one.

Be honest with yourself, and you will have to admit the real reason you want to bring a collateral action.

If the following does not apply to you, then don’t be offended. In the vast majority of cases, when someone calls wanting to sue for defamation for something said in a court document, their real motive has nothing to do with wanting to clear their name. Conceptually, it makes no sense to bring a separate action to prove the falsity of a statement made in pending litigation, for all the reasons already stated. If you didn’t abuse the children, prove it in the divorce proceeding.

Indeed, the oft-stated reason for bringing the action is because all the lies told in court are now a matter of public record, and the caller wants to clear his name. If so, then his name needs to be “cleared” in the same action, so anyone seeing that public record will see the truth. Winning in a separate action would do nothing to correct the record in that other action.

The real reason the person is calling wanting to file a separate action — one that they will often deny — is they are seeking leverage. They reason that if they can file a separate action and expose the witness or party to civil liability, or just the cost and annoyance of having to deal with the second action, that will pressure the person to alter or withdraw the testimony. That is not a proper purpose for legal action.

Does that mean you are completely without remedy?

Lying on the stand or in a declaration is perjury, which is a criminal offense. If you can prove that the person knew what they were saying was false, then by all means file a police report. The police cannot become a back-door court of appeal, deciding who was lying, so the standard remains the same. If you could not prove your point in the first action, then the lie that you claim was perjury will probably not be black and white enough for the police to pursue it.

Also, the statement is only privileged if it is made in conjunction with the litigation. That is a very broad definition. The statement does not need to be in a court document, but it must advance the litigation. That is why the attorney talking to the family members about your drinking problem was privileged. But if that same attorney calls a press conference and discusses your alleged drinking problem, you could then sue for defamation since that does nothing to advance the litigation.

A few words about limited privileges.

Thus far, I have discussed only the litigation privilege, which is absolute. There are a number of privileges, and some of them are only limited privileges. With a limited privilege, the person can be sued for defamation if it can be shown that the statement in question was made with malice. In those cases, it is not enough to show the statement was false, you must show that the person made the statement with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

The Common Interest Privilege is the most prevalent privilege with only limited immunity. This privilege is set forth in Civil Code section 47(c), which provides:

A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: . . .

(c) In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information. This subdivision applies to and includes a communication concerning the job performance or qualifications of an applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon request of, one whom the employer reasonably believes is a prospective employer of the applicant. This subdivision authorizes a current or former employer, or the employer’s agent, to answer whether or not the employer would rehire a current or former employee. This subdivision shall not apply to a communication concerning the speech or activities of an applicant for employment if the speech or activities are constitutionally protected, or otherwise protected by Section 527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.

As you can see, this is a very broad privilege, giving limited immunity to anyone who is speaking to another, so long as they have a good faith belief that the person to whom they are speaking is interested in the subject matter.

Note also that this section destroys the cherished belief held by many that when you look for work and your prospective employer calls for a reference, your former employer can’t say anything bad about you. Also in the employment context, this is the section that prevents you from suing an employee for telling lies about you to management (unless you can show those lies were told with malice).

Here is the actual jury instruction on the limited (also referred to as the “qualified privilege”):

1723. Qualified Privilege (Civ. Code, § 47(c))

Under the circumstances of this case, [name of plaintiff] cannot recover damages from [name of defendant], even if the statement(s) [was/were] false, unless [he/she] also proves that [name of defendant] acted with hatred or ill will toward [him/her].

If [name of defendant] acted without reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statement(s), this is a factor you may consider in determining whether [he/she] acted with hatred or ill will toward [name of plaintiff].

Note that the jurors are specifically instructed that they cannot award damages even if the statements were false, unless the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with malice. Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff, and that is a tough burden to meet since it involves getting into the defendant’s head.

I see this often in the sexual harassment context. A woman reports to HR that she is feeling sexually harassed by a coworker, and as a result of that report, the coworker is investigated and possibly even fired. The report by the woman is privileged because HR would certainly want to know if an employee is sexually harassing another. It may be that the coworker did something innocent like offering to get the woman a cup of coffee, but if the woman took that as sexual harassment, the fact that she was 100% wrong does not translate her reporting the incident into a malicious act, and she would be protected by the limited privilege.

Finally, note that the quantum of harm does not determine whether a defamation action exists. If the common interest privilege applies and no malice can be shown, then the fact that the false report of sexual harassment destroyed the coworker’s marriage and caused him to be fired, does not create a defamation action. Again, defamation requires an UNPRIVILEGED statement, so if the statement was privileged, then it can never be morphed into defamation no matter how much damage it caused.

