Henry v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., C.A. No. PC-2014-2837
| Decision Date | 04 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. PC-2014-2837 |
| Parties | RUSSELL HENRY v. MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INC., CHRIS LANNI, JAMES TARICANI, PETER LECLERC, RONALD JACOB, KAREN E. GUILBEAULT, AND JOHN DOES |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
Defendants, moving separately, seek summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff is a public official for purposes of defamation actions, and the conduct alleged does not rise to the level of "actual malice" required in such circumstances by the U.S. Constitution. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.
This case emanates from the renowned "Ticketgate Scandal" in the Cranston Police Department. On November 14, 2013, the Finance Committee of the Cranston City Council rejected a new contract with the police union. On the next night, Cranston Police Captain Stephen Antonucci (Captain Antonucci) ordered, via his personal cell phone, officers to blanket with parking tickets Wards 1 and 2, which were the wards of the Councilmen who voted against the contract. Residents of the two wards received a total of 128 overnight parking tickets on the evening in question—compared to 122 issued city-wide in the preceding two months combined. See Gregory Smith, 2 Cranston councilmen say city police retaliated because of their police contract votes by ticketing cars in their wards, The Providence Journal (Dec. 17, 2013), http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131217-2-cranston-councilmen-say-city-police-retaliated-because-of-their-police-contract-votes-by-ticketing-cars-in-their-wards.ece. Mayor Allan Fung ultimately initiated an investigation of the incident and dismissed or refunded each of the tickets issued.
Defendant James Taricani (Mr. Taricani) was an investigative reporter with the "I-Team" on WJAR-TV (WJAR), the local NBC affiliate, then owned by Media General Operations, Inc. (Media General). Defendant Christopher Lanni (Mr. Lanni) served as WJAR's news director (collectively, Mr. Taricani, WJAR, and Media General are sometimes referred to as the Media Defendants). In early December 2013, Mr. Taricani received an anonymous tip about the excessive ticketing. He found out the tip was from Defendant Peter Leclerc (Officer Leclerc)1, a current Cranston police officer. Mr. Taricani met with Officer Leclerc who gave him information about the ticketing and suggested that Mr. Taricani make an open records request from the City of Cranston (the City) concerning ticketing on the night in question. Mr. Taricani did just that, and the information corroborated what Officer Leclerc told him.2
On December 17, 2013, WJAR aired its first story about what was happening in the Cranston Police Department, particularly with the excessive ticketing. That report made no mention of Plaintiff, Captain Russell Henry (Captain Henry or Plaintiff).3 In late December2013, Officer Leclerc informed Mr. Taricani that the Plaintiff had been ordered to use his personal cell phone to order officers to issue the parking tickets in Wards 1 and 2.
On December 23, 2013, Mr. Taricani received an email from Defendant Ronald Jacob (Mr. Jacob), a twenty year veteran of the Cranston police force who had retired in 2005, which stated:
On December 28, 2013, Mr. Taricani received another email from Mr. Jacob reiterating Captain Henry's involvement and stating that the rumors were that Captain Antonucci and Plaintiff "were riding around the two districts that were mass ticketed and used their cell phones to contact the officer, [sic] who had those posts to ticket certain vehicles in those districts."
For purposes of their motion for summary judgment, the Media Defendants concede that Mr. Taricani spoke to the then Chief of Police, Colonel Marco Palumbo (Colonel Palumbo), who twice told him that Plaintiff was not involved in the ticketing.4
On January 10, 2014, WJAR aired a second "Ticketgate" story in which Mr. Taricani reported that Captain Antonucci, the then Cranston police union president, and Captain Henry used their personal cell phones to order other Cranston police officers to issue tickets in the wards of the councilors who voted against the proposed contract; specifically, "Antonucci allegedly told his cousin, Lt. Russell Henry, to use his personal cell phone to give the order to issue the tickets." (Am. Compl. 3.) The segment included an on-screen graphic that read: "Lt.Russell Henry . . . ordered officers to issue tickets." The story also ran on WJAR's website.
Mr. Lanni, Mr. Taricani's producer, approved both stories prior to their airing.
In the afternoon prior to airing the story, Mr. Taricani called the Cranston police station looking for Captain Henry. He was not there, but Mr. Taricani left a voice message on another officer's phone. On the evening of January 10, 2014, after the story aired on the 6:00 news, Captain Henry encountered a photographer for WJAR and Captain Henry said he was upset about the story because he was not involved. The photographer called Mr. Taricani at home and relayed this conversation together with Captain Henry's phone number. Mr. Taricani then called WJAR and asked to have the story pulled from the 11:00 news and the website. He called Captain Henry the next day and offered him the opportunity to go on air and tell his side of the story. Captain Henry declined.
The parties now all agree that Plaintiff was not involved in the ticketing scandal. WJAR ultimately aired a correction on February 7, 2014.
During the time preceding the WJAR stories, Mr. Jacob and Captain Karen E. Guilbeault (Captain Guilbeault) had been in contact, primarily by telephone, regarding various issues with the Cranston Police Department. They were also in contact because Mr. Jacob was in need of certain personal records from the department, and Captain Guilbeault's position required she liaise with retirees about such requests. The specific content of those communications is not clear in the record, but Captain Guilbeault is the only active member of the Cranston Police Department with whom Mr. Jacob was in contact, and Mr. Jacob indicated at his deposition thatCaptain Guilbeault may have been the source of his information.5 Plaintiff contends that the defamatory information Mr. Jacob reported to Mr. Taricani originated with Captain Guilbeault.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for libel, slander, and false light pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 9-1-28.1, as well as negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.6 Defendants now separately move for summary judgment, and Mr. Jacob moves to dismiss.
Customarily, the next section of a decision would be the Standard of Review to be applied by the Court. But in this case that standard depends on whether the Plaintiff is considered to be a public official.
If a plaintiff is a public official or public figure,7 the plaintiff must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, "actual malice" on the part of the defendant making the false statement:
"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); see Capuano v. Outlet Co., 579 A.2d 469, 472 (R.I. 1990) (); see also Restatement (Second) Torts § 580A (1977).
Whether a person is a public official is a question of law. Capuano, 579 at 472.
Moreover, our Supreme Court is in accord with the overwhelming majority of other courts that have considered this issue: Indeed, "[p]olice and other law enforcement personnel are almost always classified as public officials."8 Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 2:104 (2d ed. 2017).
Plaintiff was a police lieutenant being accused of unethical behavior in his official capacity. Specifically, he was accused of improperly using his supervisory position as a lieutenant to order other officers to issue parking tickets—an official act—in retaliation for adverse political decisions. Our Supreme Court's ruling in Hall, 490 A.2d at 504, controls. Plaintiff argues that our Supreme Court misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Rosenblatt, 383 U.S. at 85, and that the issue should be revisited. Plaintiff would reject a per se rule and have a case-by-case analysis depending on the degree of authority or notoriety of the individual officer. At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel argued that the Court should determine what role the officer played in the controversy before...
To continue reading
Request your trial