Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
934 F. Supp. 2d 204
D.D.C.2013Background
- 1983 North Dakota shootout left two U.S. marshals dead; Von Kahl and Faul were charged with multiple offenses and convicted of non-murder counts; CLR summarized mandamus petition and sentencing ruling; August 17, 2005 CLR summary described sentencing judge’s ruling; plaintiff alleges BNA’s CLR summaries and a later clarification were false and defamatory; BNA moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and then for reconsideration; court denied summary judgment on fair reporting privilege and denied reconsideration in part; judgment on pleadings theories followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fair reporting privilege applies to CLR summaries | Plaintiff contends attribution issues show summaries were not fair abridgements | BNA argues summaries were fair reporting of proceedings and hence privileged | No, attribution issue precludes automatic privilege; factual dispute remains |
| Whether CLR summaries are actionable defamation given falsity and publication to third parties | Plaintiff asserts statements were false and defamatory; publication to third parties alleged | BNA argues statements were nonactionable opinions or privileged; publication may be privileged | Factual disputes on falsity and attribution survive; defamation claims not dismissed |
| Whether plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure requiring actual malice | Plaintiff argues no malice needed due to private figure status | Plaintiff is a limited public figure due to role in shootout; must prove actual malice | Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure; actual malice must be shown; not resolved against plaintiff |
| Whether plaintiff can claim libel per se given prior criminal convictions | Statements falsely imputing crimes; CLR suggested life custody based on convictions | Truth defense applicable; cannot be libelous per se if true | Libel per se denied for statements imputing crimes; truth defense reduces claim |
| Whether plaintiff can plead special damages from publication | Plaintiff pleads special harm link to Supreme Court petition denial | Causation assertion is implausible and speculative | Rule 12(b)(6) standard; current record insufficient to conclude lack of special damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (fair reporting privilege standard; accurate/complete report of public proceeding)
- Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1980) (principles of fair reporting privilege)
- Beeton v. District of Columbia, 779 A.2d 918 (D.C. 2001) (defamation elements and pleading standards)
- Crowley v. N. Am. Telecomms. Assoc., 691 A.2d 1169 (D.C. 1997) (defamation elements; publication to third parties)
- Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 350 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (limited public figure analysis; factors for isolation of controversy and participation)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public figures)
- Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (defamation: falsity and fault; libel-proof considerations)
- Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 1990) (defamation; questions of fact on whether statements are defamatory)
- Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 746 F.2d 1563 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (actual malice and defamation considerations)
- DaSilva v. Time, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (relevance of reputation harm over time; not controlling)