Rye v. Seattle Times Co.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 10406-3-I,10406-3-I |
| Citation | 678 P.2d 1282,37 Wn.App. 45 |
| Parties | , 10 Media L. Rep. 1483 Eddie RYE, Jr. and Andrea Rye, his wife, Respondents, v. SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, a corporation; Rick Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson, his wife, Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones, Daniel Waggoner, Evan Schwab, Seattle, for petitioners.
Lembhard G. Howell, P.S., Lembhard Howell, Seattle, for respondents.
This is a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs, Eddie Rye, Jr. and wife, against the defendants, Seattle Times Company (publishers of The Seattle Times) and its reporter, Richard Anderson and wife. 1 The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment of dismissal. Thereafter, this court granted discretionary review of that decision. RAP 2.3(b)(1).
The following facts are essentially undisputed.
The May 3, 1978 article on which this defamation action is based was written by the defendant Rick Anderson and published in The Seattle Times. It reads as follows Cash, drugs to officials
Ex-CAMP employes tell F.B.I. of kickbacks
by RICK ANDERSON
Federal authorities have been told of a series of kickbacks involving money and illegal drugs at Seattle's Central Area Motivation Program, The Times has learned.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been given direct information from former CAMP employes who admitted giving the kickbacks and said others witnessed some of the transactions.
Six specific incidents resulted in $1,100 in cash and $200 in cocaine going to a CAMP official, the F.B.I. was told.
The kickbacks were given in return for "job security," one employe said.
Another said a $200 kickback was given to an official as a "share" of some excess federal funding at the public antipoverty agency.
The kickbacks were given at different times during 1976 and 1977, and at one point required the alteration of a personal contract to produce money one official said he wanted, the F.B.I. was told.
AN EMPLOYE, a consultant working on contract, said he was told to rewrite the contract, doubling his monthly pay.
Doing so increased his salary from $600 to $1,200, he said. The excess from that month, in the summer of 1977, was then given to the official who had asked that the contract be rewritten.
The $600 excess was given in two $300 payments, made in cash to the official in his office, the employe said.
CAMP public records show that the employe, who had been contracted at an annual salary of $7,200 ($600 a month), actually received $7,800 in 1977.
An earlier cash payment of $300 was made from money resulting from an official request to increase a special hourly consultant's fee on a CAMP project sponsored by federal funds, the F.B.I. was told.
In that instance, early in the summer of 1977, the employe said he asked the official why he thought the hourly rate was too low.
"It's too low because I need $300," the employe said the official responded. Although the work had already been completed, the hourly rate was increased and a billing put through. When it was paid, the $300 was given in cash by the employe to the official in the men's room of a Seattle cafe.
TWO OTHER kickbacks resulted in separate drug transactions in 1977. An employe, as a result of an agreement with an official, received money for special work. In return, the employe told the F.B.I., he gave the official a total of two grams of cocaine, worth $100 a gram, purchased with the money from the special work. The cocaine (selling or possession of which is a felony) was agreed upon before the work was done, the employe said.
Another employe said he and one other CAMP worker agreed to divide some excess federal funding and were told that an official wanted part "of the action."
The two employes were uncertain if it was wrong to take the excess funding--it was being paid to them for work they did on another project, although they both were regularly salaried CAMP employes--but chose to give the official $200 in cash.
One of the employes and a witness were present when the official was given an envelope containing two $50 bills and a $100 bill in June, 1976.
At the time the article was written, the plaintiff was executive director of the Central Area Motivation Program, commonly referred to by the acronym "CAMP", and had served in that capacity for several years. CAMP, an anti-poverty agency, served as a conduit through which federal and state funds were channeled to Seattle's central area. The plaintiff, in his capacity as CAMP executive director, had substantial responsibility for funds allocated to CAMP from governmental sources and exercised considerable discretionary authority in connection with directing the use thereof.
For the year or so preceding the writing and publication of the article in question, there had been a running controversy concerning CAMP. This appears to have resulted largely from governmental reports that CAMP was short of funds and from investigations of CAMP on the part of federal oversight agencies. Statements by CAMP employees and other individuals in the community contributed their views and opinions to the controversy.
Beginning in November of 1977, The Seattle Times published a series of articles on the controversy written by its reporter, Mr. Anderson, and some of which involved the plaintiff and his role at CAMP. The articles detailed assorted CAMP matters including problems with a summer food program, irregularities in the handling and transfer of funds within CAMP and CAMP's general shortage of funds.
