Blair v. Inside Edition Productions, 7 F. Supp. 3d 348

Pro se Blair sues Inside Edition for defamation based on four 2012 broadcasts describing Blair as a squatter in Peterson's house.
Blair is a self-described public figure and housing advocate who had prior land/possession actions against Peterson; Blair occupied the home from Oct 2012 for several months.
Peterson served Blair a February 2011 notice to quit; Blair moved out after Peterson left the country, and Blair later altered and occupied parts of the home without permission.
Inside Edition aired four segments in Oct 2012; Blair was portrayed as a squatter and as opposing eviction, with explanations of the eviction process under the law.
Blair filed this defamation action on Nov 27, 2012; the court granted summary judgment in favor of Inside Edition, finding the statements substantially true under New York and Michigan law.
The court applied federal procedural law with state substantive law, determining the falsity standard for public figures requires clear and convincing evidence and substantial truth analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blair, a public figure, must prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence	Blair contends falsity can be shown by any credible standard.	Inside Edition argues public figures require clear and convincing falsity evidence.	Public figure standard: clear and convincing required.
Whether the broadcasts were substantially false	Blair asserts specific statements were false or misleading.	Inside Edition contends the gist/substance is true.	No rational jury could find substantial falsity; statements portrayed Blair as a squatter and related facts were substantially true.
Whether Blair was a squatter as a matter of substantial truth	Blair argues she had no legal right to be in the house.	Inside Edition shows Blair occupied without permission and altered the home.	Substantial truth; Blair's occupancy without permission supports squatter characterization.
Whether use of the term ‘strangers’ and other descriptors were actionable	Describing Blair and Peterson as 'strangers' was defamatory.	The term did not alter the substantial truth of Blair's conduct.	Statement not independently actionable; context renders it non-defamatory.
Choice of law governing falsity and defamation standard	State law of Blair’s domicile should apply.	New York law applies due to Inside Edition’s domicile and no conflict with Michigan law.	New York law applies; both states require clear and convincing falsity with substantial truth standard.

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (falsity assessed by substantive truth; exact wording not required)
Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 475 U.S. 767 (1986) (public concern requires falsity proof balancing speech and truth)
DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.2005) (public figures must prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence)
Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5 (2d Cir.1998) (choice-of-law and defamation framework in mixed jurisdictions)
In re Fosamax Products Liab. Litig., 707 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.2013) (federal procedural law governs; substantial truth standard analyzed)
Masson v. Masson, not applicable (not applicable) (included for context of substantial truth standard (Masson cited above))