Mast v. Overson

• Decision Date: 31 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 971586-CA,971586-CA
• Citation: Mast v. Overson, 971 P.2d 928 (Utah App. 1998)
• Parties: 359 Utah Adv. Rep. 59 David K. MAST, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Brent OVERSON, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 928

971 P.2d 928

359 Utah Adv. Rep. 59

David K. MAST, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.Brent OVERSON, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 971586-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Dec. 31, 1998.

Denver C. Snuffer Jr., Nelson, Snuffer & Dahle, Sandy, for Appellant.

Jay D. Gurmankin and Richard D. Flint, Berman, Gaufin, Tomsic & Savage, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before DAVIS, P.J., and JACKSON and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

ORME, Judge:

PlaintiffDavid K. Mast appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendantBrent Overson.Specifically, Mast argues the trial court erred in concluding that Overson's statements were not defamatory as a matter of law and in not permitting Mast to conduct discovery regarding these statements.We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and recite the facts accordingly.SeeHodgson v. Bunzl Utah, Inc., 844 P.2d 331, 333(Utah1992).

This case arises out of Mast's crusade to stop the South Mountain golf course development in Draper, Utah, which was part of a 250-lot subdivision development.In 1995, the Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation Citizen's Golf Advisory Board reviewed proposals to develop a golf course in the south end of the Salt Lake Valley.They determined that the South Mountain proposal in Draper was the best choice because of its location, design, and cost.The Advisory Board submitted its decision to the Salt Lake County Commission and held public hearings on the proposal.Although the proposal ultimately fell through, it generated a good deal of public interest and debate.

Mast was one of those who was highly interested in the South Mountain proposal.Mast is president of Citizen Taxpayers of Utah (CTU), a nonprofit corporation, and he and CTU have actively opposed various government programs.Typically, this activism includes placing advertisements in local newspapers and bringing actions in court.¹Regarding the South Mountain golf course, CTU placed advertisements in opposition thereto and, when unhappy with Salt Lake County's response to its request for public records under the Government Records Access and Management Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-2-102 to -909 (1997& Supp.1998), filed an action against Salt Lake County and Overson, a Salt Lake County Commissioner, to compel complete disclosure.

In opposing the South Mountain course, Mast also spoke with local newspapers.He indicated his difficulties in obtaining records and stated that the County was paying too much for the course and that the County should open the intended construction to competitive bidding.In an August 22, 1996article, the Deseret News reported that Mast had asked the Utah Attorney General's Office to convene a grand jury to investigate Overson for violating open meetings laws ² and "fired a volley of other accusations at Overson."

On August 22, 1996, the heated debate culminated in a full page advertisement placed by CTU in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News.CTU's advertisement began with a large bold-faced banner stating, "S.L. COUNTY COMMISSIONER, BRENT OVERSON MISLEADS THE PUBLIC AND CONTINUES TO VIOLATE STATE LAW!," under which it proclaimed "BRENT OVERSON HAS HAD MANY SECRET MEETINGS WITH SOUTH MOUNTAIN PRIVATE DEVELOPERS ... BEHIND CLOSED DOORS! " Under this banner, CTU stated it "WANTS RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS TO KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTY'S SCAM CONCERNING THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE."CTU stated three more times that Overson "MISLEADS THE PUBLIC," and concluded that "BRENT OVERSON, IN OUR OPINION, HAS VIOLATED STATE LAW BY MEETING MANY TIMES, SECRETLY AND BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPERS.BRENT OVERSON FURTHER DISREGARDS STATE LAW AND REFUSES TO TURN OVER GOVERNMENT RECORDS."

Overson held a press conference that same day where he read the following prepared statement:³

Today's full page newspaper ad is politically motivated, mean spirited and a sham.This ad was placed and paid for by David Mast.David Mast is a real estate developer.South Mountain is his competitor.Because I'm the only commissioner facing re-election, I've been singled out by David Mast as a scapegoat for South Mountain.Under the deceptive name of Concerned Taxpayers of Utah, David Mast has attacked my character and integrity.Does David Mast think that this assassination attempt will stop Salt Lake County from buying the South Mountain golf course?Whether I am here or not, Salt Lake County will still buy and operate this golf course.Why??

