2020 IL App (1st) 190181
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Paul Ciolino, a private investigator who worked with Northwestern’s Innocence Project, obtained a videotaped confession from Alstory Simon; Simon later pled guilty and served 15 years before his convictions were vacated and charges abandoned.
- William Crawford wrote an earlier manuscript titled “Chimera” (spring 2011) and published Justice Perverted (June 9, 2015), alleging Ciolino framed Simon; Andrew Hale and Whole Truth Films released the documentary “A Murder in the Park,” which premiered at DOC NYC on November 17, 2014.
- Ciolino contends the book, film, and related blog posts falsely portrayed him as having framed Simon and sued for defamation, false light, IIED, and conspiracy.
- Ciolino filed a counterclaim in federal court on April 27, 2016; that counterclaim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on January 3, 2017, and he refiled in state court (operative federal filing date: April 27, 2016 under Illinois savings statute).
- The trial court dismissed all claims under section 2-619 as time barred; the appellate court affirmed dismissal only as to Anita Alvarez (whose October 30, 2014 press-conference remarks were widely reported) but reversed dismissal as to the other defendants, reinstated the claims and conspiracy count, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defamation/false-light claims based on the documentary accrued at its DOC NYC premiere (Nov. 17, 2014) | Ciolino: he did not and could not reasonably know of the NY premiere or film content then; discovery rule should delay accrual until Chicago screening/national airing | Defs: premiere/publicity put film into public domain; statute of limitations began at NY premiere | Court: question of fact; discovery rule may apply where publication was not generally accessible—claims did not accrue as a matter of law at NY premiere (claims timely except as to Alvarez) |
| Whether Crawford’s earlier manuscript (“Chimera,” 2011) started the limitations period for Justice Perverted (2015) claims | Ciolino: no evidence "Chimera" was published or read by third parties in 2011; Justice Perverted is an independent publication | Crawford: statements were published when he circulated or posted “Chimera” in 2011; single-publication rule applies | Court: insufficient proof that "Chimera" was published to third parties in 2011; single-publication rule did not bar claims as a matter of law; Justice Perverted accrual not established on record |
| Whether Alvarez’s press-conference comments (Oct. 30, 2014) reproduced in the film are time-barred | Ciolino: film republication created new cause of action | Alvarez: republication in film merely repeated earlier, widely reported statements; single-publication rule controls | Court: Alvarez’s statements were widely reported and known to Ciolino the same day; single-publication rule applies; claims against Alvarez are time barred and affirmed |
| Whether blog posts (Preib) and later publications are timely and whether other defenses (opinion, fair-report privilege) dispose of claims | Ciolino: Preib posts (June 2015–Apr 2016) fall within the operative federal filing date; merits defenses premature on 2-619 record | Defs: statements are nonactionable opinion or protected by fair-report privilege; alternative bases for dismissal | Court: Preib’s posts timely; appellate court declined to rule on opinion/fair-report defenses (trial court must address these with fuller record) |
| Whether IIED and conspiracy claims are time-barred or otherwise deficient | Ciolino: IIED timely under savings statute; conspiracy relies on underlying torts and is timely if they survive | Defs: IIED governed by two-year or one-year limitations and is untimely; conspiracy falls with torts | Court: trial court misapplied savings statute—IIED claims not time barred; conspiracy claim reinstated for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Tom Olesker’s Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 61 Ill.2d 129 (Ill. 1975) (discovery rule may delay accrual of defamation claims when plaintiff could not reasonably know of publication)
- Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership RBG, LP, 369 Ill. App. 3d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (single-publication rule: one cause of action for a single publication)
- Winrod v. Time, Inc., 334 Ill. App. 59 (Ill. App. Ct. 1948) (statute begins when defamatory material is generally circulated to the public)
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77 (Ill. 1996) (Illinois savings statute permits refiling in state court within one year after federal dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 166 Ill.2d 72 (Ill. 1995) (courts balance hardships when applying discovery rule)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill.2d 263 (Ill. 2003) (intentional infliction of emotional distress characterized and governed by personal-injury limitation principles)
- Missner v. Clifford, 393 Ill. App. 3d 751 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (publication is communication to a third party; whether publication occurred is generally a question for the factfinder)