Stokes v. Cbs Inc., Civ. No. 4-96-178 (DSD/JMM).

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
• Writing for the Court: Doty
• Citation: 25 F.Supp.2d 992
• Parties: Terri STOKES, Plaintiff, v. CBS INC., d/b/a WCCO Television; King World Productions; Tom Johnson; and the County of Anoka, Minnesota, Defendants.
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 4-96-178 (DSD/JMM).
• Decision Date: 02 November 1998

25 F.Supp.2d 992 Terri STOKES, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS INC., d/b/a WCCO Television; King World Productions; Tom Johnson; and the County of Anoka, Minnesota, Defendants. Civ. No. 4-96-178 (DSD/JMM). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. November 2, 1998.

Page 993

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 994

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 995

Joseph Stuart Friedberg, Friedberg Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, Robert R. Weinstine, Winthrop & Weinstine, St. Paul, MN, Charles Lee Hawkins, Hawkins Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, Melissa A. Arndt, Winthrop & Weinstein, Minneapolis, MN, for Terri Stokes.

John Philip Borger, Eric Edwin Jorstad, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, MN, Susanna M. Lowry, Cameron A. Stracher, CBS Inc., New York, NY, for CBS, Inc.

Mark R. Anfinson, Anfinson Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for NBC, Inc.

Anthony Charles Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, MN, for Tom Johnson, County of Anoka.

John Philip Borger, Eric Edwin Jorstad, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, MN, Ralph E. Goldberg, Christine Hagan, New York, NY, for King World Productions.

ORDER

DOTY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendants' motions for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, the court denies defendants' motions.

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 1993, Dennis Stokes was killed by a shotgun blast to the head while lying asleep in the bed of his Anoka County home. The Anoka County Sheriff's Department promptly began an investigation, led by Deputy Tom Johnson. Almost immediately Johnson focused on Dennis's wife, Terri Stokes, as the prime suspect. Nonetheless, despite Johnson's conclusion that Terri Stokes had both the motive and the opportunity to kill her husband, a five-month investigation uncovered little evidence connecting Terri Stokes to the murder.

Toward the end of this period, Johnson was approached by WCCO, a local television station, which expressed interest in airing a report updating viewers on the progress of the investigation. After consulting with his superiors, Johnson informed Tom Gasparoli, the WCCO reporter working on the story, that his only suspect in the case was Terri Stokes. On April 4, 1994, Gasparoli's report was broadcast as that evening's "Dimension" segment. Statements by Johnson regarding Terri Stokes's involvement in her husband's murder were the centerpiece of the broadcast.

Months later, on December 23, 1994, the nationally syndicated news show American Journal broadcast its own story on Dennis Stokes's murder, reported largely by Lauren Thierry. Once again, statements by Johnson about Terri Stokes played a primary role in the broadcast. At the time of the American Journal report, Johnson's investigation remained at a standstill and Terri Stokes had moved to Idaho.

Early in 1996, Stokes filed this action in federal court. Having since that time agreed to the dismissal of certain claims and parties, Stokes now sues defendants Tom Johnson, Anoka County, CBS (doing business as WCCO), and King World Productions (producer of American Journal) for defamation. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.

Specifically, the defamation claim arises from statements made during the April 1994 WCCO broadcast and the December 1994 American Journal broadcast. Both broadcasts will be discussed in detail below. The parties have stipulated, however, that any defamatory meaning conveyed by the defendants in this case emerges from the following language. Language in brackets is included for context.