* Collateral Action or Attack — A legal action to challenge a ruling in another case. For example, Joe Parent has been ordered to pay child support in a divorce case, but he then files another lawsuit trying to prove a claim that he is not the father of the child. A “direct attack” would have been to raise the issue of parenthood in the divorce action.

Share

SLAPPs: Birds do it, bees do it, even big law firms that should know better, do it.

angry photoI’m not so sure about that title, but it made me chuckle. The point of this article is that attorneys who create SLAPPs run the gamut, including large firms, who would presumably have an attorney or two who should know better. This latest case in my office is an object lesson as to how SLAPPs come about, and why the California’s SLAPP statute was such a great idea.

The case is the typical scenario where my client went off and started a business to compete with his former employer, and the former employer doesn’t like that one bit. The company sued, claiming the usual misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with prospective economic advantage and the like. My client cross-complained for breach of contract, because the company stopped paying certain significant residuals to which he is entitled. We will ultimately win, but the company is going to do what it’s going to do.

“Don’t you dare tell the world about how we’re going out of business.”

One thing it decided to do was to use the action to silence any criticism by my client. My client sent out a cautionary email to employees of the company, warning them about the shenanigans of the company. He explained that the company had not only breached contracts by cutting off his residuals, it had done the same to someone else. The email then directed the recipients to reports about the company published by Moody’s and Bloomberg, as well as press releases by the company itself, which all stated that the company is in some pretty dire financial straights.

He also sent out a press release, summarizing some events in the litigation. Specifically, when we took the deposition of the former vice president of the company, he took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions. The press release accurately reported those facts.

The company is represented by a law firm I had never heard of before this case, but according to its letterhead, it has some 30 offices, with five or six of them right here in California. It must be a pretty big firm.

The company and its attorneys apparently decided that while they were doing what they were going to do, my client is not allowed to tell anybody about the litigation or point to news stories about the finances of the company. They amended their complaint, adding four cause of action for libel, trade libel*, false advertising and unfair competition, all based on the email and the press release.

Under the heading of you can’t make this stuff up, here are some of the things they alleged were defamatory.

“It’s not 100% certain we are going to fail, it’s only close to 100%.”

My client provided a link to the article by Moody’s, and he said, “as one analyst says, the chances of [the company] defaulting on its [debts] is 100%.”

That’s defamatory, according to the complaint, because the analyst actually said, “the chances of [the company] defaulting on its [debts] is close to 100%.” So, apparently in opposing counsels’ world, that difference is defamatory because someone wanting to invest in the company would be put off by reading that the chance of default is 100%, but if they knew it was only “close to 100%” then they would be pulling out their checkbooks.

My client also wrote that his “complaint against [the company] alleges twelve causes of action, including . . . breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . among others.”

Why is that defamatory? Because according to the complaint, my client did NOT file a complaint, he filed a CROSS-complaint, and the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was thrown out on demurrer (before I was involved).

So, again, for that to have caused any loss of reputation, we have to assume that someone considering working for the company or investing in it would say, “I’m fine with a company that doesn’t pay its employees, so long as that’s only alleged in a cross-complaint, and so long as there is no cause of action for breach of the implied covenant. But if there’s a COMPLAINT that alleges breach of the implied covenant, the deal’s off!

This is the precise sort of case for which the anti-SLAPP statute was designed. In my never to be humble opinion, the causes of action were added purely out of a desire to gain leverage in the action, and a quick disposal of that sort of claim is the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute. This was the quintessential SLAPP, and you are left scratching your head as to how a firm could have blundered into it, unless . . .

Crazy like a fox?

Since the SLAPP was so obvious, it has not escaped me that the firm may be crazy like a fox. It just smacks of a set-up. As stated, at the end of the day the company will be writing my client a substantial check. When I first came into the case, opposing counsel was fighting to postpone the trial, trying to put off that eventuality. It takes about six months to have a motion heard in this courtroom, and the judge does not move up motions on an ex parte application unless there has been a cancellation. If opposing counsel checked my background and saw that anti-SLAPPs are a big part of my practice, they may have filed an intentional SLAPP as a means to delay the action. That may seem crazy given the attorney fees that will come from the successful motion, but given the finances of the company, the goal might just be to push this case beyond a bankruptcy filing.

