Yates v. Gannett Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 119,414 |
| Citation | 523 P.3d 69 |
| Parties | Travis YATES, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GANNETT CO., INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a The Miami News-Record ; Gatehouse Media Oklahoma Holdings, Inc. d/b/a The Miami-News Record ; Comcast Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; Public Radio Tulsa d/b/a KWGS FM 89.5, an Oklahoma resident; and Chris Polansky, an Oklahoma resident, individually and as an Employee of Public Radio Tulsa, Defendants/Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Douglas E. Stall, DOUGLAS E. STALL, PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and J. Schaad Titus, Dallas L. Jones, TITUS HILLIS REYNOLDS LOVE, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant,
S. Douglas Dodd, Anna M. Sanger, DOERNER, SAUNDERS, DANIEL & ANDERSON, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee Public Radio Tulsa and Chris Polansky, and
Robert D. Nelon, John Epstein, HALL ESTILL, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Molly Aspan, HALL ESTILL, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees Comcast Corporation, NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, GANNETT CO., INC., and GATEHOUSE MEDIA OKLAHOMA HOLDINGS, INC.
OPINION BY THOMAS E. PRINCE, JUDGE:
¶1 Appellant Travis Yates, a Tulsa police major, appeals the trial court's February 22, 2021 Order granting the media Appellees' Motions to Dismiss his claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and malicious wrong pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act ("OCPA"), 12 O.S. §§ 1430 et seq . Yates' suit also challenged the constitutionality of the OCPA. The trial court, relying on Krimbill v. Talarico , 2018 OK CIV APP 37, 417 P.3d 1240, denied the constitutional challenge. Both the text of OCPA—and the First Amendment principles that undergird it—require this Court to affirm the trial court's Order dismissing Appellant's claims. This Court also holds that the OCPA is constitutional.
BACKGROUND
¶2 This appeal arises out of an action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy and malicious wrong. Appellant initiated the action against Appellees Gannett Co., Inc. ("Gannett") et al . after Appellees published, in a series of independent but successive articles, accounts of a June 8, 2020 radio interview in which the Appellant fielded many questions about policing, protests, and the use of force. Appellant alleges, inter alia , that the Appellees' articles and headlines distorted his words and falsely inferred he was a "racist cop."1 During the interview, which spanned almost sixty minutes, the Appellant made, among others, this jarring statement:
And by the way, all the research says—including Roland Fryer, an African American Harvard professor, Heather Mac Donald, and the National Academy of Sciences—all of their research says, we're shooting African Americans at about 24% less than we probably ought to be based upon the crimes being committed.2
¶3 A day after the local radio interview, Public Radio Tulsa ("PRT") published and marketed a story by Chris Polansky, a PRT employee, entitled "TPD Major: Police Shoot Black Americans ‘Less Than We Probably Ought To.’ " The PRT article mentions the Appellant's race and highlights—via hyperlinking to articles unrelated to Appellant's June 8, 2020 radio interview—that the Appellant "is no stranger to racial controversy." The PRT article also includes the entirety of the Appellant's statement, set forth in detail above. See supra ¶ 2. Appellant's statement, which Polansky described as "[Appellant's] interpretation of crime data," appears as a separate paragraph, sandwiched between other statements he made.
¶4 On June 11, 2020, two days after PRT published and marketed Polansky's story, NBCUniversal Media, LLC ("NBCU") published a story of its own. By then, Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum had released a statement on the Appellant's radio interview remarks. The NBCU article spotlighted portions of Bynum's statement, in which the mayor distanced his administration, the Tulsa Police Department and the City of Tulsa from the Appellant and his comments. After several introductory paragraphs, the NBCU article (like Polansky's) quoted the entirety of the Appellant's statement, which this Court set forth in detail above. See supra ¶ 2. Unlike the PRT article, however, the NBCU article's headline reads: "African Americans ‘probably ought to be’ shot more by police, a Top Tulsa officer said."
