Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’

Judge Murphy’s “fascinatingly repellent” letters

That’s what media critic Dan Kennedy (Dec. 21) calls an excerpt from one of the handwritten letters that Boston judge Ernest Murphy sent to Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell following Murphy’s securing of a libel judgment of more than $2 million against the newspaper (Dec. 8). One of the letters proposes to Purcell an “AB-SO-LUTE-LY confidential and ‘off the record'” meeting which he is not to tell Brown Rudnick, the newspaper’s chief legal counsel, about.

So here’s the deal. I’d like to meet with you at the Union Club on Monday, March 7….You will bring to that meeting a cashier’s check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000. No check, no meeting.

And Dan Kennedy comments:

This much is certain: If Murphy’s letters are typical of what takes place between parties in a lawsuit, then the legal sausage-making process is a lot uglier than many of us realize.

(via Romenesko, who has links to the Boston press coverage). Boston Phoenix media critic Mark Jurkowitz also covers the story here and (Murphy’s lawyer’s response) here. A Jurkowitz commenter observes: “Settlement discussions are frequently unsightly — they often have a ‘Surrender, Dorothy’ flavor.”

Filed under: , , ,

Restraining David Letterman

Colleen Nestler, a resident of Santa Fe, N.M., alleges that late night TV host David Letterman has communicated with her in coded words in his broadcasts, has tormented her and driven her into bankruptcy, and has promised to marry her. So far, nothing terribly unusual as regards the problems celebrities face from fixated fans; Letterman himself long endured the attentions of a female stalker suffering from mental illness, Margaret Mary Ray, who repeatedly was arrested for entering Letterman’s property. This time, however, the law has taken a different attitude: according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, Judge Daniel Sanchez of the district court in Santa Fe late last week granted Ms. Nestler a temporary restraining order against Letterman, which the entertainer’s lawyers are now attempting to get lifted. Ms. Nestler’s application for the order

requested that Letterman, who tapes his show in New York, stay at least 3 yards from her and that he not “think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering,” according to the application.

Nestler’s application was accompanied by a typed, six-page, double-spaced letter in which she said Letterman used code words, gestures and “eye expressions” to convey his desire to marry her and train her as his co-host. Her story also involves Regis Philbin, Kathie Lee Gifford and Kelsey Grammer, whom Nestler says either supported or attempted to thwart her “relationship” with Letterman, according to the letter….

When asked if he might have made a mistake, Sanchez said no. He also said he had read Nestler’s application.

(Jason Auslander, “Letterman lawyers: End Santa Fe claim”, Santa Fe New Mexican, Dec. 21) Discussion: Volokh, TalkLeft, and a hundred others. On judges’ over-readiness to grant restraining orders in cases of alleged domestic violence and its threat, see this set of links. Updates Dec. 23 (discussion); Jan. 2 (judge lifts order).

Filed under: , , ,

Judge demands freeze on Boston Herald’s assets

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy, having won a libel judgment of more than $2 million against the Boston Herald, smaller of the city’s two big newspapers, is now demanding that a court order the paper’s assets frozen to guarantee payment of the judgment. (Jonathan Saltzman, “Court is asked to freeze Herald’s assets”, Boston Globe, Nov. 29). Dan Kennedy at Media Nation (Nov. 29) says that the Herald’s original article criticizing Murphy was anything but a model of good journalism.

But free-press advocates ought to be concerned that a sitting judge can have some influence over the Herald’s future — and possibly its very survival — because of reporting that amounted to criticism of how he performed his public duties. That, more than anything, is what the First Amendment was designed to protect.

(via Romenesko). For the chilling effects of libel awards won by judges in Pennsylvania, see Mar. 16, 2004, etc.

Filed under: , , , , ,

“Ontario mom faces $2M libel suit over website”

“SLAPP” suits sighted in Canada, too: Activa Holdings Inc., a large developer in the Waterloo, Ont. area, is suing stay-at-home mother Louisette Lanteigne for C$2 million because of a website she has put up complaining of allegedly hazardous environmental conditions. The company charges defamation. (CP/CTV, Nov. 14; Mike Oliviera, CP/Macleans, Nov. 13)(Slashdot thread)(cache of her now-overloaded site).

