Lawrence v. Burdi
314 Mich. App. 203
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Frank Lawrence (nonparty to underlying easement suit) was publicly quoted as a spokesman for his employer in Froling v Pelican, a prescriptive-easement dispute in Macomb Circuit Court.
- Defense counsel (Burd i) served Requests for Admission in the Froling case that alleged Lawrence had been denied the opportunity to take the Michigan bar exam for character-and-fitness reasons and had prior drug convictions.
- Lawrence sued defendant for abuse of process and defamation, and moved to seal and for sanctions; trial court sealed the drug-conviction requests, denied sanctions, and later granted defendant summary disposition on the grounds the statements were privileged and otherwise nonactionable.
- The trial court treated Lawrence as a potential witness and concluded the discovery filings were made in the course of litigation and thus protected by the judicial proceedings privilege; it also characterized a hallway remark as opinion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held Lawrence adequately pleaded abuse of process and defamation (the drug-conviction allegations were false and defamatory per se; the bar-related allegation was not substantially true on the record), rejected application of absolute judicial-proceedings privilege on the existing record, but affirmed denial of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing Requests for Admission that allegedly attacked a nonparty’s character can support an abuse-of-process claim | Lawrence: requests were filed to harm him, not to narrow issues or facilitate proof, showing ulterior purpose and improper use of process | Burdi: requests are ordinary discovery tools within MCR 2.312 and therefore legitimate process covered by privilege | Court: Lawrence sufficiently pleaded abuse of process; summary disposition was improper on that claim |
| Whether the Requests for Admission alleging drug convictions and bar-issue statements are defamatory | Lawrence: allegations were false (drug convictions untrue; bar statement misleading) and harmed his reputation (drug claims defamatory per se) | Burdi: statements arose during litigation and are privileged; bar statement arguably substantially true | Court: drug-conviction statements were false and defamatory per se; bar-related statement not substantially true on record and could be defamatory depending on proof |
| Whether statements in discovery are absolutely privileged under the judicial proceedings privilege | Lawrence: statements lacked relevance or pertinence to the easement case and thus are unprivileged | Burdi: made during discovery and therefore presumptively relevant and absolutely privileged | Court: privilege requires relevance/pertinence; record lacks evidence those matters were relevant to the easement dispute, so privilege could not be resolved for summary disposition in defendant’s favor |
| Whether sanctions under MCR 2.114 were warranted for filing the Requests for Admission | Lawrence: pleadings lacked factual basis and were filed to harass and embarrass him | Burdi: broader reading of Board of Law Examiners opinion provided a good-faith basis for the bar-related assertion; not sanctionable | Court: trial court did not clearly err in denying sanctions; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Radtke v. Miller, Canfield & Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich. 413 (model and purposes of MCR 2.312) (explaining requests for admission purpose)
- Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich. 1 (abuse of process elements: ulterior purpose and improper use of process)
- Oesterle v. Wallace, 272 Mich. App. 260 (judicial proceedings privilege applies to statements made in course of proceedings if relevant)
- Couch v. Schultz, 193 Mich. App. 292 (privilege extends to pleadings and affidavits)
- Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 362 Mich. 692 (public policy in construing privilege liberally to permit candor in judicial proceedings)
- Hartung v. Shaw, 130 Mich. 177 (presumption concept: plaintiff must allege and prove statements in judicial proceedings were not pertinent to overcome privilege)
- Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 440 Mich. 238 (substantial-truth test in defamation)
- Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich. App. 723 (statements charging commission of a crime are defamatory per se)