Jason Miller v. Gizmodo Media Group, LLC, 994 F.3d 1328

Background:

Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign advisor, was accused in a supplement to a Florida paternity/custody filing of having drugged a woman and caused a pregnancy loss; the supplement alleged corroboration by a journalist.
The supplement was filed publicly but became subject to an emergency motion to treat it as confidential under Florida rules and has been treated as sealed pending the Florida court’s ruling.
Splinter (Gizmodo Media Group) published an article reporting the supplement’s allegations; Miller and the alleged victim ("Ms. Doe") later testified under oath that the allegations were false.
Miller sued Gizmodo and the reporter for defamation; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting New York’s absolute “fair and true report” privilege (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74) as a defense.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the Splinter article was a fair and true report and that § 74 applied; Miller appealed arguing Shiles v. News Syndicate Co. precludes § 74 when reporting sealed family/matrimonial records.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74 protects defendants for publishing the contents of the sealed Florida supplement	§ 74 should not apply because the publication concerned a family/paternity custody filing that was sealed	§ 74 applies to fair and true reports of judicial proceedings and thus protects the article even if the underlying statements were false	§ 74 applies; the article was a fair and true report and defendants are protected
Whether Shiles v. News Syndicate Co. bars § 74 when a report concerns sealed family/matrimonial records generally	Shiles should be read broadly to bar § 74 for sealed filings in all family-related actions	Shiles is limited to matrimonial records automatically sealed by New York’s DRL § 235 and does not control sealed filings under other states’ rules	Shiles is limited to records sealed by operation of DRL § 235; it does not preclude § 74 here
Whether the policy rationales (supervisory/agency) limit § 74 to reporting on government/court operations	§ 74 should be limited to reporting that facilitates public supervision of government or court operations; no such rationale here	The supervisory/agency rationales are animating principles but not limiting rules; § 74 can apply to non-public records outside DRL § 235	Court: supervisory/agency rationales do not limit § 74 outside DRL § 235’s domain
Whether Florida sealing/discretion affects application of Shiles/§ 74	Sealing under Florida rule is discretionary, not automatic like DRL § 235, so Shiles’ statutory rationale differs; § 74 should not be barred	Even if sealed under Florida law, Shiles’ statutory basis (DRL § 235) does not apply extraterritorially; § 74 remains available	Court: Florida’s discretionary sealing differs from DRL § 235; Shiles’ statutory-limited holding does not preclude § 74 here

Key Cases Cited

Shiles v. News Syndicate Co., 261 N.E.2d 251 (N.Y. 1970) (held § 74 unavailable for reports of matrimonial records automatically sealed by DRL § 235)
Keogh v. New York Herald Tribune, Inc., 274 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1966) (discussed evolution of § 74 and public-proceeding rationale)
Martin v. Daily News L.P., 990 N.Y.S.2d 473 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2014) (affirming that § 74 can bar libel claims when article is a fair and true report)
Gardner v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers Inc., 326 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971) (applied § 74 to confidential youthful-offender records; distinguished Shiles)
Grab v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc., 399 N.Y.S.2d 97 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977) (applied § 74 to sealed youthful-offender proceedings; distinguished Shiles)
Zappin v. NYP Holdings Inc., [citation="769 F. App'x 5"] (2d Cir. 2019) (held § 74 applies to reporting based on open matrimonial court proceedings; Shiles did not bar § 74)
Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2020) (noted for plenary review standard on legal questions)