The sources of the reporter's information for his articles included the audits and reports of the oversight agencies and statements of persons who were or had been employed at CAMP, including a Mr. Mike Stillwell and a Mr. Jerrold Letnes. Mr. Stillwell had been head of the CAMP Consumer Action Project for 4 years and an employee of CAMP for a total of 6 years. Mr. Letnes had been a senior staff member and full time CAMP employee from 1973 to 1976 with substantial involvement in seeking grants for CAMP, and subsequently operated his own consulting firm which did contractual work for CAMP.
According to the reporter, the information so provided him was both reliable and accurate. The reporter also said that he "did not believe that Letnes or Stillwell had personal animosity toward [the plaintiff], but believed they only wanted to insure that public funds were used properly."
In the reporter's affidavit filed in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, he tells of a luncheon interview on which the article in question was primarily based. It took place the day before the article was published. Present were Messrs. Stillwell and Letnes, their attorney, the Times reporter Mr. Anderson and a reporter from a Seattle television station. As Mr. Anderson's affidavit relates:
15. At the lunch meeting Stillwell and Letnes described a recent visit to the FBI where they met with an agent after being granted immunity through the United States Attorney. Stillwell and Letnes informed me they had given the FBI the full details of the events of CAMP and had admitted to giving Rye kick-backs totalling $1,100 in cash and kick-backs of cocaine. Stillwell and Letnes stated the kick-backs were given to Rye to insure that they would continue having jobs and that others had witnessed some of the kick-backs. They stated they had told the FBI that $300 in kick-backs had been given from an increase in a special hourly consultant's fee being performed by Letnes. They stated they had told the FBI that $300 had been given in cash to Rye in the men's room of a Seattle cafe.
16. I believed Letnes and Stillwell were telling me the truth. I understood they were admitting their own guilt and were "dirtying" themselves by admitting to their participation in such actions. After the story was published and this lawsuit was initiated, both Stillwell and Letnes confirmed to me that they still believed their allegations were true and that they had transmitted those allegations to the FBI.
The reporter's affidavit further related that he also confirmed with federal authorities that Messrs. Stillwell and Letnes had in fact made such charges against the plaintiff. Affidavits from Mr. Stillwell and Mr. Letnes to the foregoing effect were also filed in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
According to his own deposition, the plaintiff was in charge of an organization that had as its function the administering of public funds and he was paid by federal monies. In responding to the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff did not contest that he was a public official or public figure. He has offered the following argument as to why summary judgment should not be granted:
The evidence presented to the trial court, construed most favorable [sic] to the plaintiff, shows that Anderson had a running dialogue with Letnes and Stillwell since the early stages of the story in 1977. By mid-February, 1978, Letnes had been terminated by Rye, and Rye was trying to terminate Stillwell, a fact that Anderson must have been aware of in view of his regular communication with them. By mid-February Letnes and Stillwell were making public accusations against Rye. The Anderson affidavit ... states that he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information given him by Letnes and Stillwell, no reason to suspect that they were hostile to Rye, and even if he wanted to check the story with Rye, Rye had told him in March that he would provide no further comments. However, Stillwell and Letnes had been making public accusations against Rye long before May 3, 1981.
The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that through a regular discourse of several months, Anderson was aware of what was going on between Letnes, Stillwell and Rye. They were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herron v. Tribune Pub. Co., Inc.
...the plaintiff will not defeat the motion. See Liberty Lobby, at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d at 212; cf. Rye v. Seattle Times Co., 37 Wash.App. 45, 56, 678 P.2d 1282, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 593, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984). Moreover, conclusory statements in a plaintiff's a......
-
Long v. Egnor
...v. Cousens, 396 Mass. 254, 485 N.E.2d 940 (1985); Kotlikoff v. Community News, 89 N.J. 62, 444 A.2d 1086 (1982); Rye v. Seattle Times Co., 37 Wash.App. 45, 678 P.2d 1282, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 593, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); see generally 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Fed......
-
Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co.
...knowledge that his principal sources were hostile to the plaintiff will not of itself establish actual malice. Rye v. Seattle Times Co., 37 Wash.App. 45, 53-55, 678 P.2d 1282, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1004, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 593, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Tilton v. Cowle......
-
Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co.
...162, 169-70, 736 P.2d 249 (1987); see also Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195, 199, 760 P.2d 324 (1988). Accord, Rye v. Seattle Times Co., 37 Wash.App. 45, 678 P.2d 1282, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1004, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 593, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984).20 Margoles, 111 Wa......
-
The Confusing Standards for Discretionary Review in Washington and a Proposed Framework for Clarity
...1990) (reversing summary judgment ruling in will contest presenting issue of first impression in Washington); Rye v. Seattle Times Co., 678 P.2d 1282, 1289 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984) (revers-ing denial of summary judgment in defamation action against newspaper and reporter for lack of affirmativ......