5 F. Supp. 3d 199
D. Conn.2014Background
- Skakel sues Nancy Grace, Beth Karas, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., and Time Warner, Inc. for defamation and false light in nine counts.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); motion denied.
- Skakel was convicted in 2002 for the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley; later attended a 2012 sentence review hearing.
- Between Jan 23–25, 2012 Grace interviewed Karas on The Nancy Grace Show; the HLN program is owned/operated by TBS, a Time Warner subsidiary, with TruTV also related.
- During the interview, Grace and Karas discussed alleged DNA evidence; Grace framed the dialogue with Karas as first-hand familiarity with in-court testimony.
- The interview and transcript were widely disseminated (YouTube, CNN edition, HLNtv.com) and publicized as though DNA evidence linked Skakel to the crime, contrary to plaintiff's allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements are substantially false | Skakel asserts the statements are literally false and contradict trial evidence. | Grace/Karas contend statements were substantially true or not materially false. | Defamation claim survives at this stage; substantial falsity alleged. |
| Whether the subsidiary meaning doctrine applies | Skakel argues doctrine inapplicable; not a public figure and not public concern. | Grace/Karas contend Skakel is public figure or matter of public concern; doctrine could bar claims. | Doctrines not applied at this stage; not dismissal based on subsidiary meaning. |
| Whether incremental harm doctrine bars claims | Incremental harm defense should not preclude claims given potential broader harms to parole/trial prospects. | If harm is incremental, claims may be nonactionable. | Incremental harm defense not sufficient to dismiss at this stage. |
| Whether false light claim survives alongside defamation claims | False light arises from same allegedly defamatory statements. | False light should fail if defamation fails; premise insufficient. | False light claim denied to the extent based on non-cognizable defamation, but denied for procedural reasons because defamation claims survive. |
| Whether the court should consider extrinsic materials on a 12(b)(6) motion | Court should rely on complaint; internal evidence may be considered but not converted to summary judgment. | Transcript materials and public records may aid substantial truth argument. | Court may consider public records but declines to convert to summary judgment; plaintiff's falsity allegations remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 291 Conn. 620 (Conn. 2009) (defamation elements; per se; actual malice for public figures)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Time Warner, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 589 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (subsidiary meaning doctrine; actual malice framework)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2001) (appeals; subsidiary meaning doctrine applied on appeal)
- Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 267 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2004) (truth as defense; substantial truth standard)
- Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., 193 Conn. 313 (Conn. 1984) (substantial truth; incremental harm context)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (public figures; fault standards)
- Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976) (limited public figure concept; First Amendment)
- Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 443 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1979) (media reports on criminal defendants; public interest)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (incremental harm; not controlling First Amendment standard)
- DeVito v. Schwartz, 66 Conn. App. 228 (Conn. App. 2001) (damages for defamation; per se damages guidance)