Blair v. Inside Edition Prod.

• Citation: 7 F.Supp.3d 348
• Decision Date: 14 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12 Civ. 8615 RA.,12 Civ. 8615 RA.
• Parties: Missionary–Tracey Elaine BLAIR, Plaintiff, v. INSIDE EDITION PRODUCTIONS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

7 F.Supp.3d 348

Missionary–Tracey Elaine BLAIR, Plaintiff

v.INSIDE EDITION PRODUCTIONS, Defendant.

No. 12 Civ. 8615 RA.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 14, 2014.

Tracey Elaine Blair, Detroit, MI, pro se.

Katherine Mary Bolger, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

RONNIE ABRAMS, District Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Tracey Elaine Blair brings this defamation action against Defendant Inside Edition, Inc., alleging that a series of broadcasts on Inside Edition's televised news program injured her reputation by publicizing numerous false statements concerning her occupancy of the house of her former landlord, Heidi Peterson, while Peterson was out of the country. Inside Edition moves for summary judgment on the ground that all of the statements at issue are substantially true. The Court grants the motion, as no rational jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the statements is false.¹

BACKGROUND²

Blair is a self-proclaimed politician and “public figure” who advocates for affordable housing in Detroit and, in particular, the reclamation of abandoned homes. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 5; Blair Dep. 41:13–15; Def. Ex. 1 ¶¶ IV, V.) She has run for a number of offices as a write-in candidate, including mayor of Detroit, state senator, governor of Michigan, and president of the United States. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4.) In addition, she has used her adverse possession of vacant residential properties as the basis for at least four quiet title actions. (Id. ¶ 6.)

From October 2010 through February 2011, Blair rented a room in Peterson's home pursuant to a month-to-month lease. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10.) Peterson served Blair with a notice to quit on February 14, 2011, claiming that the house had to be vacated because the boiler was broken. (Id. ¶ 11.) After Blair moved out, Peterson changed the locks and left the country. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) Blair paid no further rent and had no contact with Peterson while she was abroad. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.) After moving out of Peterson's home, she resided with her mother and sister and in another house that she purchased for $3,000. (Blair Dep. 10:22–12:10, 154:14–57:21.)

In April or May of 2012, Blair was driving by Peterson's house and decided to attempt to retrieve certain possessions that she had left there. (Id. at 45:3–25.) She discovered that the door was broken and that the neighbors had not seen Peterson recently. (Id. at 46:3–7.) Over the next few months, Blair installed a new lock on the front door, scraped and repainted the walls, fixed the plumbing, and replaced the refrigerator and stove, all without Peterson's permission. (Id. at 75:6–10, 78:2–79:2, 93:8–99:4, 149:4–20.)

On June 1, 2012, Blair filed a quiet title action for possession of the property, naming Peterson as the defendant. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 21–22.) Later that month, she filed a complaint to encumber the property with a construction lien for the repairs that she had made. (Id. ¶ 24.) By July, she began to live there, alternating between Peterson's house and her other two residences. (Blair Dep. 62:21–63:20.) She obtained a default judgment against Peterson in the amount of $8,500 on October 11, 2012. (Def 56.1 ¶¶ 25–26.)

Blair returned to the house on October 8 or 9, 2012 to discover Peterson on the porch with police officers. (Id. ¶¶ 30–31.)³ The police left after Blair showed them her construction lien pleadings. (Id. ¶¶ 32–33.) Detroit's local Fox Television Stations affiliate, Fox 2, interviewed Blair and Peterson regarding the incident and broadcast a report on October 9, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 40–43.) After the broadcast, several news outlets sought interviews and reported on the dispute. (Id. ¶¶ 44–45.)

Inside Edition, the televised newsmagazine of Inside Edition, Inc., aired four segments about the dispute on October 11, 12, 13, and 19, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 46–50.) A voiceover in the first broadcast introduces the situation as follows: “You've never seen an odd couple like this. They're not roommates, but they live in the same house. And Heidi Peterson says she wants her outta there. She says Tracey Blair is a squatter and has no right to be there. But Tracey refuses to move.” (Def. Ex. A at 1:33–47.) Blair and Peterson are shown arguing about the appliances that Blair removed or replaced, and Peterson says, “You can't just do things with people's items that don't belong to you.” (Id. at 2:00–16, 2:30–35.) The voiceover explains that, “for now, Tracey and Heidi and her little daughter will have to co-exist under the same roof, possibly for many months to come, until this bizarre situation is worked out,” and Peterson is shown saying, “I want to resolve this in court.” (Id. at 2:50–3:01.) The broadcast concludes with the anchor's explanation of eviction law: “Under the law, a homeowner cannot remove a squatter by force, so Heidi actually has to file a civil suit in court, prove it's her property, and then evict the alleged squatter. It is a process that could take the better part of a year.” (Id. at 3:02–15.)

The second broadcast is a viewer reaction segment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 47.) The anchor quotes comments from viewers and states that “most viewers are outraged that Detroit homeowner Heidi Peterson must now go to court to remove Tracey Blair from her own home.” (Def. Ex. B at 15:41–47.)

The third broadcast, which appeared on Inside Edition's weekend show, similarly characterizes Blair as a squatter and describes Blair and Peterson as “absolute strangers.” (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 48–49; Def. Ex. C at 0:05–07.) The anchor states that Blair “insists she will not leave until the law forces her out” and, as in the first broadcast, reports that, “under the law, a homeowner cannot remove a squatter by force, so Heidi actually has to file a civil suit in court, prove that it is her property, and formally evict the alleged squatter—a process that could take a year.” (Def. Ex. C at 0:13–17, 1:52–2:05.)

The last broadcast, aired on October 19, is entitled “Moving Day.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 50.) The anchor begins by reporting that, “though the alleged squatter refused to leave, she is now finally packing her bags.” (Def. Ex. D at 14:42–46.) Blair is shown moving boxes out of the house, and the voiceover explains that “the bizarre living situation has been going on for weeks, with the two squabbling just like Felix and Oscar on the classic TV series, The Odd Couple. ” (Id. at 14:47–15:35.)

Blair does not know precisely when she moved out of Peterson's house, but she viewed at least one of the broadcasts on the television set at the house and therefore could have left no earlier than October 12, 2012. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 34–35, 38.) At the request of the reporters, she returned to the house to retrieve her belongings. (Id. ¶ 39.)

Blair took no further action concerning the default judgment, but she also made no application to lift the lien. (Id. ¶ 27; Blair Dep. 83:22–84:9.) Peterson moved to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action on November 26, 2012, and her motion was granted on December 19, 2012. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 27, 29.) A few days before Peterson filed her motion, she filed a petition for a personal protection order prohibiting Blair from entering her home or “kidnapping Sarah Kathryn Peterson,” Peterson's daughter. (Def. Ex. 18.) She also filed a complaint against Blair and Blair's contractor on January 22, 2013, claiming that they had damaged the property and caused her serious emotional distress and other harm. (Def. Ex. 17.)

Blair commenced this defamation action against Inside Edition on November 27, 2012, seeking $200,000 in damages and an injunction prohibiting Inside Edition from publishing the broadcasts. (Def. Ex. 1 ¶ V.) Her complaint alleges that the broadcasts “slandered [her] character by publicizing [her] as an unwanted squatter in a house where Miss Peterson was forced to live alongside a stranger.” (Id. ¶ III(C).) Counsel for Inside Edition deposed Blair on May 17, 2013. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 53.) On the same day, the Court granted Inside Edition's motion to bifurcate discovery, to stay discovery unrelated to the truth or falsity of the broadcasts, and to entertain a motion for summary judgment on substantial truth. (Def. Ex. 16 at 4, 12.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is warranted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. Otherwise, there is “no issue for trial.” Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The first question the Court must address is which party bears the burden of proof with respect to the truth or falsity of the statements at issue. “Although truth is a matter of affirmative defense under the common law of defamation, a public figure plaintiff or private figure plaintiff involved in a matter of public concern has the burden to establish falsity.” Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster, P.C. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 844 F.2d 955, 958 n. 5 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) and Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 774–78, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986) ). This requirement is of constitutional significance, as it is designed to mitigate the “chilling” effect of defamation law on speech protected by the First Amendment.See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 776–77, 106 S.Ct. 1558. Conversely, “[t]here is some authority for the proposition that the general rule at common law, that falsity is presumed and that defendants must bear the burden of pleading and proving truth, survives in defamation suits by private-figure plaintiffs concerning statements on purely private matters.” Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d 256, 268 n....