Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 138

Kahl sues BNA for libel over CLR summaries about his mandamus petition following a 1983 sentencing for killing U.S. marshals.
CLR published in 2005 and a 2007 clarification allegedly portrayed Kahl as lacking contrition and as believing murders were justified by religious/philosophical beliefs.
Plaintiff alleges the CLR statements, and the clarification, damaged his reputation and pending mandamus petition.
BNA moves to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the statements are protected by the fair reporting privilege.
The court considers cross-motions for summary judgment; the key questions are defamation liability and privilege.
The court denies both motions: the statements may be defamatory, and the fair reporting privilege does not apply as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamatory meaning of CLR statements	Kahl contends CLR statements report false facts and defame him.	BNA argues the summaries are accurate, complete, or fair abridgments of official proceedings.	Questions of defamation fact for jury
Application of fair reporting privilege	Privilege does not attach because summaries misstate facts and credit non-official sources.	Privilege protects fair and accurate reporting of official proceedings.	Privilege does not apply here

Beeton v. District of Columbia, 779 A.2d 918 (D.C. 2001) (elements of defamation under D.C. law)
Prins v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 757 F. Supp. 87 (D.D.C. 1991) (defamation standards; triable issues may go to jury)
White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (defamatory meaning and jury determination)
Dameron v. Washington Magazine, Inc., 779 F.2d 736 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (constitutional fair report privilege for official reports)
Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1980) (scope of fair report privilege for official proceedings)
Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (interpretation of fair report privilege in DC)