Janice Lee v. TMZ Productions Inc, 710 F. App'x 551

Background

Janice Lee was arrested in connection with a NY Attorney General (NYAG) prosecution of an alleged drug/prostitution ring; her name and photo were included on an NYAG press‑conference visual aid and press release. Charges against Lee were dropped about a week later after exculpatory evidence was provided.
Five media outlets (TMZ, Daily News, The Korea Times New York, Your Daily Media, All Things Crime) republished reports and images derived from the NYAG press release/press conference, sometimes using jocular or hyperbolic language.
Lee and several family members sued these outlets for libel, libel per se, and negligent/reckless/intentional infliction of emotional distress; family members asserted derivative claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The District Court dismissed all claims, holding the fair‑report privilege under New Jersey law protected the articles; emotional‑distress and derivative claims were dismissed as tied to failing defamation claims.
On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, finding the articles were full, fair, and accurate reports of the NYAG’s official statements and thus privileged; alternatively, Lee failed to plead actual malice as required under New Jersey law for matters of public concern.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the media reports are protected by New Jersey's fair‑report privilege	NYAG statements were false; republication of those statements (and photo) defamed Lee and caused distress	Articles simply reported official NYAG press conference/release; accounts were full, fair, and accurate and thus privileged	Privilege applies: articles conveyed a substantially correct account of the NYAG statements and are protected
Whether omission of words like “allege” or use of colorful language defeats the privilege	Omissions and tone made reports misleading, implying guilt	Whole articles show arrests/allegations; tone/opinion/hyperbole is nonactionable and does not render report unfair	Held that isolated wording/tone did not make reports misleading; context shows allegations and arrests, not convictions
Whether Lee pleaded actual malice or reckless disregard by the media (fault element)	Media published without investigation, failed to contact Lee or counsel — showing reckless disregard	At most, allegations show poor journalistic practice, not that publishers actually doubted the NYAG statements	Even absent privilege, Lee failed to plead actual malice; allegations only support negligence/carelessness
Whether emotional‑distress and derivative family claims survive if defamation fails	Emotional harms are real and derive from publications; family members suffered derivative harm	Emotional‑distress claims are predicated on the same conduct as defamation and thus fail if defamation fails; derivative claims likewise fail	Dismissed: emotional‑distress claims and family derivative claims fail because the underlying defamation claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Costello v. Ocean Cty. Observer, 643 A.2d 1012 (N.J. 1994) (defines full, fair, and accurate standard for fair‑report privilege)
Salzano v. N. Jersey Media Group Inc., 993 A.2d 778 (N.J. 2010) (clarifies privilege becomes absolute once report is full, fair, and accurate)
Medico v. Time, Inc., 643 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1981) (reporter acts as agent informing public of official proceedings)
Lavin v. N.Y. News, Inc., 757 F.2d 1416 (3d Cir. 1985) (republishing official documents is protected if reasonably accurate)
DeAngelis v. Hill, 847 A.2d 1261 (N.J. 2004) (epithets, hyperbole, and insults are nonactionable opinion)
Durando v. Nutley Sun, 37 A.3d 449 (N.J. 2012) (New Jersey applies actual‑malice standard to matters of public concern even for private figures)
Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ’g Co., Inc., 516 A.2d 220 (N.J. 1986) (defines actual malice as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
Reilly v. Gillen, 423 A.2d 311 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980) (truth of alleged libel measured as of time of publication)