Still, I was recently retained to handle an appeal in a case where the judge improperly denied an anti-SLAPP motion, and then compuounded the error by refusing to give a jury instruction on protected speech. The jury awarded substantial damages based on protected speech. That case illustrates why it is crucial to get protected activities out of the action, even if it is clear that the plaintiff may have filed a SLAPP for purposes of delay.

*A rookie mistake to allege trade libel. It seldom makes sense to allege trade libel because the elements are far harder to meet than an action for libel, and it certainly doesn’t make sense to allege trade libel when you are already alleging libel.

Share

Council spent £200,000 trying to unmask anonymous blogger

A council has dropped a five-year, £200,000 legal campaign trying to unmask a blogger called Mr Monkey, who made allegations of impropriety against four senior members of the authority. A Freedom of Information request has forced South Tyneside council to admit how much they spent trying (and failing) to discover the identity of Mr Monkey, who made allegations of impropriety against four senior members of the authority. They've dropped the curious case after the Guardian started asking questions

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Council suspected the blog was authored by Ahmed Khan, but Khan has always vehemently denied being Mr Monkey and unsuccessfully filed an ‘anti-SLAPP’ (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) motion in 2011, which would have prevented the council from obtaining more of his details. But this claim was dismissed by a judge as “frivolous”, as the nature of the John Doe suit meant he was never named as a defendant. 


There are procedures by which an anonymous blogger can oppose a subpoena that would expose his identity, but you can't simply bring an anti-SLAPP motion claiming you're not the defendants.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cooley Law School loses defamation suit against New York law firm

Cooley Law School has lost an appeal in their defamation lawsuit against a law firm that posted criticism of the school's reporting of student debt on a popular law school message board.


The school had filed a $17 million lawsuit against Kurzon Strauss LLC, a New York firm, and two attorneys associated with the firm, Jesse Strauss and David Anziska, accusing them of posting defamatory statements on the popular law school message board "JD Underground". The post said that federal regulators were investigating Cooley Law School over student loan default rates and employment for graduates.


Those statements were later retracted, but the firm then began preparing a proposed class-action lawsuit against the school, at which point Cooley filed its suit against the firm accusing them of defamation, breach of contract and interference with business relations, among other claims.


A trial court granted judgment to Kurzon Strauss before trial, saying that Cooley Law School was a "public figure" and therefore would have to prove that the firm acted with a disregard for the truth, a bar the court said Cooley could not clear


Source: www.mlive.com

When in individual or entity is deemed to be a "limited public figure", the theory is that such a person has greater access to the media, and therefore tell their side of the story. Therefore, when a limited public figure sues for defamation, they have  a higher standard of proof to show that defamation. Specifically, they must show the person who allegedly defamed them acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth".


Here, the court concluded that Cooley Law School would not be able to meet that burden.


Go here for more Internet Defamation cases.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can a Court Order Someone Not to Defame You?

Temporary Restraining Order

I get many calls from victims of Internet defamation who want me to go to court and get an order to stop the defamation. In other words, they want a court order that stops someone from speaking or publishing statements that the victims deems to be defamatory. Is that possible?

Like most legal questions, the answer is, “it depends.”

California law is very clear that after a trial has determined that the statements being made are defamatory, the court can order the defendant to stop making those statements. The reason is that defamatory speech is not protected, so once it has been found to be defamatory, the court can order the defendant not to repeat the defamatory statements. Once the court has issued such an order, it can be enforced just like any other court order, with the court assessing sanctions and even jail time if the defendant refuses to comply.

By the way, most attorneys do not appear to be aware that a “gag order” is constitutionally permissible. In law school it was drummed into their heads that a court cannot order someone to speak, but they fail to realize that once a court has found that a statement is defamatory, it is no longer protected speech. I see complaint after complaint where the attorney has not requested injunctive relief, and that does not serve the client well. Without the injunction, even if the defamed party prevails on the defamation action, there will be nothing to prevent the defendant from saying the same things again, necessitating an entirely new case. As a practical matter, a defendant just having been found liable for defamation will probably not want to be sued again for the same comments, but I prefer not to leave things to chance.

So you absolutely can silence someone AFTER the court has found the speech is defamatory, but the much tougher challenge is getting a court to order a defendant to stop defaming the victim BEFORE there has been a trial. Typically, it takes at least a year to take a matter to trial, and that may be far too long for the defamation victim. A temporary injunction can be obtained in a matter of days, so that affords a much faster remedy if it is available.

