Bruce Plante v. Ronald P. Long, 170 A.3d 243

Background

Bruce (assistant fire chief) and Dennis Plante (fire chief) are public figures who had a contentious history with Ronald Long, a Berwick resident who publicly criticized the fire department.
On Oct. 27, 2011, an on‑road interaction between Bruce (driving a propane truck) and Long (jogging) produced competing accounts about whether Bruce shouted profanities and threats; Long emailed police and Bruce’s employer the next day describing the encounter and saying Bruce was "mentally unstable."
Later communications (Apr. 24, 2012 and May 23, 2012) accused the Plantes of following, harassing, and intimidating residents; Bruce and Dennis disputed Long’s characterizations.
The Plantes sued for libel (multiple counts) and punitive damages; Long moved for summary judgment on remaining counts after some dismissals and lengthy discovery.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Long; the Supreme Judicial Court (majority) affirmed, holding the Plantes failed to make a prima facie showing of actual malice necessary for public‑figure defamation.
A dissent argued genuine disputes of material fact about fabrication, intent, and credibility should have precluded summary judgment and sent the case to a jury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs produced clear and convincing evidence of actual malice for Oct. 28, 2011 emails (Bruce)	Bruce says Long fabricated quotations and events (unambiguous eyewitness account) so falsity permits inference of actual malice	Long says events were ambiguous/misperceived; even if false, falsity alone does not prove actual malice	No — plaintiffs failed to show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; summary judgment for Long affirmed
Whether plaintiffs produced clear and convincing evidence of actual malice for Apr. 24 & May 23, 2012 emails (Dennis)	Dennis says factual dispute (whether Dennis followed Long or Long followed Dennis) is unambiguous and could support inference of fabrication and actual malice	Long says incidents could be misperceived and the evidence does not prove he knew statements were false	No — majority found events susceptible to misperception and insufficient to infer actual malice; summary judgment affirmed (dissent would have left to jury)
Whether falsity can be merged into malice via an “eyewitness” inference when the defendant purports to recount direct events	Plantes urge that eyewitness/ direct account inference allows falsity to support malice when events are unambiguous	Long (and majority) argue the eyewitness inference is narrow: only when events “speak for themselves” and cannot reasonably be misperceived	Held narrow: eyewitness inference applies only to unambiguous events; here events were not so clear, so falsity alone cannot establish actual malice
Whether use of quotation marks/attribution establishes falsity or malice (Masson issue)	Plantes argue quoted language shows Long represented precise factual statements, supporting fabrication inference	Long argues small discrepancies and memory‑based quotations do not establish material falsity or malice under Masson	Held: Masson does not change outcome; minor inaccuracies or memory‑based quotations are not dispositive of actual malice in this record

Key Cases Cited

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (First Amendment privilege for public‑figure defamation; actual malice required)
Harte‑Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (actual malice defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (limited application of eyewitness inference; ambiguities defeat inference)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (material change in quoted meaning necessary to infer knowledge of falsity from altered quotations)
Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65 (Me.) (falsity and malice are distinct; falsity alone insufficient to infer actual malice)
Michaud v. Town of Livermore Falls, 381 A.2d 1110 (Me.) (high emotions and varying perceptions preclude inference of actual malice)