407 F.Supp.3d 1300
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- Jason Miller, a political strategist, sued Gizmodo Media Group and reporter Katherine Krueger for defamation based on a Splinter article reporting allegations from a document (the "Supplement") filed in a Miami‑Dade family‑court custody proceeding.
- The Supplement accused Miller of impregnating a woman identified as "Jane Doe" years earlier and secretly dosing her with an "abortion pill," causing the pregnancy to end; it described how Delgado (the opposing parent) learned the allegations and stated a journalist had contacted and reportedly confirmed the account with Jane Doe.
- Krueger obtained a copy of the Supplement from a source, confirmed its authenticity with Delgado, drafted an article that closely tracked the filing, and embedded the full Supplement in the online post; editors edited wording in the lede (e.g., "the woman claims" and "Delgado’s legal team").
- Miller complained the article mischaracterized and amplified the Supplement (by implying the victim herself made the accusations, implying legal vetting, suggesting independent verification, and omitting exculpatory details) and sued for defamation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting New York’s fair report privilege (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74) and arguing the article was not defamatory and lacked actual malice; the court granted summary judgment solely on the § 74 privilege ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY § 74 privilege applies to a report of the Supplement filed in Florida family court (possibly sealed) | Shiles/Stevenson exceptions bar the privilege for sealed family‑court materials; privilege should not cover this filing | Section 74 applies broadly (word "public" removed earlier); Shiles exception is narrow and limited to NY Domestic Relations Law §235(1) matrimonial sealings | Privilege applies; Shiles exception not implicated because the filing is a Florida family‑court filing and §235(1) is inapplicable |
| Whether the Article was a "fair and true" (substantially accurate) report of the Supplement | Wording (e.g., "the woman claims," "Delgado’s legal team") and omissions rendered the article misleading and more damning than the filing | Article closely tracked and repeatedly cited the court filing, embedded the full Supplement, quoted the alleged victim, and any wording issues were minor summaries | Article was substantially accurate as a matter of law; phrasing/edits were minor and context (and embedded filing) cured any ambiguity |
| Whether omissions or the statement that Splinter "obtained"/"confirmed authenticity" imply independent verification or omitted facts that would change reader's impression | Omissions (source said allegations were unverified, PI couldn't reach Jane Doe, journalist never published) and statements of "confirmation" mislead readers into believing independent verification occurred | No duty to report plaintiff’s side; Krueger plainly disclosed the chain of sources and embedded the full filing; "obtained"/"verified" were factually true | Omissions and wording did not render the report unfair or untrue; embedding the full Supplement and contextual disclosures protected the report |
| Whether defendants acted with actual malice (fault standard for public figure) | Miller sought to show recklessness or actual malice | Defendants argued no evidence of actual malice | Court did not reach actual‑malice claim because § 74 privilege disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Holy Spirit Ass’n for the Unification of World Christianity v. New York Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 1979) (liberal standard: articles based on unverified documents can be "substantially accurate" if context corrects misstatements)
- Karedes v. Ackerley Grp., Inc., 423 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2005) (report not privileged if it suggests more serious conduct than the official proceeding)
- Shiles v. News Syndicate Co., 27 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. 1970) (narrow exception to fair‑report privilege for materials sealed under NY Domestic Relations Law §235(1))
- Nix v. ESPN, Inc., [citation="772 F. App'x 807"] (11th Cir. 2019) (court may decide as a matter of law whether publication is a fair and true report under NY law)
- Gubarev v. BuzzFeed, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (New York § 74 privilege applies to reports of official investigations even if not open to the public)
- Williams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y. 1969) (purpose of § 74 privilege — protect reporting of judicial proceedings made in the public interest)