Clark v. E! Entertainment Television, Inc., 3:13-cv-00058

Background

Corey D. Clark, a former American Idol contestant, sued E! Entertainment (diversity action) for false light invasion of privacy based on a 2012 airing of "E! True Hollywood Story: Paula Abdul." Defamation claims were dismissed; only false light against E! remained.
Clark publicly alleged in 2005 that he had a romantic affair with judge Paula Abdul while on American Idol; those allegations were widely reported and investigated by multiple outlets (including ABC Primetime) and were characterized by some media as opportunistic.
E! THS aired a revised Paula Abdul episode (originally updated in 2005) recounting Clark’s Idol participation, disqualification, his allegations about Abdul, media reaction, and that independent counsel hired by Fox found Clark’s claims unsubstantiated; the program included narration and interviews (e.g., ABC’s John Quinones) but did not include new on-camera interviews of Clark.
Clark contended E! acted with "actual malice" by omitting his direct interviews and evidence (phone records, other materials) and by presenting the story in a way that conveyed he had no meaningful relationship with Abdul and was dishonest.
E! argued (and the record showed) no evidence of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard: Clark’s E! News interviews were with a separate division and were not available to E! THS producers; the program contained narration and third‑party sources presenting Clark’s side indirectly.
The Court held Clark, as at least a limited-purpose public figure, must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and found he failed to do so; summary judgment for E! was granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark, a public figure, can show actual malice for false light	Clark: E! "selectively omitted" his direct interviews/evidence, conveying a false impression; omission shows reckless disregard	E!: No evidence it knew statements were false or entertained serious doubts; omissions reflect editorial choices, not actual malice	Court: No clear and convincing evidence of actual malice; summary judgment for E! granted
Whether failure to include Clark’s interviews supports reckless disregard	Clark: Excluding his interviews and materials shows purposeful avoidance of truth	E!: E! THS producers were prohibited from using E! News footage; absence of direct interview does not prove malice	Court: Mere absence of plaintiff’s voice or a deeper investigation does not meet actual malice standard
Whether reporting third‑party allegations can satisfy actual malice standard	Clark: Relied on program framing and source selection to argue bias against him	E!: Relied on credible third‑party reporting and investigators; programs included ABC’s Quinones and USA Today to represent Clark’s side	Court: Reporting third‑party allegations and using reputable sources negates inference of reckless doubt absent contrary proof
Whether failure to investigate further supports actual malice	Clark: E! should have investigated his proffered evidence (phone records, descriptions of Abdul’s home)	E!: Failure to conduct more extensive investigation, standing alone, is insufficient; purposeful avoidance must be shown	Court: Plaintiff’s claim that E! could have done more is insufficient to establish actual malice under New York Times standard

Key Cases Cited

West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001) (adopts Restatement test for false light and applies actual malice where public figure or matter of public concern)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public‑figure defamation/false light claims)
Harte‑Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (reckless disregard includes high degree of awareness of probable falsity and purposeful avoidance of the truth)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 345 (1974) (defines categories of public figures and standards for public‑figure status)
Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP, 759 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2014) (discusses judge’s independent duty to determine sufficiency of actual malice evidence)
Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P., 238 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (summary judgment often appropriate in false light/libel claims; plaintiff must prove actual malice with convincing clarity)
Cobb v. Time, Inc., 278 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2002) (failure to investigate alone insufficient; deliberate avoidance may support actual malice finding)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for assessing whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists at summary judgment)
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (clarifies clear and convincing evidence standard under Tennessee law)