Henry v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2018-169-Appeal.,PC 14-2837,2018-169-Appeal.
• Citation: 254 A.3d 822
• Parties: Russell HENRY v. MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INC., et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

254 A.3d 822

Russell HENRY

v.MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INC., et al.

No. 2018-169-Appeal.

PC 14-2837

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 8, 2021

Thomas M. Dickinson, Esq., Kathleen M. Hagerty, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Stephen E. Breggia, Esq., Raymond A. Marcaccio, Esq., Ryan C. Hurley, Esq., for Defendants.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

Justice Robinson, for the Court.

We are called upon in this case to assess the application of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the pertinent United States Supreme Court precedent interpreting same, to an allegedly defamatory report which was broadcast on the evening news. In so doing, we keep in mind the following highly insightful and germane words of Judge Learned Hand, which were quoted approvingly by the United States Supreme Court in a crucially important First Amendment opinion:

"[The First Amendment] presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (quoting United States v. Associated Press , 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1943) ).

The plaintiff in the instant case, Captain Russell Henry,¹ appeals from the April 11, 2018 entry of final judgment in Providence County Superior Court in favor of defendants, Media General Operations, Inc. (Media General), Chris Lanni,² James Taricani, Officer Peter Leclerc,³ Ronald Jacob,⁴ and Captain Karen E. Guilbeault.

Final judgment was entered in the case after defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted. On appeal, Captain Henry contends that the hearing justice erred in holding that a police officer is what he characterizes as a "per se public official * * *." He further posits that the hearing justice erred in determining that defendants’ publication of a purportedly false allegation was not the product of actual malice; he adds that, as to that issue, there are genuine issues of material fact remaining which make summary judgment inappropriate and that the hearing justice "impermissibly weighed inferences" against Captain Henry. Captain Henry further avers that the "trial justice erred in granting summary judgment on [his] claims of negligent and intentional infliction of distress and violation of R.I. Gen. L. sec. 9-1-28.1 (false light)."

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

On June 4, 2014, Captain Henry commenced the instant action by filing a complaint in Superior Court. Eventually, a second amended complaint was filed on September 8, 2016 (the complaint). The complaint alleged that NBC 10 WJAR (WJAR), which was owned and operated by Media General, "published reports that they referred to as the ‘Cranston Parking Ticket Scandal’ which alleged that patrol officers had issued a substantial increase in parking tickets in the districts represented by two City of Cranston City Council members that had voted against a police union [contract] proposal." The complaint also averred that a news report on WJAR had stated that the tickets were issued in retribution for the votes of the city council members. According to the complaint, Mr. Taricani,⁵ an investigative reporter for WJAR, specifically reported during the January 10, 2014 six o'clock evening news the following, which the complaint alleges was false and defamatory⁶ as to Captain Henry:

" ‘Two sources familiar with the ticket scandal investigation told the I-Team that Captain Stephen Antonucci, the Police Union President,^{[7 ]} used his private cell phone and told another Lieutenant to use his private cell phone to order officers to issue overnight parking tickets to punish two City Councilmen who voted against the police union contract proposal. The use of the personal cell phones was to help them cover their tracks. Antonucci allegedly told his cousin, Lt. Russell Henry, to use his personal cell phone to give the order to issue the tickets. Mayor Allan Fung has recently decided to rescind any tickets that were apparently issued as retribution for the contract vote.’ "

Further, according to the complaint, a "graphic" was also published, which stated that " ‘Lt. Russell Henry * * * ordered officers to issue tickets’ in the context of the ‘Cranston Parking Ticket Scandal.’ "⁸ In addition, according to the complaint, a report that was consistent with what was reported on the January 10, 2014 evening news was published on WJAR's website. The complaint went on to allege that, contrary to the news report, Captain Henry "had no involvement either directly or indirectly, in the ‘Cranston Parking Ticket Scandal’ " and, further, that he "was cleared of any involvement * * * by [a] Rhode Island State Police investigation."