¶5 The next day, the Gannett-owned USA Today published another story rehashing the details. Its headline, not unlike the NBC article, reads: "Oklahoma cop faces backlash but won't apologize after saying African Americans ‘probably ought to be’ shot more by police." The USA Today 's article begins by stating that "[a] police commander in Oklahoma is ‘under review’ after he said that officers are shooting African Americans less than we probably ought to be ‘during a local radio interview.’ " Despite its rather provocative opening, the USA Today article, like both of the articles published before it, went on to provide context and quoted Appellant verbatim.
¶6 On June 12, 2020, the Appellant appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight , in what Appellant's counsel has described as an effort "to mitigate the damage [the Appellees] caused to [the Appellant's] reputation." About ninety days later, Appellant filed his Petition, later amended, which set forth claims against the Appellees for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy and malicious wrong. Appellees moved the trial court to dismiss Appellant's action pursuant to the OCPA (which the Appellant later alleged was unconstitutional) and for failure to state a claim for relief under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6). The trial court agreed and dismissed Appellant's action under the OCPA. The trial court denied Appellant's challenge to the OCPA on grounds that this Court already addressed the Act's constitutionality in Krimbill , 2018 OK CIV APP 37, 417 P.3d 1240.
¶7 This interlocutory appeal timely followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 Pursuant to this Court's holding in Krimbill , 2018 OK CIV APP 37, ¶ 4, 417 P.3d 1240, we apply the de novo appellate standard of review. In Krimbill , this Court held "that the OCPA provides a new summary process/dismissal procedure in certain cases [and that] Oklahoma appellate courts have reviewed decisions pursuant to such procedures by a de novo standard." Id. The OCPA dismissal procedure "requires dismissal if a plaintiff fails to show a prima facie case, and is hence similar to a motion for directed verdict," challenges to which "also are reviewed de novo ." Id. Thus, not unlike motions to dismiss generally (which this Court also reviews under a de novo standard), this Court applies a de novo standard of appellate review under "existing precedent and persuasive authority." Id. ; see also Ladra v. New Dominion, LLC , 2015 OK 53, ¶ 8, 353 P.3d 529, 531 () (citation omitted); 12 O.S. §§ 1430 et seq . (setting forth specific procedures for the filing, review, and ruling on motions to dismiss under the OCPA).
¶9 The constitutionality of the OCPA also is at issue in this appeal, which is a question of law to be reviewed de novo .
Lee v. Bueno , 2016 OK 97, ¶ 6, 381 P.3d 736, 739. Under this standard of review, "this Court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented." Id. (citations omitted). When considering the constitutional validity of a statute, this Court does not consider policy. Id. ¶ 8 (citations omitted). Instead, this Court is guided by well-established principles, including that "[a] legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably[,] and plainly inconsistent with the [Oklahoma] Constitution." Id. ¶ 7 (citations omitted). In fact, "[e]very presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute's constitutionality." Id. (citations omitted). "[A] heavy burden" "is [therefore] cast on those challenging a legislative enactment to show its unconstitutionality." Id. (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
¶10 Although Appellant presents this Court with a multiplicity of questions, the overarching question before us is whether the OCPA justified the trial court's Order granting Appellees' Motions to Dismiss the Appellant's claims for failing to establish "by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question." This Court finds that it did and affirms the decision of the trial court.
Whether the OCPA Applies
¶11 The OCPA, enacted "to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely[,] and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury," includes among its provisions specific procedures for the filing, review and ruling on motions to dismiss. 12 O.S. §§ 1430 et seq. The OCPA's dismissal procedure may be invoked where the Plaintiff's claim "is based on, relates to, or is in response to the [defendant's] exercise of the right of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association." Krimbill , 2018 OK CIV APP 37, ¶ 9, 417 P.3d 1240 (citing 12 O.S. § 1434(B) ). Once the defendant has proven that the OCPA applies, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show "by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question." Id. (citing 12 O.S. § 1434(C) ). Only if the court finds that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case for each element of each claim does the burden shift "back to the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence a defense to the plaintiff's claims." Id. (citing 12 O.S. § 1434(D) ).
¶12 In this case, Appellees demonstrated that their motions to dismiss, which were filed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial