Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enter., Docket Nos. 138456, 138457, 138458.
Citation | 793 N.W.2d 533,487 Mich. 102 |
Decision Date | 14 September 2010 |
Docket Number | Calendar No. 5.,Docket Nos. 138456, 138457, 138458. |
Parties | Derith SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANONYMOUS JOINT ENTERPRISE, George Preston, Mary Barrows, Village of Suttons Bay, and Charles Stewart, Defendants, and Donald Barrows, John Stanek, and Noel Flohe, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
793 N.W.2d 533
Derith SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANONYMOUS JOINT ENTERPRISE, George Preston, Mary Barrows, Village of Suttons Bay, and Charles Stewart, Defendants,
and
Donald Barrows, John Stanek, and Noel Flohe, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket Nos. 138456, 138457, 138458.
Calendar No. 5.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Argued March 9, 2010.
Decided July 30, 2010.
Order Denying Rehearing Sept. 14, 2010.
Mark Granzotto, P.C. (by Mark Granzotto), Royal Oak, and Parsons Ringsmuth PLC (by Grant W. Parsons), Traverse City, for Derith Smith.
Garan Lucow Miller, P.C. (by Rosalind Rochkind, Detroit, and Michael J. Swogger, Traverse City), for Donald Barrows.
Collins, Einhorn, Farrell & Ulanoff, P.C. (by Deborah A. Hebert), Southfield, for John Stanek.
Noel Flohe, in propria persona.
Butzel Long (by James E. Stewart, Leonard M. Niehoff, Ann Arbor, and Mary M. Mullin) for Amici Curiae the Detroit News, AnnArbor.com, the Bay City Times, the Flint Journal, the Grand Rapids Press, the Jackson Citizen Patriot, the Kalamazoo Gazette, the Muskegon Chronicle, the Saginaw News, and Scripps Media, Inc.
Opinion
WEAVER, J.
In this case, we decide whether plaintiff, Derith Smith, presented clear and convincing evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that defendants John Stanek, Donald Barrows, and Noel Flohe defamed plaintiff by mass-mailing copies of a personnel report containing false information about her. After conducting an independent review of the record, we conclude there exists clear and convincing evidence that Stanek and Barrows acted with "actual malice," but that plaintiff has failed to meet her evidentiary burden as to Flohe.
Accordingly, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals as to Flohe, but reverse the result it reached as to Stanek and Barrows. We remand this matter to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants' other issues, including whether the handwritten caption on the mailed report constitutes a non-defamatory statement of opinion when considered in its context within the report as a whole, whether the caption is provable as false, and whether defendants are entitled to the protection afforded by Michigan's statutory fair reporting privilege.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This defamation action arises from the mass mailing of a personnel report written about plaintiff, Derith Smith. Plaintiff worked for the village of Suttons Bay ("the Village") in Leelanau County. Plaintiff's supervisor, Suttons Bay Village Manager Charles Stewart, composed the personnel report ("the Stewart report"), which includes allegations that plaintiff was an independent contractor but had been compensating
Plaintiff filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Village opposed plaintiff's claim, arguing that plaintiff was not an employee but rather an independent contractor and, therefore, not entitled to benefits. A subsequent investigation and review revealed that various allegations against plaintiff in the report were false. Accordingly, the Village withdrew its opposition to plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff believed that she was wrongfully terminated, but did not institute a lawsuit against the Village because she had secured employment as the Elmwood Township supervisor in the November 2004 election. On May 17, 2005, while serving as Elmwood Township Supervisor, plaintiff received an anonymous mailing. The mailing included a copy of the Stewart report, with an additional handwritten caption stating, " Attention: Suttons Bay Villagers Alledged [sic] Misuse of Village Taxpayer Funds?" and "Derrick [sic] Smith." Plaintiff later learned that copies of the Stewart report, including the caption, had been mailed to hundreds of citizens in Leelanau County.
At the time of the mass mailing, defendants Stanek, Barrows, and Flohe were involved in an informal group of concerned Leelanau County citizens. The group met fairly regularly to discuss various issues, including local
The record establishes that Barrows contacted Suttons Bay Village Treasurer Jerry VanHuystee on several occasions in 2004, asking whether VanHuystee had any information about plaintiff. VanHuystee testified that he told Barrows that he did not know of anything illegal done by plaintiff. After several requests for information from Barrows, VanHuystee retrieved the Stewart report from the Village's records and made a copy of it.2 VanHuystee put the copy of the Stewart report in an envelope and marked it with Barrows' name. VanHuystee then dropped off the envelope at his sister-in-law's home, where Barrows was to pick it up. The copy of the Stewart report contained no handwritten caption at this time.
Barrows testified that he picked up the envelope containing the Stewart report and brought a copy of the report to a citizens' meeting held at Stanek's office during the first week of May 2005. Stanek, Barrows, and Flohe were all present at this meeting, although the trial testimony indicated that Flohe arrived late. At this particular meeting, copies of the Stewart
Preston and Stewart testified that Preston had contacted Stewart and informed him of the concerned citizens' intent to mail the Stewart report. Stewart confirmed with Preston that plaintiff had done nothing illegal and that the report should not be distributed. Preston and Stanek both testified that Preston relayed this information to Stanek; however, the trial testimony is somewhat conflicting with regard to exactly when he did so.
Barrows testified that he nonetheless took a copy of the Stewart report to a copy shop and paid to have approximately 500 copies made. Approximately 420 of those copies were placed into envelopes and sealed by the store's staff. The envelopes were placed in boxes along with the remaining 80 copies of the Stewart report. Barrows testified that on May 16, 2005, he took the boxes to Stanek's office where he, Stanek, and Flohe worked together to stamp and label the stuffed envelopes. The envelopes were then taken to the post office and mailed to citizens in Leelanau County. Citizens within the county began receiving the mailings by May 17, 2005, while the remaining copies of the Stewart report were displayed at citizen and township meetings.
Plaintiff subsequently brought a defamation claim against Stanek, Barrows, and Flohe.3 Defendants
A jury trial was held, and a verdict was reached in favor of plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff monetary damages and a public apology in the form of a legal notice. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment of no cause of action, concluding
This Court granted plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding of actual malice.10
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The inquiry into whether evidence in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice presents a question of law. 11 To determine whether the constitutional standard for defamation of a public figure 12 has been satisfied, a reviewing court must consider
The importance of protecting First Amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Doe
- Redmond v. Heller
-
Ghanam v. Does
... ... 522 845 N.W.2d 128 GHANAM v. John DOES. Docket No. 312201. Court of Appeals of Michigan ... to keep the identities of those people anonymous. We reverse and remand for the trial court to ... in the Michigan Supreme Court case of [ Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich. 102, ... [T]he interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs ... ...
- Everett v. Uaw Local 699