But there is a problem. Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Anti-SLAPP Motions are Used For Just About Everything

Paris Hilton Greeting Card

This case is a few years old, but it illustrates how anti-SLAPP issues can come up in just about any context. In this entertaining case, Hallmark Cards published a card using Paris Hilton’s likeness, and her ridiculous tag-line, “that’s hot”.

Hilton sued for the unauthorized commercial use of her image and, incredibly, Hallmark brought an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming the card was a matter of public interest. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the card and its speech was not a matter of public interest, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed.

“First, ‘public interest’ does not equate with mere curiosity. Second, a matter of public interest should be something of concern to a substantial number of people. Thus, a matter of concern to the speaker and a relatively small, specific audience is not a matter of public interest. Third, there should be some degree of closeness between the challenged statements and the asserted public interest; the assertion of a broad and amorphous public interest is not sufficient. Fourth, the focus of the speaker’s conduct should be the public interest rather than a mere effort to gather ammunition for another round of private controversy. Finally, … [a] person cannot turn otherwise private information into a matter of public interest simply by communicating it to a large number of people.”

Here is the complete opinion.

 

Share

Why It Is a Really Bad Idea to Use Litigation as a Means to Discover Defamation

Defamation - Shot in Foot

I get this type of call perhaps twice a week, so I decided to post this article, in order to provide detailed information to prospective clients who bring up these issues.

Here is the scenario. The caller is convinced that he is being slandered, but does not know exactly what is being said. He may know who is making the statements, but has heard only rumors about what is being said, or has witnessed only the consequences of the statements. Often the issue will arise in the workplace, where because of the statements of a co-worker, the caller is being passed over for promotions, or perhaps was terminated because of those statements. Other times it might be a neighborhood situation, where the caller feels he is being shunned by neighbors and has reason to believe it is because of something said at an HOA meeting.

The problem with this sort of case is that you can’t determine if you are being defamed until you know what is being said. The consequence of a false statement can be severe, but that does not mean the statement is defamatory. For example, you might be entirely correct that you are being passed over for promotions because of something being said by a co-worker, but that co-worker might simply be saying that you are lazy and should not be promoted. That statement is not defamatory, because it is an opinion. Defamation can be very nuanced, and whether a statement is defamatory can come down to a single word or even the voice inflection used.

Before I can take a case, I have to know what was said. In cases where the prospective client does not have direct evidence of what is being said, I have a simple screening process. Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Anti-SLAPP Motion Does Not Dispose of Action as to Unprotected Claims

Anti-SLAPP Court of AppealIn a ruling that makes perfect sense, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be used to excise some allegations in a cause of action that involve protected activities, while leaving intact those allegations that do not fall under the statute.

In Cho v. Chang (LASC case number B239719), Jessica Chang sued a former co-worker, Howard Cho, for sexual assault and harassment. Chang filed a cross-complaint that was a clear SLAPP, because the two causes of action alleged defamation and infliction of emotional distress based on the things Chang had said about Cho to her employer, EEOC and DFEH. As I have said here many time, statements to government entities are protected, and the statements to the employer are a natural part of the redress process, and therefore are also protected.

But wait a second. The cross-complaint also alleged that the statements by Chang to her co-workers were defamatory. In some circumstances statements to co-workers can be protected, and indeed that was the argument made by Chang, but here the connection was too attenuated. As the court stated,

“Chang argues that her comments to co-workers related to matters of ‘public interest,’ but that is without merit. A public interest involves more than mere curiosity or private information communicated to a small number of people; it concerns communications to a substantial number of people and some connection with the public interest rather than a private controversy.”

So, if the allegations about the statements to co-workers state a valid action for defamation and infliction of emotional distress, must that baby be thrown out with the bath water just because it is contained in the same cause of action that include protected speech? Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson, and the Court of Appeal, answered “no” to that question. They both determined that an anti-SLAPP motion could be used surgically to remove just the allegations of protected activities and speech, while leaving any cognizable claims.

Nonetheless, the anti-SLAPP motion was successful, at least in part, so did Chang recover her attorney fees? In that regard, Judge Johnson was not very charitable. The judge noted that a party prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion is normally entitled to an award of attorney fees, but said:

“While Chang’s motion has been granted in part, the ruling has produced nothing of consequence. Cho is still entitled to pursue his causes of action for defamation and [intentional infliction of emotional distress], and the evidence to be presented at trial is largely the same. Chang should have been aware that Cho’s allegations about private comments were viable, and she should have addressed the other allegations in a more focused and less burdensome manner (such as a traditional motion to strike or a motion in limine). Chang’s request for an award of fees and costs is denied.”

Share

Defamation is Bad, but it Doesn’t Justify Chilling Free Speech

Blocked in Canada

Our neighbors to the North are very American-like, until you get to issues of free speech. Most view Canada as the “least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.” Reasonable minds can differ on some of Canada’s laws, such as prohibiting the media from identifying criminals until they have been convicted, but most of the law is still based on policies designed to prevent any criticism of the government. Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed.

A recent parody video posted on You Tube illustrates just how lacking the concept of free speech is in Canada. The video is a fake cable company ad posted by Extremely Decent Films. It does not mention any cable company by name, and indeed it is specifically directed at American cable companies. Nonetheless, someone lodged a complaint in Canada, and that was sufficient to scare You Tube into removing the video, given the vagaries of Canada’s libel laws (although the video has since been reposted in response to articles such as this one).

Share

Anti-SLAPP Victory: Reality Television is Free Speech

storage warsThe reality show “Storage Wars” has created a case that offers some important anti-SLAPP (and litigation) lessons.

In December, David Hester filed a lawsuit against A&E Television Networks alleging that producers of Storage Wars rigged the reality-television series by salting storage lockers with valuable items before they were auctioned off to buyers. The producers deny the claim, pointing out that they have no access to the lockers before they are sold, but it could be that they are adding the items with the assistance of the buyers, after the purchase, to make the show more entertaining. After all, if the show was nothing but lockers full of expired National Geographic magazines, that would get boring fast. But I digress.

According to his lawsuit, Hester was told that his contract would be renewed for season four, but after complaining about the “fraud” that was being perpetrated on the viewers, he was told his services would no longer be required. He sued A&E and another entity for wrongful termination (huh?), breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, unfair business practices, and declaratory relief.

Lesson 1:  For every wrong, there is not necessarily a remedy.

Some attorneys just never get this. If I hire you for my television show, and I have the contractual right not to renew that contract at some point in the future, and you do something I don’t like, such as telling me you don’t like the way I am running the show that I’m paying you $750,000 to be on, then I just may decide not to keep you around. You are not some bastion for the public, given the task of making sure my show is pure. All reality shows are faked to some extent, and the viewers all know they are faked (although, incredibly, I did once run into a guy who thinks Ghost Hunters is totally legit).

It may stink that Hester got “fired” for wanting to keep the show honest, but if he wanted to make sure he never got fired for criticizing the show, the he should have added a “you may not fire me when I tell you your show stinks” clause to his contract.

Lesson 2:  A faked reality show is an expression of free speech.

Can you sue Stephen King when you find out Pet Sematary [sic] is not based on reality? Then why did Hester and his counsel think they could sue A&E for its fictional Storage Wars? Not surprisingly, A&E’s attorneys asked the same question in the form of an anti-SLAPP motion. The motion was a no-brainer, because it involves a free speech issue of public interest, bringing it within the anti-SLAPP statute, and there was zero chance of Hester prevailing on at least one or more of his causes of action, so the second element was a lock. Read the rest of this entry »

Share
Aaron Morris, Attorney
Aaron Morris
Morris & Stone, LLP

Tustin Financial Plaza
17852 17th St., Suite 201
Tustin, CA 92780

(714) 954-0700

Email Aaron Morris
Latest Podcast
California SLAPP Law Podcast
SLAPP Law Podcast

Click on PLAY Button above to listen to California SLAPP Law Podcast, or listen on Stitcher Radio, iTunes and TuneIn Radio!

SiteLock
DISCLAIMERS

NOTICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6158.3: The outcome of any case will depend on the facts specific to that case. Nothing contained in any portion of this web site should be taken as a representation of how your particular case would be concluded, or even that a case with similar facts will have a similar result. The result of any case discussed herein was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts.

This site seeks to present legal issues in a hopefully entertaining manner. Hyperbolic language should not be taken literally. For example, if I refer to myself as the “Sultan of SLAPP” or the “Pharaoh of Free Speech,” it should not be assumed that I am actually a Sultan or a Pharaoh.

Factual summaries are entirely accurate in the sense of establishing the legal scenario, but are changed as necessary to protect the privacy of the clients.