Tamkin v. Cbs Broadcasting, Inc.
193 Cal. App. 4th 133
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendants CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Goldfinger appealed a trial court denial of their anti-SLAPP motion under CCP § 425.16.
- Tamkins sued for defamation and false light arising from Goldfinger’s screenplay work for CSI: episode 913 and related casting synopses.
- Goldfinger used the Tamkins’ names as placeholders for married real-estate characters in early drafts; names were later changed by the time of broadcast.
- Casting synopses were leaked online, attracting public discussion and spoilers before the episode aired.
- The episode 913 aired on February 12, 2009; Tamkins alleged the synopses and episode depicted defamatory, false characteristics.
- Trial court denied anti-SLAPP relief; on appeal, court reverses, holding the defendants’ conduct arose from protected activity and plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct arises from protected activity | Tamkins contend conduct involved defaming them via screenplay work. | Defendants argue creation and dissemination of episode and synopses concerns protected speech in a public-issue context. | Yes; conduct arose from protected activity (creative process of a TV show). |
| Whether acts were in furtherance of free speech | Tamkins argue the use of their names harmed reputations, not protected creative expression. | Show creation, casting, and broadcasting advances free-speech rights. | Yes; acts furthered the creators’ free-speech rights. |
| Whether there is a probability that plaintiffs would prevail on defamation claims | Tamkins assert reasonable readers would identify the characters with them in the episode and synopses. | No reasonable reader would understand the fictional characters as referring to Tamkins. | No; no reasonable person would find that the cast and broadcast referred to plaintiffs. |
| Whether false light claim also fails for lack of probability | Tamkins claim false light arises from the same publication. | False light liability requires the same standard as defamation and fails for lack of identification. | Held; false light claim fails for the same reasons as defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (two-step anti-SLAPP inquiry; independent appellate review)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (probability of prevailing standard for protected actions)
- Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 2004) (protected activity threshold under § 425.16)
- Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (public-interest requirement and persona indefamation context)
- Aguilar v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 174 Cal.App.3d 384 (Cal. App. 3d 1985) (work of fiction not necessarily refer to real person; distinguishable)
- Bindrim v. Mitchell, 92 Cal.App.3d 61 (Cal. App. 3d 1979) (test for whether a fictional portrayal refers to a real person)
- Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal.4th 881 (Cal. 2003) (creative elements protected as speech)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (creativity in production process; unfettered artistic expression)
- Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal.3d 860 (Cal. 1979) (fictionalization and use of contemporary people in media)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (broad interpretation of public-interest for anti-SLAPP)