Peterson v. XPO Logistics, 2:17-cv-00307-CW

Background

Peterson worked for XPO and left in June 2015 to join competitor Leeway; XPO then sued Leeway and Peterson in a separate action alleging breach of confidentiality, non-solicitation, non-competition, and trade-secret claims.
During settlement/litigation communications in the underlying suit, XPO’s counsel forwarded to Leeway’s counsel two emails purportedly between Peterson and a Leeway employee, which suggested Peterson was recruiting or feeding information to Leeway.
Peterson alleges the emails were forged (inconsistent dates/delivery metadata, reply timestamp earlier than original, inconsistent sender address).
Leeway relied on the forwarded emails and terminated Peterson’s employment; discovery aimed at authenticating the emails (third-party subpoenas) was inconclusive.
Peterson sued XPO for defamation, tortious interference, false light (conceded and dismissed), injurious falsehood, and identity theft based on the publication of the emails.
XPO moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the judicial-proceedings (litigation) privilege and that the emails are not actionable defamatory statements; the court granted dismissal of the entire complaint.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the communications are protected by the judicial-proceedings privilege	Peterson: the author of the forged emails is unknown; privilege shouldn't shield publication of forged statements made in bad faith	XPO: emails were forwarded by XPO’s counsel during settlement/litigation and thus privileged; privilege promotes candid participation; bad-faith/fraud exception not pleaded	Court: Privilege applies — publication occurred in settlement communications, related to subject matter, and published by counsel; dismissed claims under privilege
Whether the privilege’s fraud/bad-faith exception applies	Peterson: alleges emails were forged and XPO employees fabricated them, implying bad faith/fraud	XPO: no fraud claim pleaded; discovery into origin was inconclusive; privilege still applies	Court: Exception not triggered — plaintiff did not properly allege actionable fraud/bad faith; privilege still bars claims
Whether the email statements are defamatory as a matter of law	Peterson: the emails falsely accuse him of breaching his employment agreement and harming reputation	XPO: even if false, statements were not publicly published and do not allege defamatory meaning harming reputation	Court: No actionable defamation — statements do not reasonably impart defamatory meaning or expose to public hatred; claim fails as a matter of law
Whether other tort/statutory claims (tortious interference, injurious falsehood, identity theft) survive	Peterson: claims derive from the alleged false statements and resulting harms (e.g., job loss)	XPO: all claims arise from the same privileged communications and are thus barred by the litigation privilege	Court: All claims arise from privileged statements and are precluded by the judicial-proceedings privilege; complaint dismissed

Key Cases Cited

DeBry v. Godbe, 992 P.2d 979 (Utah 1999) (defines scope of judicial proceedings privilege and its application to communications preliminary to litigation)
Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (privilege covers communications that play a legitimate role in resolving the dispute; resolve doubts in favor of privilege)
Krouse v. Bower, 20 P.3d 895 (Utah 2001) (policy underlying privilege: encourage candid participation and settlement communications)
Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, 285 P.3d 1157 (Utah 2012) (privilege does not provide blanket immunity; bad-faith/fraud exception; privilege can bar related tort and statutory claims)
Cox v. Hatch, 761 P.2d 556 (Utah 1988) (not all false statements are defamatory; defamatory meaning is a question of law)
Jacob v. Bezzant, 212 P.3d 535 (Utah 2009) (defamatory statement defined as one harming honesty, integrity, or reputation)
West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994) (whether communication is capable of defamatory meaning is a legal question)