Yount v. Handshoe
171 So. 3d 381
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Chris Yount, a paralegal/process server, sued Douglas Handshoe for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and cyberstalking after Handshoe published a pornographic drawing created by Yount’s 13-year-old son on Handshoe’s blog (slabbed.org) identifying the child and referencing Yount’s divorce case.
- The drawing had been filed in Yount’s divorce proceedings and later placed under seal by the divorce court; the webhost removed the post after a DMCA notice and the court order, but Handshoe republished the material on a new host and posted additional comments identifying the child and father.
- Yount filed a petition (under seal) seeking injunctive relief and damages; Handshoe moved to dismiss and filed a Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 971 special motion to strike (anti‑SLAPP), arguing his posts were constitutionally protected speech in connection with a public issue.
- The trial court granted the special motion to strike, finding the posts were acts in furtherance of free speech regarding a public issue under Art. 971(F)(1)(b), and found Yount unlikely to succeed on defamation per Kennedy v. Sheriff of E. Baton Rouge.
- On de novo review, the appellate court reversed: it held Art. 971(F)(1)(b) must be read to require the statements be in connection with a public issue under consideration by a government body; Yount’s divorce was a private matter, so Handshoe failed to make a prima facie showing of protected activity under Art. 971.
- The appellate court denied Handshoe’s special motion to strike, awarded Yount attorney’s fees and costs under Art. 971(B) to be determined on remand, and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. 971 applies when speech concerns material from a judicial proceeding | Yount: divorce proceedings were private; publication of sealed material is not speech "in connection with a public issue" | Handshoe: blog posts about court filings are connected to public issues and protected by Art. 971 | Art. 971 does not apply; posts concerned a private domestic matter and Handshoe failed to show prima facie protected act |
| Proper interpretation of Art. 971(F)(1)(b) — breadth of "in connection with an issue under consideration or review by ... judicial body" | Yount: subsection (b) must be read to require a public issue; otherwise statute would immunize all speech tied to any government activity | Handshoe/trial court: subsection (b) covers statements connected to any issue before a government body, including the divorce filings | Court: subsection (b) ambiguous but must be read consistent with Art. 971's purpose (anti‑SLAPP) to require a public issue; broad reading would lead to absurd results |
| Whether plaintiff demonstrated probability of success (Article 971 second-step) | Yount: not reached at appellate level because first-step failed | Handshoe: argued posts substantially true or reasonable opinion; First Amendment protection | Court did not reach probability-of-success analysis because Art. 971’s first step failed for defendant |
| Availability of attorney’s fees under Art. 971(B) | Yount: requested fees after reversal | Handshoe: N/A at appellate stage | Court awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Yount on remand under Art. 971(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of E. Baton Rouge, 935 So.2d 669 (La. 2006) (defamation standards and four-part analysis)
- Thinkstream, Inc. v. Rubin, 971 So.2d 1092 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (explaining Art. 971 burden‑shifting framework and de novo review)
- Lamz v. Wells, 938 So.2d 792 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (appellate review authority on legal questions)
- Thomas v. City of Monroe, 833 So.2d 1282 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (example of protected activity under Art. 971 involving public‑issue reporting)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 966 So.2d 1040 (La. 2007) (privacy limits on public access to judicial records; condemning publication aimed at scandal or embarrassment)