WCCO Broadcast

Johnson: Somebody walked directly to
                 the house, up the stairway, into
                 the bedroom and, it appears,
                 shot him while he was sleeping.
                 The gun was pressed to his
                

Page 996

 head and (she)1 pulled the trigger.
                 This was a personal thing.
                 I think it was a well planned
                 out, methodical execution of
                 Dennis Stokes.
                Gasparoli: [By his wife?]
                Johnson: I believe so.
                Gasparoli: [Do you have any doubts
                 about the direction you are going?]
                Johnson: No.
                 * * * * * *
                Johnson: At this point, when you start
                 focusing in on her, she tries to
                 get away from the question. At
                 this point she wants to use the
                 bathroom, next minute she
                 wants to talk to her dad. You
                 know, you close her in and try
                 to confront her; she runs.
                American Journal Broadcast
                Reporter: Even more shocking is that police
                 believe the family man's
                 killer was someone very close
                 to home.
                Johnson: This was a crime of passion.
                 * * * * * *
                Johnson: [We don't have enough evidence
                 to show, to prove that she did it
                 beyond a reasonable doubt.] I
                 think we have a lot of reasons
                 why.
                 * * * * * *
                Thierry: [You're one hundred percent
                 sure that Terri killed Dennis?]
                Joyce Stokes: One hundred percent.
                 There is no doubt about it. If she
                 had somebody help her, maybe she
                 did. But I think she planned it all,
                 and I think she had been planning
                 it for a long time.
                 * * * * * *
                Thierry: We went to Terri Stokes' home
                 * * * to get some answers from
                 Terri about (Dennis Stokes')2
                 death.
                Reporter: [Accusation that Terri Stokes
                 was] running off.
                Thierry: Joyce Stokes was left with no
                 answers to the questions she
                 came all the way to Idaho to
                 ask.
                

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for Summary Judgment

The court should grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is no genuine issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "Where the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party," there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

On a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party and gives that party the benefit of all justifiable inferences that can be drawn in its favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The nonmoving party, however, cannot rest upon mere denials or allegations made in the pleadings. Nor may the nonmoving party simply argue that facts supporting its claim may be developed later at trial. Rather, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts, by affidavit or otherwise, sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the action under governing law. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248,

Page 997

106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202. If reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence, summary judgment should not be granted. See id. 477 U.S. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

B. Plaintiff's Prima Facie Defamation Claim

In Minnesota, to meet the elements of defamation, the plaintiff must "`prove that a statement was false, that it was communicated to someone besides the plaintiff, and that it tended to harm the plaintiff's reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community.'" Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 544 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn.1996) (quoting Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A., 520 N.W.2d 406, 410 (Minn.1994)). The court also plays an important threshold role in determining whether the communication possesses defamatory meaning:

In libel cases a publication may be defamatory on its face; or it may carry a defamatory meaning only by reason of extrinsic circumstances. The question whether a claimed defamatory [meaning] is reasonably conveyed by the language used is for the court to determine. If the words are capable of the defamatory meaning, it is for the jury to decide whether they were in fact so understood.

Utecht v. Shopko Dep't Store, 324 N.W.2d 652, 653-54 (Minn.1982) (citations omitted). With these considerations in mind, the court will address whether (1) the communications complained of in the present case are reasonably capable of defamatory meaning, (2) Stokes has produced sufficient evidence that the communications are false, and (3) Stokes has produced sufficient evidence that she was harmed by the communications.

1. Defamatory Meaning

Defendants contend that the disputed communications are speculation and opinion that are incapable of being proven false and therefore do not convey an actionable defamatory meaning. The First Amendment provides a limited protection to defamation defendants. While "[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea[,] ... there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In evaluating the scope of First Amendment protection, the Supreme Court has rejected the "artificial dichotomy between `opinion' and fact." Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). As the Court observed in Milkovich, "expressions of `opinion' may often imply an assertion of objective fact." Id. 497 U.S. at 18, 110 S.Ct. 2695.

To distinguish between protected expressions of idea and actionable assertions of fact, Minnesota courts rely on the framework developed in Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 788 F.2d 1300 (8th Cir.1986). See Hunt v. University of Minn., 465 N.W.2d 88, 93-94 (Minn.Ct.App.1991); Lund v. Chicago and Northwestern Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn.Ct.App.1991). Under Janklow, courts evaluate whether a statement has defamatory meaning using four factors: (1) the statement's precision and specificity; (2) the statement's verifiability; (3) the social and literary context in which the statement is made; (4) the statement's public context. Janklow, 788 F.2d at 1302-03. These...