81 N.E.3d 272
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- This case arises from a long-running dispute stemming from Boone County Utilities, LLC (BCU) bankruptcies and related lawsuits in which appellant Thomas N. Eckerle represented various parties and was named as a defendant in multiple proceedings.
- Branham sued Newland and numerous others (Claims 517 and 001) alleging theft, fraud, ICVRA and RICO claims; those actions largely failed.
- BCU reopened its bankruptcy (AP-128). Stewart & Irwin (S&I) and its counsel (including Katz & Korin and attorney Michael Hile) were involved in AP-128; Hile made critical statements at an August 22, 2012 hearing.
- On November 4, 2013, Katz & Korin filed a response in AP-128 containing statements Eckerle alleges were defamatory (republication of Hile’s hearing remarks and other assertions implying fraudulent transfers and Eckerle’s involvement). That filing was later stricken by the bankruptcy court.
- Eckerle sued Katz & Korin and Hile for defamation, invasion of privacy, and abuse of process. Defendants asserted affirmative defenses including absolute (judicial) privilege. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendants, holding the statements were protected by absolute privilege; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements are protected by absolute judicial privilege | Eckerle: Statements were not relevant/pertinent to AP-128 and thus not privileged; some statements targeted him personally and republished prior defamatory hearing remarks | Law Firm: Statements were made in connection with AP-128 (and related litigation), were relevant/pertinent to the proceedings, and thus absolutely privileged | Court: Absolute privilege applies — statements were relevant/pertinent to AP-128 and privilege bars defamation claims |
| Whether non-party status (or preliminary/trial-prep material) defeats privilege | Eckerle: Katz & Korin / Hile were not a privileged actor as to some filings or pre-litigation communications; privilege doesn’t extend to communications prior to or outside a proceeding | Law Firm: Courts apply a liberal rule; participants/actors (not only formal parties) and communications related to a proceeding are protected; S&I had been a party and remained an implicated actor | Court: Non-technical party status does not defeat privilege; actors and participants related to proceeding are protected |
| Whether striking the filing (or filing by a non-party) removes privilege | Eckerle: The November 4 document was struck and S&I was not a party at that moment, so privilege should not apply | Law Firm: Privilege survives striking or technical procedural defects if statements are legitimately related to the subject matter | Court: Striking the document or procedural errors do not defeat absolute privilege when statements otherwise satisfy relevance/pertinence |
| Whether invasion of privacy claim survives if defamation is barred by privilege | Eckerle: Invasion of privacy (false light) is independent and survives | Law Firm: Invasion of privacy claim is derivative of defamation and dependent on the same statements | Court: Invasion of privacy claim is derivative and barred by absolute privilege as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 2008) (recognizes absolute privilege for statements relevant to judicial proceedings to preserve administration of justice)
- Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (absolute privilege applies to defamation and related torts when statements are relevant to litigation)
- Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co., 452 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (favors liberal application of privilege to participants and relevance test)
- Van Eaton v. Fink, 697 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (discusses privilege for witnesses and relation of communications to contemplated proceedings)
- Stahl v. Kincade, 192 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. Ct. App. 1963) (distinguishes irrelevant allegations; privilege not applied where statements bear no relation to controversy)
- Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Graham, 631 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (affirms privilege for statements in court-related filings relevant to collection/collection-related proceedings)