Brown v. Gatti
Decision Date | 13 October 2004 |
Citation | 195 Or. App. 695,99 P.3d 299 |
Parties | Timothy M. BROWN, M.D., and Timothy M. Brown, M.D., P.C., an Oregon professional corporation, Appellants, v. Daniel J. GATTI; Gatti, Gatti, Maier, Krueger & Associates, an Oregon partnership; Gatti, Gatti, Maier, Krueger, Sayer & Associates, an Oregon partnership; Gatti & Gatti, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation, Respondents, and Marie Nolan and Jane Does 1-5, Defendants, and Oregon Publishing Company and David R. Anderson, Intervenors-respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Montgomery W. Cobb argued the cause for appellants and filed the briefs. With him on the briefs was Cobb & Bosse, LLP.
J. Marie Bischman argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents. With her on the brief were J. Philip Parks and Parks, Bauer, Sime & Winkler, LLP, Salem.
Charles Hinkle, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for intervenors. With him on the brief was Stoel Rives, LLP.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and BREWER and SCHUMAN, Judges.
Defendant, an attorney, represented a client in a medical malpractice action against plaintiff.1 Shortly after the trial, defendant was interviewed by a newspaper reporter and a television newscaster. Defendant's statements were subsequently published in the reporter's newspaper and broadcast on television. Plaintiff then brought this action alleging that defendant's statements were false and defamatory. As part of the discovery process, plaintiff tried to subpoena the newspaper reporter's notes and the reporter himself for a deposition. The reporter's employer, The Oregonian, intervened and submitted a motion to quash the subpoena. The court granted the motion, concluding that the reporter and his notes were protected by Oregon's "media shield" law, ORS 44.510 to 44.540. Subsequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.2
Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the order quashing his subpoena. He also assigns error to the grant of summary judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that, for a variety of reasons, the allegedly defamatory statements were not actionable under Oregon defamation law. We agree with plaintiff that the court should not have quashed the subpoena; the reporter and his notes fall within an exception to the media shield law. We also conclude that each of the claims for which the trial court granted summary judgment3 contains at least one specification for which that grant was erroneous. We therefore reverse and remand on all those claims.
In a case tried to a jury in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Nolan v. Brown, A9711-09412, defendant's client, Marie Nolan, sued Brown for medical malpractice, fraud, and unlawful trade practices, alleging, among other things, that Brown misrepresented his qualifications to perform liposuction and that he performed the procedure on her in a negligent manner. During trial, Brown conceded negligence, and, in exchange for $10,000, Nolan agreed to dismiss the fraud and unlawful trade practices claims. The malpractice claim was then submitted to the jury solely on the issue of damages. The jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $183,000.
After the jury returned its verdict, Gatti spoke with Anderson, a reporter from The Oregonian. The next day, the newspaper published an article on the Nolan litigation containing three statements that Brown argues are false and defamatory:
About one week later, television station KATU broadcast a story concerning the Nolan litigation. The story included an interview with Gatti. Four statements from that broadcast are at issue in this case. Two of the statements were made by a KATU reporter:
Two of the statements were made by Gatti:
Both the Oregonian and KATU subsequently issued retractions of some of the material in the reports.
Plaintiff then brought the present action for defamation. He claimed that statements directly attributable to defendant were false and defamatory and that the newspaper and television reports made false and defamatory statements based on misinformation provided by defendant. As part of the discovery process, both defendant and plaintiff issued subpoenas to Anderson, requesting his deposition and the production of notes, tapes, and any written memoranda of his interview with defendant. The court quashed both subpoenas. Although it gave no reason for quashing defendant's subpoena, it reasoned that plaintiff's was barred by ORS 44.520(1), the media shield law, which (as we discuss more fully below) provides that journalists cannot be compelled to disclose their sources or notes. Defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment on the defamation claims. The court granted the motion, ruling that none of the allegedly defamatory statements was actionable. In doing so, the court did not state a specific reason why each statement was not actionable; rather, it provided a list of potential reasons connected by "and/or," for example, "The motion for summary judgment is granted as to the alleged statement * * * regarding the verdict sending notice because the statement is (1) not false; (2) not defamatory as a matter of law; (3) privileged; and/or (4) a non-defamatory opinion."
347 P.2d 594 ( ).
Defendant, however, asks us to extend the reach of the privilege further than we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Raymen v. United Senior Ass'n, Inc.
...prove that [the] defendant made a defamatory statement that was false and that was communicated to a third party." Brown v. Gatti, 195 Or.App. 695, 99 P.3d 299, 305 (2004) (citing Reesman v. Highfill, 327 Or. 597, 965 P.2d 1030 (1998); Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Or. 337, 918 P.2d 755 (1996);......
-
Landry's, Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund
...Kenney , 379 N.J.Super. 118, 877 A.2d 277, 290–91 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) ; Bochetto , 860 A.2d at 72–73 ; Brown v. Gatti , 195 Or.App. 695, 99 P.3d 299, 304 (2004), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds , 341 Or. 452, 145 P.3d 130 (2006) ; Chafoulias v. Peterson , No. C2-0......
-
Medical Informatics Engineering v. Orthopaedics Ne.
...statements to the press are not sufficiently connected to a judicial proceeding such that the absolute privilege is applicable. See Brown, 99 P.3d at 304 ("[T]he [Oregon] Supreme Court's instruction that the requirements for the privilege be interpreted liberally applies to the subject matt......
-
Helena Chem. Co. v. Uribe
...A.2d 102, 102–03 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1994); Andrews v. Elliot, 109 N.C.App. 271, 426 S.E.2d 430, 432–33 (1993); Brown v. Gatti, 195 Or.App. 695, 99 P.3d 299, 305 (2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 341 Or. 452, 145 P.3d 130 (2006); Bochetto v. Gibson, 580 Pa. 245, 86......