889 F.3d 865
7th Cir.2018Background
- Dr. Anthony Mimms, an Indiana-licensed pain-management physician, prescribed opioids; some of his patients were refused refills at CVS stores beginning in 2013.
- Mimms sued CVS for defamation, alleging nine discrete defamatory statements made by CVS pharmacy employees; four statements proceeded to trial.
- The four trial statements were: (1) CVS doesn't fill Dr. Mimms's prescriptions or prescriptions for any other pill mills; (2) "Dr. Mimms went to jail"; (3) "Dr. Mimms has been ... or will be arrested"; (4) "Dr. Mimms is under DEA investigation."
- CVS moved for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law arguing Mimms lacked evidence of actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) by the individual speakers; the district court granted judgment on five earlier statements but denied relief as to four and the case went to jury trial on the four.
- The jury found CVS liable for defamation per se on all four statements and awarded $1,025,000. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed judgment for three statements (first three) and remanded for a new trial limited to the fourth (Field's) statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of corporate knowledge can be imputed to individual speakers to show actual malice | Mimms: corporate investigation results/emails show employees knew or had serious doubts about truth of their statements | CVS: state of mind of the individual speaker controls; corporate knowledge cannot be imputed | Court: Cannot impute corporate knowledge; Mimms offered no other evidence for the first three statements — CVS entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether summary-judgment denial on the DEA-investigation statement presented a pure legal issue on appeal | Mimms: disputed speaker's state of mind based on deposition; factual dispute precluded summary judgment | CVS: appealed district court's denial of summary judgment | Court: Denial not a pure legal question; appellate review limited — left denial intact but reached trial-error issues on appeal |
| Whether district court's evidentiary rulings at trial deprived CVS of its defense on the DEA-investigation statement | Mimms: objected to certain evidence as irrelevant or prejudicial; stipulated to some matters | CVS: sought to admit subpoenas, transcript of HHS agent testimony, and evidence of Mimms's prior reputation/investigations to prove truth and mitigate damages | Court: Excluding subpoenas and redacted transcript, and excluding evidence of Mimms's professional reputation, was an abuse of discretion — those rulings warranted a new trial on Field's statement |
| Whether jury instructions allowed verdict based on improper grounds (e.g., ill will alone) | Mimms: instructions accurately stated law requiring speaker's knowledge or serious doubts; ill will may be considered circumstantial evidence | CVS: challenged instructions as enabling improper inference of actual malice | Court: Instructions fairly and accurately stated law; no abuse of discretion in instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct.) (actual malice requires state of mind of responsible speakers; organizational knowledge is not automatically imputed)
- Journal-Gazette Co., Inc. v. Bandido's, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind.) (focus on author/speaker's state of mind for actual malice inquiry)
- Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind.) (actual malice standard for alleged professional misconduct defamation)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (Sup. Ct.) (post-trial record supersedes summary-judgment record; pure legal issues exception limited)
- Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198 (7th Cir.) (stipulations are binding unless relief required to prevent manifest injustice)