The complaint stated that Mr. Lanni was the News Director of WJAR. The complaint further stated that Officer Leclerc was a Cranston police officer and that Mr. Jacob was a retired Cranston police officer. It posited that Officer Leclerc and Mr. Jacob were the sources on which Media General, Mr. Lanni, and Mr. Taricani relied in preparing the news report at issue. Additionally, according to the complaint, Captain Guilbeault was a Cranston police officer "who published false and defamatory information about the Plaintiff to Defendant, Ronald Jacob, who then told Defendant, James Taricani * * *."

The complaint went on to set forth the following counts: one count of libel (Count One); one count of slander (Count Two); one count of "[v]iolation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(4)" due to the fact that defendants "caused the Plaintiff to be placed before the public in a false position" (Count Three); and one count of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Four).

In order to provide the pertinent facts, we now turn to the depositions of the parties, the answers to interrogatories, and other documents in the record.

AThe Deposition Testimony of James Taricani

Mr. Taricani testified at his deposition that the first time he became aware of the Cranston parking ticket scandal was in late November or early December of 2013, when he "received either an anonymous letter in the mail or * * * an e-mail from someone who made it apparent that they were a Cranston police officer." It was his testimony that he knew the identity of the informant, but he refused to reveal it at his deposition, invoking his "rights as a reporter under the Rhode Island Shield Law."⁹ It was his testimony that, in addition to the just-mentioned unnamed source, Mr. Jacob was his other source for the story at issue. He stated that Mr. Jacob was "willing to come forward." However, he added that the other source was not willing to do so at that time.

It was Mr. Taricani's further testimony that, prior to the broadcast of the story at issue, he had composed an initial story about the Cranston parking ticket scandal (which story did not implicate Captain Henry). He added that, in preparing for that initial story, he had requested all of the parking ticket records from "Cranston City Hall * * *." Mr. Taricani elaborated that the unnamed source had provided him a "breakdown of the tickets that were issued prior to the night in question and then after to show the difference;" he added that his source suggested that Mr. Taricani obtain the records from City Hall. He testified that the summary of tickets which he received from his source "matched" the actual records that he received from City Hall.¹⁰ It was further Mr. Taricani's testimony that Mr. Jacob contacted him after that initial story aired.

Mr. Taricani specifically stated in his deposition that, at the time of the broadcast of the second story (i.e. , the story at issue in this case), he "certainly believed it was true * * * [b]ased on [his] sources * * *." Media General's answers to Captain Henry's first set of interrogatories stated that Officer Leclerc told Mr. Taricani that Captain Antonucci ordered Captain Henry (who at that time was a lieutenant) to "use his private cell phone to instruct patrol officers to issue" the tickets in question. Mr. Taricani further testified at his deposition that the unnamed source—i.e. , Officer Leclerc—"claimed to be speaking with people within the Cranston Police Department that were involved in the internal investigation," but he added that said source did not identify who those individuals were. Mr. Taricani agreed during his testimony that the unnamed source did not actually witness anything that Captain Henry did. He explained that, "because the source had given [him] information about other stories that was accurate, in particular Captain Antonucci's involvement in [the Cranston parking ticket scandal], [he] thought [the source] had credibility."

With respect to Mr. Jacob, Mr. Taricani testified that he was a retired Cranston police officer who had encountered some "difficulties" in obtaining a disability pension and that he had had "his issues with the Cranston Police Department * * * for a number of years." Mr. Taricani agreed that he could characterize Mr. Jacob as a "disgruntled former employee[.]" It was further Mr. Taricani's testimony that, in order to determine whether he was receiving true and accurate information from Mr. Jacob, he asked the unnamed source what he thought of Mr. Jacob (and he added that he might also have asked another police officer in the Cranston Police Department the same question); he stated that the feedback he received was that Mr. Jacob was a "good cop." Mr. Taricani said that he believed Mr. Jacob was credible because Mr. Jacob "kept saying that he * * * was talking to people almost on a daily basis inside the Cranston Police Department that had direct knowledge of the internal investigation." Mr. Taricani further testified that he did not ask Mr. Jacob who his sources were because, in...