555 P.3d 272
Nev.2024Background
- Steve Wynn, a prominent Nevada figure, sued the Associated Press (AP) and reporter Regina Garcia Cano for defamation after AP published a news article about sexual assault allegations against Wynn from the 1970s.
- The article was based on redacted police complaints obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department amid ongoing national reports of Wynn's alleged misconduct and related investigations.
- Wynn alleged the article republished false and improbable allegations with actual malice.
- AP filed a special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the article was protected speech on an issue of public concern.
- The district court granted AP’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding AP met its burden, and Wynn failed to show a probability of prevailing on actual malice.
- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the dismissal following reconsideration of the applicable burden under the anti-SLAPP statute’s second prong for public figures on defamation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the article protected as a good faith communication | Article not on public interest; not good faith | Article reports on public issue; good faith | Article was in good faith, related to a public concern, satisfying the first prong |
| Required standard for public figures under anti-SLAPP prong two | "Prima facie" showing only; no need for clear & convincing evidence at this stage | Must show sufficient evidence for jury to reasonably infer actual malice by clear & convincing evidence | Public figures must show sufficient evidence that a jury could find actual malice by clear & convincing evidence |
| Did Wynn provide sufficient evidence of actual malice | AP should have known the allegations were false or acted recklessly | Story published in good faith; no reason to doubt its truth based on available evidence | Wynn did not produce sufficient evidence of actual malice; no prima facie probability of success |
| Does the anti-SLAPP burden violate jury trial rights | Clear & convincing standard at this stage violates right to jury trial | Standard only ensures that insufficient claims are dismissed, as at summary judgment | No violation; question does not go to jury unless evidence meets clear & convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 118 Nev. 706 (Nev. 2002) (establishes requirement of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence for public figure defamation)
- Smith v. Zilverberg, 137 Nev. 65 (Nev. 2021) (standard of review for anti-SLAPP decisions is de novo)
- Stark v. Lackey, 136 Nev. 38 (Nev. 2020) (defendant's affidavit of good faith publication suffices under anti-SLAPP unless contradicted)
- Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35 (Nev. 2017) (guidelines for public interest standard under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute)