Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-11550-PBS |
| Citation | 199 F.Supp.3d 334 |
| Parties | Abdulrahman ALHARBI, Plaintiff, v. THEBLAZE, INC. ; Glenn Beck; Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.; and Premiere Radio Networks. Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
199 F.Supp.3d 334
Abdulrahman ALHARBI, Plaintiff,
v.
THEBLAZE, INC. ; Glenn Beck; Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.; and Premiere Radio Networks. Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 14-11550-PBS
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
Signed August 9, 2016
Peter J. Haley, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boston, MA, Patrick T. Uiterwyk, Shlansky Law Group, LLP, Chelsea, MA, for Plaintiff.
Michael J. Grygiel, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Albany, NY, Zachary C. Kleinsasser, Emily C. Hannigan, Mark A Berthiaume, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Saris, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Abdulrahman Alharbi is a twenty-three-year-old student from Saudi Arabia,
who resides in Revere, Massachusetts. He was a spectator at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, was injured in the bombing, and was questioned by federal authorities investigating the event while he was still being treated for his injuries at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Plaintiff brings this suit against radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, and the owners and distributor of The Glenn Beck Show, for defamation (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count III) because Beck identified Alharbi as an active participant in the bombing, even after the authorities had publically exonerated him. The plaintiff also brings a claim against Glenn Beck for punitive damages (Count II). Between April 19, 2013 and May 8, 2013, Beck stated in radio broadcasts that Alharbi was involved in recruiting the Tsarnaev brothers, gave the "go order" for the bombing, and was the "money man" who funded the attacks.
The defendants maintain that the statements were true, and that they relied on several confidential government sources in developing the broadcasts. The plaintiff has moved to compel the identity of the confidential sources (Docket No. 78), and the defendants have moved for summary judgment (Docket No. 97).
Alharbi argues that the confidential source information is directly relevant to his claims, and cannot otherwise be determined from a less sensitive source. The defendants respond that the motion to compel is untimely, and that the sources' identities are protected by a qualified privilege under the First Amendment.
The defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff has not met his burden to put forward evidence of negligence or malice. The defendants maintain that Alharbi is a limited-purpose public figure, and/or an involuntary public figure, and therefore must prove that the defendants acted with knowledge that the statements were false, or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, under the constitutional malice standard. The plaintiff maintains that he is not a public figure. After hearing, the Court ALLOWS in part and DENIES in part both the motion to compel the identity of the confidential sources and the motion for summary judgment.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
With all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, Alharbi, the following facts are not in dispute, except where noted.
I. The Boston Marathon Bombing
The plaintiff is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. On April 15, 2013, he was a twenty-year-old student at the New England School of English, living in Revere, Massachusetts. He attended the Boston Marathon as a spectator to watch the event.1 He was injured when two bombs exploded near the marathon finish line, and he was transported to Brigham and Women's Hospital in an ambulance. At the hospital, he was treated for burn injuries on his back and leg. The defendants contend that Alharbi's burns were "superficial and required no treatment." Grygiel Decl., Docket No. 110, ¶ 128, Ex. 40, at 115. He was discharged from the hospital five days later on April 20, 2013.
Law enforcement, including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), questioned the plaintiff immediately upon his arrival at the hospital, and collected fingerprints and a DNA sample from him. The plaintiff consented to a search of his
apartment in Revere, which took place at 11:00 pm on April 15. The defendants learned from confidential sources that law enforcement officials from the FBI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Massachusetts State Police, and the Boston Police identified the plaintiff as a person of interest, a subject, and a target of their investigation into the Boston Marathon bombing. On April 15 and 16, several other news organizations, such as Fox News and the New York Post, published online articles reporting that the plaintiff was a "person of interest" and a "potential suspect." Id.¶ 4.
II. Secretary Napolitano's Testimony
On April 23, 2013, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano testified before Congress at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. As part of her testimony, she discussed the Boston Marathon bombing. In response to a question from Senator Grassley about "a Saudi student who reportedly was on a terrorist watch list," Secretary Napolitano replied:
He was not on a watch list. What happened is this student was—really, when you back (ph) it (ph), he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was never a subject. He was never even really a person of interest. Because he was interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list. And then, when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.
Transcript of Secretary Napolitano's Testimony, Haley Decl., Docket No. 109, Ex. C, at 89. The plaintiff contends that her "testimony is consistent with the way [he] was treated by the government and what happened to [him] at the Boston Marathon." Alharbi Aff., Docket No. 107, ¶ 16. In contrast, the defendants maintain that Secretary Napolitano's testimony was not "truthful and accurate," based on conversations they had with confidential sources, including congressional staff. Docket No. 121, at 85.
III. Beck's Allegedly Defamatory Statements
Between April 19 and May 8, Beck repeatedly identified Alharbi as being involved in the Boston Marathon bombing on his radio program, broadcasted on TheBlaze network. On April 19, Beck stated that Alharbi was a "very, bad, bad, bad man." Beck Decl., Docket No. 112, Ex. 3, at 66. The plaintiff alleges that he further stated that Alharbi was involved in "blowing the legs off of our citizens," while the defendants contend that this statement did not refer to the plaintiff. Id. at 65.
On April 22, Beck stated that Alharbi was one of three people involved in the attacks—along with the Tsarnaev brothers—and that Alharbi's "clan is heavy with Al Qaeda links." Beck Decl., Docket No. 112, Ex. 4, at 72. Beck further stated that he believed Alharbi's "mission was to recruit fighters that are already in the country," and that "[o]nce he recruits, that he could fund and provide the go order when the time came." Id. at 72-73. He explained that the Tsarnaev brothers "would've been easy targets for an Al Qaeda recruiter," and that "Al-Harbi would've jumped at it." Id. at 73. Finally, he said that Alharbi had been "tagged" as a "proven terrorist," because Alharbi was allegedly designated as a person who has engaged or "is likely to engage" in terrorist activity in the United States under § 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(II). Beck Decl., Docket No. 112, Ex. 4, at 71. According to the defendants, this designation occurred shortly after the bombing on April 16.
On April 24, after Secretary Napolitano testified before Congress, Beck continued to say that Alharbi was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. He referred to Alharbi as "the worst of the worst," again due to the § 212(a)(3)(B) designation. Beck Decl., Docket No. 112, Ex. 5, at 78. On April 25, Beck appeared on the Bill O'Reilly Show on Fox News, and reiterated that Alharbi was designated as a terrorist, who was "armed and dangerous," according to government documents he received from confidential sources. Id. Ex. 6, at 87.
On May 1, Beck stated on TheBlaze, that he didn't know how Alharbi was involved in the attacks, "but he's involved." Id. Ex. 7, at 96. Finally, on May 8, Beck stated that Alharbi was "the money man," "the guy who actually paid for it." Id. Ex. 8, at 99. When asked whether the statement that Alharbi funded the attacks was "speculation," "reporting," or "somewhere in between," Beck simply repeated, "He's the money man." Id. at 100.
IV. Confidential Sources
The plaintiff deposed Beck on February 17, 2016, and Beck identified Joel Cheatwood and Joe Weasel as persons with knowledge of the sources the defendants relied on for the broadcasts about Alharbi's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Page v. Oath Inc.
...accusations, knowing they could be ‘given wide currency in the tabloids and newspapers.’ "); see also Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc. , 199 F.Supp.3d 334, 352 (D. Mass. 2016) (holding that defendants did not meet their burden to demonstrate that the alleged defamatory statements were reporting on......
-
Hi-Tech Pharm., Inc. v. Cohen
...bear the burden of demonstrating that a plaintiff is a public figure." Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc., Civ. No. 14–11550–PBS, 199 F.Supp.3d 334, 355, 2016 WL 4203402, at *14 (D. Mass. Aug. 9, 2016) (Saris, C.J.) (citations omitted). A limited purpose public figure9 is one who "voluntarily inject......
-
Wofse v. Horn
...S.Ct. 2997 ). "The defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff is a public figure." Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 334, 355 (D. Mass. 2016) (Saris, C.J.).The record is replete with vitriolic statements, some of which the Horns contend are "simply vulgar attack......
-
Krishnan v. Blueprint Healthcare LLC
...requirement determination of the applicable law.” D. 58 at 5 (citing Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc., 199 F.Supp.3d 334, 360 (D. Mass. 2016)). In Alharbi, a defamation case, this Court that because Massachusetts law “proscribe[d] the recovery of punitive damages for defamation, ” whereas “Texas l......
-
Privileges for communications with professionals
...Newsgatherer Against Disclosure of Confidential Sources of Information,” 99 A.L.R.3d 37 (1980); see also Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc. , 199 F. Supp. 3d 334, 348 (D. Mass. 2016) (court declined to decide whether privilege existed as to disclosure of journalist’s sources, and stated that it woul......