Clark v. E! Entertainment Television, LLC
60 F. Supp. 3d 838
M.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Final judgment dismissing Amended Complaint as time-barred; Plaintiff Clark moved to vacate under Rules 59/60; Court reconsidered and held republication doctrine applied to Tennessee defamation under single publication rule; republication exception timing rendered Clark's claim timely; Fox’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal granted; E! partial denial and Fox dismissal affirmed; matter proceeded to false light analysis with E! and Fox distinctions; Plaintiff public figure from American Idol era and program aired 2005 and republished 2012; Program reported statements by Abdul and about Clark, with alleged affair and arrest history central to claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is republication a timely exception under the single publication rule? | Clark argues Milligan misapplied and republication extends time. | Milligan controls; no republication extension in Tennessee. | Yes, republication applies; timely under republication exception. |
| Should the judgment be vacated under Rule 59(e) as a clear error of law? | Court erred in not recognizing republication; correctable error. | Rule 59(e) not to reargue case; no clear error. | Grant vacatur to reconsider merits. |
| Does the Program render Clark’s defamation claim viable against Fox? | Program defamed Clark by portraying lies to reach audience. | Program reports allegations; not defamatory as presented. | Defamation claim against Fox dismissed. |
| Does the Program support a false light claim against Fox and E!? | Program creates false light by implying deceit. | Fox not involved in production; E! bears primary responsibility. | False light against Fox dismissed; against E! survives for summary judgment. |
| Are the remaining false light claims against E! preserved for summary judgment? | Actual malice and portrayal threaten publication. | Need for summary judgment to resolve malice and public figure status. | False light claim against E! not dismissed at this stage; summary judgment appropriate later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milligan v. United States, 670 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012) (supports single publication rule in Tennessee context)
- Applewhite v. Memphis State Univ., 495 S.W.2d 190 (Tenn. 1973) (single publication rule rationale; republication not addressed there)
- Rutherford v. Columbia Gas, 575 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2009) (binding on state-law interpretation absent intervening state-highest-court decision)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (distinguishes opinion-based phrasing from factual implications in defamation)
- West v. Media Gen’l Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001) (recognizes false light as distinct from defamation; actual malice standards where public figures)
- Green v. CBS, Inc., 286 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2002) (media, reporting of allegations may be accurate reporting rather than defamation)