1.Salt Lake County's golf master plan calls for a golf course in the southeast area of this valley.

2.The golf advisory board considered three different courses and heartily recommended the South Mountain golf course to fulfill the need identified in the master plan.

3.The Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation Board supports this golf course.

4.It has the support of Draper City.

and

5.The purchase price is fair and supported by independent analysis.

Isn't it a shame that a public official has to subject himself to threats, personal lawsuits, lies or character assassination?David Mast or whatever you call yourself, I will not shrink from my public duty.The purchase of the South Mountain golf course is the right thing for golf and Salt Lake County.

At the press conference, Overson made other oral comments not contained in his prepared statement, but reported in both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News.For example, the Deseret News quoted Overson as stating: "This is a competitor who is not happy with this transaction.This 'Concerned Taxpayers of Utah' is a ruse.It's strictly a front for David Mast.It's a wonder anybody runs for public office when they have to be subjected to this kind of harassment."The newspaper also quoted Overson as stating that "[CTU's] ad is rife with misstatements and bare-faced lies."In addition, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Overson stated that "the county has not held illegal meetings to discuss the golf-course deal."

On August 26, 1996, the following Monday, Overson placed his own full page advertisement carrying a bold-faced banner headline of "THE FACTS" in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News.Overson's advertisement, paid for by the Overson Election Committee, responded to CTU's charges, stating that no secret meetings had occurred and explaining there were no irregularities in the South Mountain approval process.The advertisement omitted any reference to either CTU or Mast.

Shortly after this emotionally charged exchange, Mast filed suit against Overson, alleging that Overson had defamed Mast and requesting either damages of at least $1 million or a retraction and apology through full page advertisements in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News and a sixty second commercial on four local television stations.Mast specifically claimed that Overson's August 26 advertisement "contain[ed] false information, with the intention of misleading the public and of discrediting Plaintiff."Mast also generally alleged that, through the media, Overson "published falsehoods about the Plaintiff, ... accused Plaintiff of being a 'liar,' " and personally attacked Mast by stating that CTU was a "ruse."

Before the parties had conducted any discovery, Overson moved for summary judgment.Mast responded with a motion under Rule 56(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that discovery was necessary to obtain a copy of the video and audio tapes recording the press conference "in which [Overson] made disparaging and false comments about [Mast]."Mast also argued that discovery was necessary to refute the various defenses Overson had raised.⁴Overson objected to Mast's Rule 56(f) motion and also requested a stay of discovery.

After hearing arguments on the various motions before it, the trial court rendered its decision.The court concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Overson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Specifically, the court concluded that Overson's statements "would not have injured [Mast's] reputation in the eyes of the audience" and, therefore, were not defamatory.Moreover, the court denied Mast's Rule 56(f) motion, concluding that because Mast failed to meet this threshold determination, further discovery was unnecessary.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Mast now appeals the trial court's decision arguing, first, that summary judgment was not warranted because Overson's statements were defamatory as a matter of law.A trial court properly grants summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c)."Because summary judgment is granted as a matter of law, we give the trial court's legal conclusions no particular deference."Hodgson v. Bunzl Utah, Inc., 844 P.2d 331, 333(Utah1992).

Second, Mast argues the trial court erred in denying his Rule 56(f) motion and granting summary judgment because deposing Overson would "clarify and elucidate what was stated at the press conference."We review the denial or grant of a Rule 56(f) motion for an abuse of discretion.SeeCrossland Sav. v. Hatch, 877 P.2d 1241, 1243(Utah1994)." 'Under this standard, we will not reverse unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability.' "Id.(quotingState v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1361(Utah1993)).

DEFAMATION

Initially, we note that this dispute grows out of spirited public debate on an issue of public interest.The First Amendment" 'was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686(1964)(quotingRoth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1308, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498(1957))."[E]xpressions of opinion are the mainstay of vigorous public...