947 F. Supp. 2d 1252
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Holloway sues American Media, Inc. and The National Enquirer for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy based on three articles about Natalee Holloway’s disappearance.
- Articles published June 2010, December 2010, and April 2011 alleged Natalee’s death/burial; plaintiff alleges falsehoods published knowingly to provoke distress.
- Enquirer moves to dismiss and for partial summary judgment on limitations, First Amendment defenses, and related arguments; Holloway responds and seeks discovery stay.
- Court adopts Rule 12(b)(6) standards for most claims and Rule 56 standards for the statute-of-limitations issue; motion to stay denied.
- Court preliminarily considers whether First Amendment protections bar tort claims, and whether Alabama tort standards on outrageousness and privacy apply; partial denial of some claims and grant of others follows.
- Court addresses accrual timing for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Alabama law and weighs relational privacy considerations under Alabama law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment bars Holloway’s claims. | Holloway argues false stories intended to cause distress fall outside protection. | Enquirer asserts public-concern speech is protected regardless of falsity or intent. | First Amendment does not bar all claims; outrageousness with intent to distress survives. |
| Whether invasion of privacy claim is viable. | Privacy rights extend to private family matters; publication invaded privacy. | No relational privacy under Alabama law; matter not private to Holloway. | Invasion of privacy claim dismissed under Alabama law. |
| Whether Alabama outrageousness standard supports Holloway’s IIED claim. | Publication details about the corpse were extreme and outrageous. | Outrage claims limited to very egregious conduct. | Outrage claim survives as pleaded; not barred as a matter of law. |
| Whether the June 28, 2010 publication is time-barred by Alabama’s statute of limitations. | Distress accrued when Plaintiff actually perceived the publication; tolling may apply. | Limitations accrues at publication under defamation, but here outrage accrual ties to awareness. | Outrage claim not time-barred on current record; accrual tied to plaintiff’s awareness of distress. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutional protection for false statements in public debate; actual malice standard when public figures are involved)
- Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (First Amendment protects outrageous statements; requires actual malice for certain intentional infliction cases)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (speech on matters of public concern remains protected even if offensive; truthful belief requirement discussed)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (fair comment doctrine; distinction between facts and opinions; strong limits on false factual statements)
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (Stolen Valor Act; false statements may be protected; but false speech remains subject to traditional limits on falsehood-related harms)