Filed under: , ,

“For Online Parents’ Group, a Legal Scare”

When “a recent question about a preschool prompted a mother and shop owner to recount a bad business encounter with the school’s director, the husband of the school’s director threatened to sue the board’s moderators for defamation.” As “Mr. [Edward B.] Safran’s threats of a lawsuit continued, the moderators were scared into shutting down the message group’s entire archives this month.” (Mokoto Rich, New York Times, Nov. 13).

Filed under: , ,

“Gripe site” protected as opinion

Continuing a trend toward the protection of “gripe sites” as free speech, a Manhattan judge has ruled that a New Jersey man’s website assailing an auto warranty company did not constitute actionable defamation. Penn Warranty Corp. sued Ronald DiGiovanni over eight allegedly libelous statements posted on his site, including assertions that it is a “blatantly dishonest company” that has been “running scams,” “committing fraud on a grand scale,” and “ripping off its contract holders for quite a while.” The judge granted DiGiovanni’s request for a summary judgment dismissing the action, however, ruling that “the web site, when viewed in its full context, reveals that defendant is a disgruntled consumer and that his statements reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealings with plaintiff. They are subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction [and] are not actionable because they are defendant’s personal opinion.” (Mark Fass, “Court Finds ‘Gripe Site’ Is Protected Free Speech, Not Defamation”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 1).

Filed under: , ,

Suing anonymous bloggers

The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that a defamation plaintiff is not automatically entitled to compel an internet service provider to lay bare the blogger’s identity, absent a showing of sufficient facts supporting the defamation case to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (J.L. Miller, “Del. court protects blogger’s identity”, WIlmington News-Journal, Oct. 6; Francis Pileggi, Oct. 6). Prof. Bainbridge (Oct. 6) calls it “a major win for bloggers and the First Amendment.”

Filed under: , , , ,

Update: “Maris family, Anheuser-Busch settle lawsuit”

The beer giant agreed to pay at least $120 million in a confidential settlement to settle a defamation suit and other litigation arising from its termination of a beer distributorship held by the family of baseball great Roger Maris. (AP/Orlando Sentinel, Aug. 24; Tiffany Pakkala, “Maris deal taps Busch for $120m”, Gainesville Sun, Aug. 25). The dispute took the form of several distinct legal actions; in 2001 a Gainesville, Fla. jury awarded the Maris family $50 million following a three-month trial at which celebrated attorney Willie Gary, representing the family, was charged with repeated misconduct (see Apr. 1-2, 2002). However, a judge later threw out ethics charges against Gary (Jan. 5 and Jan. 7, 2004). In the latest round, Gary was again representing the family, this time in a defamation suit against the brewing company; a jury was preparing to return its verdict when the parties settled. (Gregory Cancelada, “Maris family, Anheuser-Busch square off in defamation suit”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch/San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 22).

Filed under: , , , ,

N.J. court chills job references

Management-side lawyers are predicting a further drying up of reference-giving in response to a New Jersey appellate court’s ruling “appl[ying] the tort of negligent misrepresentation to a situation where an employer allegedly gave false information in an employment reference.” Marsha Singer said she was fired after a manager called her previous employer and was given an incorrect job title for the post she had held there; a court dismissed her claims for defamation and wrongful interference but allowed the negligent misrepresentation claim to go forward. Richard J. Reibstein of the New York office of Philadelphia’s Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen called the ruling a “dramatic shift in the law of post-employment references everywhere” and said it would influence employers outside the Garden State. (Dee McAree, “Ruling Could Lead to Restrictions on References”, National Law Journal, Aug. 5). For more on the chill on reference-giving, see Aug. 7, 2003; as it happens, New Jersey is a state that figured prominently in the widely noted case of alleged killer nurse Charles Cullen (Dec. 18, 2003; Jan. 29, Mar. 3 and Mar. 30, 2004), in which litigation-shy hospitals did not give each other frank warnings of their doubts about Cullen.

Filed under: , , , ,