Burton v. American Lawyer Media, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 May 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 23759) |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | NANCY BURTON v. AMERICAN LAWYER MEDIA, INC., ET AL. |
Dranginis, DiPentima and Stoughton, JS.
Nancy Burton, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Lorin L. Reisner, pro hac vice, with whom were John B. Nolan and, on the brief, Erik C. Bierbauer, pro hac vice, for the appellees (defendants).
In this appeal from the judgment rendered in a defamation action, we address the privilege of fair reporting. The plaintiff, Nancy Burton, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered on the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, American Lawyer Media, Inc., its affiliates, the New York Law Journal and the Connecticut Law Tribune, LLC, and a reporter, Mark Hamblett. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that it was improper for the court to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. On December 26, 2001, the plaintiff filed a five count amended complaint against the defendants. The complaint alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The action finds its basis in an article written by Hamblett while reporting on a judicial decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that imposed sanctions against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the article contained a number of falsehoods and misrepresentations, all of which resulted in injury to both her practice of law and her reputation.
In January, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the article and all of the challenged statements were fairly derived from the decision of the District Court and were, therefore, not actionable as a matter of law. On August 16, 2002, the court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that a The court continued, stating that "[a]dditional claims by the plaintiff that the headlines used in the story were false and defamatory, or that the defendants had a duty to include exculpatory statements in the article or to examine the record in the case before writing the article, either have no foundation in law or are without merit." The plaintiff filed a motion for reargument that was denied by the court. This appeal followed.
The plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she argues that the fair reporting privilege does not protect the defendants' article because the privilege does not extend to the reporting of libelous per se defamatory matter.1 We disagree. Our review of a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is well settled. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 235 Conn. 185, 202, 663 A.2d 1001 (1995). "Our review of the trial court's decision to grant [a] motion for summary judgment is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 450, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).
The existence of a false and defamatory statement is a prerequisite to a party's prevailing in a case for libel. Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., 193 Conn. 313, 316, 477 A.2d 1005 (1984). At oral argument, the defendants conceded that defamatory matter was published. They assert that as a matter of law, the published matter is not actionable because it is protected by the fair reporting privilege.
Even when there is a defamatory statement, "[t]he publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public concern is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported." 3 Restatement (Second), Torts, Report of Official Proceeding or Public Meeting, § 611, p. 297 (1977); see also Wang v. Frankl, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 391493 (October 18, 1999) ( ). According to the comments to § 611, the basis of the privilege is the public's "interest ... in having information made available to it as to what occurs in official proceedings and public meetings...." 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 611, comment (a), p. 297.
If the report is accurate or a fair abridgment of the proceeding, an action cannot constitutionally be maintained for defamation. Id., comment (b), p. 298. The fair reporting privilege, however, is a conditional privilege. It protects parties from defamation claims when they publish information that is based on governmental proceedings. The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and even when he knows them to be false and even if they are libel per se. Abuse of the privilege takes place, therefore, when the publisher does not give a fair and accurate report of the proceeding. Id., comment (a), p. 298. In Connecticut, a conditional privilege, such as fair reporting, will be defeated if the defendant acted with malice. Bleich v. Ortiz, 196 Conn. 498, 504, 493 A.2d 236 (1985). There was no allegation or showing of malice in the present case. Generally, the determination of whether the contents of a newspaper article are privileged as fair reporting is an issue of law. Cf. Goodrich v. Waterbury Republic-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 110-11, 448 A.2d 1317 (1982) ( ). Whether the privilege has been lost because of abuse is a question normally for the jury. Hogan v. New York Times Co., 313 F.2d 354, 356-57 (2d Cir. 1963).
The plaintiff raises three interrelated issues to challenge the court's judgment. She argues that the judgment was improper because (1) the court failed to undertake the requisite analysis of the proceedings, (2) the report itself was inaccurate, one-sided, incomplete and unfair, and (3) the reporter failed to conduct an investigation before writing the article. We address each issue in turn.
The plaintiff argues that the court failed to consider all of the circumstances surrounding the statements. Specifically, she claims that the court acted improperly by comparing only the articles in question with the judicial decision. We disagree.
In this case, after comparing the articles in question to the judicial decision, the court concluded that the articles were substantially accurate reports of the decision. We agree that the articles were substantially accurate reports of the decisions. We also conclude as a matter of law that the headline was a fair representation of the article. As such, the articles were privileged and not actionable as a matter of law. The plaintiff argues that the court should have considered all of the factors surrounding the articles. The application of the fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Noah B., No. CP00-013544-A (CT 2/16/2005)
... ... court is bound by Supreme Court precedent; Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195, 676 A.2d ... ...
-
Dickinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
...A.2d 236). "Whether the privilege has been lost because of abuse is a question normally for the jury." Burton v. Am. Lawyer Media, Inc., 83 Conn.App. 134, 139, 847 A.2d 1115 (2004) (emphasis in original). However, "a failure to undertake an adequate investigation is not dispositive of the i......
-
Tolles v. Republican-American
...853 A.2d 526 (2004). For the privilege to apply, the report must be accurate and complete or be a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported. Id.; see also, 3 Restatement (Second) Torts, § p. 297 (1977). As a conditional privilege, the defense will fail if the publisher of the statement do......
-
Elder v. 21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC
...when the publisher does not give a fair and accurate report of the proceeding." (Citation omitted.) Burton v. American Lawyer Media, Inc. , 83 Conn. App. 134, 138, 847 A.2d 1115, cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914, 853 A.2d 526 (2004) ; see also 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 611, comment (a), p......
-
Significant Recent Tort Developments
...with a plaintiff's being able to manipulate the statute of limitations since a defamation claim arises with each publication.(fn106) 98 83 Conn. App. 134, 847 A.2d 1115, cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914, 853 A.2d 526 (2004). 99 Id. at 135-36. 100 Id. at 136. 101 Id. at 139. 102 267 Conn. 210, 21......