2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.2. Profile:a. Print X ; TV _____; other _____________________.b. Plaintiff: public _____; private X .c. Newsgathering tort _____; Publication tort X .3. Case Summary:The article sued on was published by the Globe’s “Spotlight Team,” the newspaper’sinvestigative reporting unit, as part of a continuing series on municipal corruption, conflictsof interest, and favoritism. The article focused on vocational high school home buildingprograms in which students built houses for lottery winners free of labor charges. A centralthesis of the article was that rigorous eligibility requirements effectively excluded mostaverage citizens from participating in the housing lotteries. To illustrate that thesis, thearticle reported on four lottery winners -- including the plaintiff Stephen Columbus -- each ofwhom had some type of political connection and were the only qualified applicants in theyears in which they had won.The article described the plaintiff as a local lawyer and real estate developer who wasthe son of the local building inspector previously fined for ethics violations for issuingbuilding permits to his sons (including the plaintiff). The article reported that the plaintiff’sfather had “engineered a last-minute approval” of a building department certification requiredby the lottery program confirming that local zoning laws permitted the construction of ahouse on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff’s father had drafted the necessary documentand then driven to a neighboring town to ask another local building inspector to issue thecertification. The article described the father’s conduct as an apparent violation of theconflict of interest laws. It also reported that (a) town officials had delayed the issuance of abuilding permit to the plaintiff because of questions concerning his winning the lottery; and(b) the house built by the students was twice as big as the school rules allowed. All of thesefacts were used to support the article’s conclusions that lottery winners “appeared to havemore than luck going for them,” and that “favoritism was built into the rules” because ofdaunting hurdles placed in the way of those without “inside knowledge.” The article alsoreported that the house built by the students had significant construction defects as a result ofpoor workmanship.The plaintiff alleged that the article defamed him by implying that he had won thehousing lottery as a result of corrupt insider connections and favoritism. He also brought aclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same facts. The plaintiffcontended that his father’s actions were authorized by a building code regulation permittinginspectors to appoint their own alternates in cases of conflicts of interest. Because there wasno dispute that local zoning laws permitted the construction of a house on his property (andthat he therefore was entitled to the certification he obtained), the plaintiff claimed that hehad received no favorable treatment. He also denied that the town had delayed issuance of6
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.his building permit, that the house was twice as big as school rules allowed, and that thestudents had completed the house before abandoning the project.Before suit was filed, the Globe published a correction concerning two statements inthe article. The correction reported that town officials had not delayed issuing the plaintiff’sbuilding permit but, rather, had caused a delay in construction of the house as a result ofquestions about the plaintiff’s award. The correction also reported that the plaintiff’s housewas not twice as big as school rules allowed, an error that had been based on mistakenreliance on the rules of a different vocational school home building program.4. Verdict:The jury answered “NO” to the question: “Has the plaintiff proved that the article,read in context, asserted a false statement of fact about the plaintiff either directly or byinnuendo?”The jury also answered “NO” to the question: “Has the plaintiff proved a defendantor defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him?”5. Length of Trial:Nine full trial days.6. Length of Deliberation:Approximately four hours.7. Size of Jury:Fourteen (two alternates were allowed to deliberate).8. Significant Pre-Trial Rulings:A summary judgment motion as to liability was denied on the grounds that the case“presented the rare situation where it does not matter if the individual statements are true orfalse because the statements are combined in such a manner as to constitute a defamatoryfalsehood.” The summary judgment decision also stated that the article created thedefamatory implication that the plaintiff had an unfair advantage in the lottery process. Adifferent judge presided over the trial and treated the issue of whether the article contained adefamatory implication as a jury issue.The trial court judge denied a pretrial motion seeking to have the plaintiff declared alimited purpose public figure based on prior publicity in local papers about the conflict ofinterest caused by the plaintiff’s father handling building department applications for hisfamily.7
Page 2 and 3: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 6: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 15: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 58 and 59:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
show all

2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?