Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter
567 S.W.3d 1
Tex. App.2016Background
- Terry Carter was CEO of the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce; the Caller-Times published ~25 articles (Feb–Jun 2008) reporting allegations by Chamber officials that Carter had made improper financial maneuvers and seized an audio tape.
- Carter sued the Caller-Times and E.W. Scripps for defamation (plus conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract), alleging the reports falsely accused him of mismanagement, theft, and criminality.
- The trial court denied the newspaper defendants’ second summary judgment motion (which raised truth, privilege, opinion, negligence, and publisher-identity defenses); this interlocutory denial was appealed.
- The court reviewed whether (1) the challenged statements were defamatory per se, (2) the publications were substantially true or nonactionable opinion, (3) certain articles were protected by the fair-report privilege, (4) the publishers acted negligently or with actual malice, (5) non-defamation claims had evidentiary support, and (6) E.W. Scripps was a proper defendant.
- Key factual disputes included whether Carter’s bonus was tied to financial performance, whether funds were improperly shifted, the content of an independent auditor’s report, and whether reporters investigated Carter’s contract and accounting policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carter) | Defendant's Argument (Caller‑Times / E.W. Scripps) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the publications defamatory (per se)? | Articles falsely implied crimes and professional unfitness. | Reporting quoted third‑party allegations and described a board review; not defamatory per se. | Defamatory per se: combined publications could reasonably be read to imply theft, false financials, and unfitness. |
| Were the statements substantially true? | The independent auditor’s report and contract show allegations were baseless; articles were false. | Articles accurately reported treasurer’s allegations and contemporaneous events. | Not resolved on summary judgment: genuine fact issues exist about "gist" and truth; summary judgment improper. |
| Were the reports nonactionable opinion or fair comment? | Editorial and reports overstated facts as truths causing harm. | Some content was opinion or fair reporting of official proceedings. | Some opinion content was actionable because based on verifiable factual allegations; March 19, March 20, and May 28 reports are protected as fair reports, but May 31 is not. |
| Negligence / Actual malice (and exemplary damages) | Publisher acted with negligence and malice (failed to check contract; bias by publisher). | Reporting conformed to journalistic standards; relied on reasonable sources. | Negligence/fact issues exist (no summary judgment). No evidence of actual malice for punitive damages — summary judgment should have been granted on exemplary damages. |
| Non‑defamation claims (conspiracy, breach) | Evidence shows coordinated effort to defame and interfere with contract. | No meeting‑of‑minds or unlawful overt acts proved. | No evidence supports conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of agreement claims; summary judgment should have been granted on those claims. |
| Liability of E.W. Scripps (publisher identity) | Corporate owner is liable for its newspaper's publications. | E.W. Scripps had no role in researching, editing, or publishing the articles. | No evidence E.W. Scripps participated; summary judgment for E.W. Scripps on all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of summary judgment and negligence element for private‑figure defamation)
- Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (construe publication as a whole; ordinary reader standard)
- Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (distinguishing libel per se and per quod)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinion vs. fact; verifiability test)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (actual malice and reckless disregard explained)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (recklessness may be found where obvious reasons exist to doubt informant’s veracity)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidence review standards and reasonable inference guidance)