Title: Petro-LubricantTesting Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)

               Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Asher Adelman (A-39-16) (078597)

Argued November 6, 2017 -- Decided May 7, 2018

ALBIN, J., writing for the Court.

         At issue in this case are two common law doctrines that protect speech from overreaching lawsuits: the
single publication rule and the fair report privilege.

          Defendant Asher Adelman established eBossWatch.com. On August 3, 2010, the website published an
article entitled “'Bizarre’ and hostile work environment leads to lawsuit.” The article details a gender-
discrimination, workplace-harassment, and retaliation lawsuit brought against Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories,
Inc., and its chief executive officer and co-owner, John Wintermute (collectively Wintermute), by a former
employee, Kristen Laforgia. The article summarized and quoted portions of Laforgia’s complaint and described
Wintermute as, among other things, “a violent bully, a racist, and a womanizer” who regularly used profanity and
referred to women in the most vulgar and degrading language. Of particular significance to the present appeal, the
article indicated that Wintermute “allegedly forced workers to listen to and read white supremacist materials.”

          More than one year later—on December 22, 2011—Wintermute’s attorney sent a letter to Adelman,
contending that the article was false and defamatory, that Laforgia’s complaint was baseless, and that Laforgia and
Wintermute had settled the lawsuit. In an email response, Adelman defended the article, stating that it was “clearly
a reporting of [Laforgia’s] complaint.” Nevertheless, Adelman indicated that he “made some minor changes to the
wording” of the article “to make it even more clear that [the] article is a factual reporting of [Laforgia’s] complaint.”
Adelman provided a link to the modified article, which was posted in December 2011 but retained the original date
of publication. A number of changes were made to the article, some seemingly minor. The most significant change
for purposes of this appeal is the replacement of, “[Wintermute] also allegedly forced workers to listen to and read
white supremacist materials,” with “John Wintermute also allegedly regularly subjected his employees to 'anti-
religion, anti-minority, anti-Jewish, anti-[C]atholic, anti-gay rants,’” quoting from Laforgia’s complaint.

          Wintermute filed the present defamation action. The trial court found that because of alterations to the
original article, the single publication rule did not apply, and therefore the limitations period had not expired.
Nevertheless, the court held that the modified article fell within the ambit of the fair report privilege and dismissed
the defamation lawsuit.

          The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s finding that the modified article constituted a second
publication. 
447 N.J. Super. 391, 400-01 (App. Div. 2016). The panel held that under the single publication rule, a
new statute of limitations begins to run only “if a modification to an Internet post materially and substantially alters
the content and substance of the article.” Id. at 400. The panel reasoned that “if a minor modification diminishes
the defamatory sting of an article, it should not trigger a new statute of limitations.” Ibid. The panel therefore
dismissed as untimely Wintermute’s defamation lawsuit filed more than one year following publication of the
original article. Id. at 400-01. The panel did not decide whether the fair report privilege barred the action. The
Court granted Wintermute’s petition for certification. 
229 N.J. 136 (2017).

HELD: The single publication rule applies to an internet article. However, if a material and substantive change is
made to the article’s defamatory content, then the modified article will constitute a republication, restarting the statute
of limitations. In this case, there are genuine issues of disputed fact concerning whether Adelman made a material and
substantive change to the original article, and the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the defamation action based on
the single publication rule. However, the modified article is entitled to the protection of the fair report privilege. The
article is a full, fair, and accurate recitation of a court-filed complaint. The trial court properly dismissed the
defamation action, and on that basis the Court affirms the Appellate Division’s judgment.

                                                           1
1. A defamation action must be filed within one year of the publication of an actionable writing or utterance.

N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3. Generally, every repetition of a defamatory writing gives rise to a separate cause of action under
the multiple publication rule. To mitigate the harshness and unfairness of the inflexible application of the multiple
publication rule, courts developed the “single publication rule.” Churchill v. State, 
378 N.J. Super. 471, 479-80
(App. Div. 2005). Under the single publication rule, a speech or a single radio or television broadcast delivered to
an audience of thousands of people or the issuance of the first edition of a newspaper or book gives rise to only one
cause of action. The rule ensures that a defamation action is brought within one year of an initial defamatory
publication. The single publication rule, however, has limits. The reprinting of an article in the next issue of a
magazine or the delivery of the second edition of a book is deemed a republication—a second publication—giving
rise to a new cause of action and the running of a new statute of limitations. Moreover, an article or book that is
substantially modified from its initial release to its later issuance is also classified as a republication. (pp. 12-15)

2. Whether in print or electronic media, republication triggers the start of a new statute of limitations. What
constitutes republication in a website setting is the issue. In Churchill, the Appellate Division held that no
principled reason justified “treating the Internet differently than other forms of mass media.” 
378 N.J. Super. at 483.
The Court agrees that the beneficent purpose of the single publication rule applies as strongly to the internet as it
does to traditional media. Courts in other jurisdictions have adopted legal constructs for determining when the
defamatory content or substance of an internet article is sufficiently altered to constitute a republication. The Court
distills the following principle from the relevant cases: a republication occurs to an online publication if an author
makes a material and substantive change to the original defamatory article. A material change is one that relates to
the defamatory content of the article at issue. A substantive change is one that alters the meaning of the original
defamatory article or is essentially a new defamatory statement incorporated into the original article. (pp. 15-22)

3. The Appellate Division erred in granting summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds because a genuine
issue of fact was in dispute concerning whether a republication occurred. It is one thing to write that Wintermute
“forced workers to listen and read white supremacist materials” and another to write that he “regularly subjected his
employees” to rants against people of the Jewish and Catholic faiths, minorities, and gay people. White
supremacists do not necessarily have a monolithic and uniform belief structure. Reasonable people may disagree
about the scope of a white supremacist’s belief system; reasonable people will not disagree about the meaning of
anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-gay rants. The change to the article was material—relating to the article’s
defamatory content. At the very least, genuine issues of fact are in dispute about whether the modification to the
original article was substantive—that is, whether it injected a wholly new defamatory statement into the article. The
Court rejects the suggestion that Adelman’s purported intention to lessen the defamatory sting of the modified
article somehow alters the assessment of whether the new defamatory material constitutes a republication and does
not agree that the new defamatory material resulted in a “softening” of the original article. (pp. 22-26)

4. The conclusion that Adelman is not entitled to summary judgment under the single publication rule does not
mean he exposed himself to additional liability by modifying the article. The fair report privilege extends to a full,
fair, and accurate report regarding a public document that marks the commencement of a judicial proceeding,
including a civil complaint, regardless of the truth or falsity of the initial allegations and defenses because citizens
have a right to know what has been filed in court and how the judicial system responds to it. Any reasonable person
reading the modified article would understand that it was reporting on facts alleged in a civil complaint. The
modified article is a full, fair, and accurate account of a court-filed complaint alleging gender discrimination,
workplace harassment, and retaliation and is protected by the fair report privilege. (pp. 26-30)

         The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

          JUSTICE SOLOMON, CONCURRING, expresses the view that the newest version of Adelman’s blog
post did not constitute a republication as a matter of law and that plaintiffs’ claim is thus barred by the one-year
statute of limitations for defamation claims. According to Justice Solomon, the majority’s determination that “white
supremacist materials” are distinct from materials that are “anti-religion, anti-minority, anti-Jewish, anti-[C]atholic,
anti-gay” is contrary to common parlance, and any changes to the article were not substantive.

        JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, and FERNANDEZ-VINA join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s
opinion. JUSTICE SOLOMON filed a concurring opinion, in which CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and
JUSTICE TIMPONE join.
                                                           2
                                     SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       A-
39 September Term 2016
                                                078597

PETRO-LUBRICANT TESTING
LABORATORIES, INC., and JOHN
WINTERMUTE,

    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

         v.

ASHER ADELMAN, d/b/a/
eBossWatch.com,

    Defendant-Respondent.

         Argued November 6, 2017 – Decided May 7, 2018

         On certification to the Superior Court,
         Appellate Division, whose opinion is
         reported at 
447 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div.
         2016).

         James T. Prusinowski argued the cause for
         appellants (Trimboli & Prusinowski,
         attorneys; James T. Prusinowski, and Mark G.
         Clark, of the Michigan bar, admitted pro hac
         vice, of counsel and on the briefs, and
         Stephen E. Trimboli, on the briefs).

         Garen Meguerian argued the cause for
         respondent (Garen Meguerian, on the brief).

         Eugene Volokh (First Amendment Clinic) of
         the California bar, admitted pro hac vice,
         argued the cause for amicus curiae Reporters
         Committee for Freedom of the Press (Hartman
         & Winnicki; and the First Amendment Clinic,
         attorneys; Daniel L. Schmutter and Eugene
         Volokh, on the brief).

         CJ Griffin argued the cause for amicus
         curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New
         Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, and the

                               1
         American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
         Foundation, attorneys; CJ Griffin, on the
         brief, and Edward L. Barocas, Jeanne M.
         LoCicero, Alexander R. Shalom, of counsel
         and on the brief).

         Thomas J. Cafferty argued the cause for
         amicus curiae New Jersey Press Association
         (Gibbons, attorneys; Thomas J. Cafferty, of
         counsel and on the brief, and Nomi I. Lowy
         and Lauren James-Weir, on the brief).

    JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Defamation law balances two competing interests -- an

individual’s right to protect his reputation from unjustified

and false aspersions and our citizens’ right to free expression

and robust debate in our democratic society.    Because an

informed public is a prerequisite to a functioning democracy,

our common law provides special safeguards to protect speech

from unwarranted attacks through the legal process.    At issue in

this case are two common law doctrines that protect speech from

overreaching lawsuits:   the single publication rule and the fair

report privilege.

    Generally, the single publication rule bars the resetting

of the one-year statute of limitations governing a defamation

action when multiple copies of a printed article are widely

distributed and read.    In this appeal, we must determine how the

single publication rule applies to an article posted on a

website and what changes to an article’s content constitute a

                                 2
republication that triggers the running of a new statute of

limitations.

    Plaintiffs Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc., and

its chief executive officer and co-owner, John Wintermute

(collectively Wintermute), filed an action against defendant

Asher Adelman alleging defamation per se, defamation, false

light publicity, and intentional infliction of emotional

distress.   Adelman ran a website named “eBossWatch.com” that

published a list of “America’s Worst Bosses.”   The website

posted an article recounting allegations in a civil complaint

that Wintermute engaged in highly offensive workplace conduct

and ranked Wintermute thirty-ninth on the worst-bosses list.

After Wintermute complained about the article, Adelman modified

it but not to Wintermute’s satisfaction.   Wintermute’s lawsuit

was filed within one year of the modified article’s publication

but outside the limitations period for the original article.

    The trial court denied Adelman’s summary judgment motion on

statute-of-limitations grounds, finding that the single

publication rule did not apply because the changes made to the

original article constituted a second publication.   The

defamation action therefore was not time-barred.   Nevertheless,

the court granted summary judgment in favor of Adelman based on

the fair report privilege because the modified article was a

full, fair, and accurate report of a lawsuit filed against

                                3
Wintermute.    On that basis, the defamation lawsuit was

dismissed.

    The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s

single-publication-rule analysis, concluding that the minor

modifications to the second article did not transform the

article into a second publication.     Accordingly, the Appellate

Division determined that the statute of limitations began to run

when the original article was published and dismissed

Wintermute’s action as untimely.

    We now hold that the single publication rule applies to an

internet article.    However, if a material and substantive change

is made to the article’s defamatory content, then the modified

article will constitute a republication, restarting the statute

of limitations.     In the record before us, there are genuine

issues of disputed fact concerning whether Adelman made a

material and substantive change to the original article.     We

therefore conclude that the Appellate Division erred in

dismissing the defamation action based on the single publication

rule at the summary judgment stage.

    We concur, however, with the trial court that the modified

article is entitled to the protection of the fair report

privilege.    The article is a full, fair, and accurate recitation

of a court-filed complaint.     The trial court properly dismissed

                                   4
the defamation action, and on that basis we affirm the Appellate

Division’s judgment.

                                I.

                                A.

    In addressing this appeal, we rely on the facts adduced in

the summary judgment record.

    Adelman established eBossWatch.com to provide job seekers

with information about the work environment in certain companies

and organizations.   The website publishes an annual “America’s

Worst Bosses” list -- a list compiled by “workplace experts”

based on a methodology created by Adelman.

    On August 3, 2010, the website published an article,

drafted by an eBossWatch.com volunteer and edited by Adelman,

entitled “'Bizarre’ and hostile work environment leads to

lawsuit.”   The article details a gender-discrimination,

workplace-harassment, and retaliation lawsuit brought against

Wintermute by a former employee, Kristin Laforgia.     The 2010

edition of “America’s Worst Bosses” -- published on December 15,

2010 -- ranked John Wintermute as number thirty-nine on the list

of the one-hundred worst bosses.     A hyperlink attached to

Wintermute’s name brought readers to the article.

    The article summarized and quoted portions of Laforgia’s

eleven-page complaint.   We recite only parts of the article

here.   The article described Wintermute as, among other things,

                                 5
“a violent bully, a racist, and a womanizer” who regularly used

profanity and referred to women in the most vulgar and degrading

language.   The article also described Wintermute as having “an

explosive temper when drunk,” and stated that he “had or

attempted to have affairs with several of Petro[-Lubricant]’s

female employees” and “threatened to kill [one female employee]

when she ended their relationship.”     Additionally, the article

repeated Laforgia’s allegation that she was fired because she

refused to lie for the company when a retaliation lawsuit was

brought by a former female employee.    Of particular significance

to the present appeal, the article indicated that Wintermute

“allegedly forced workers to listen to and read white

supremacist materials.”

    More than one year later -- on December 22, 2011 --

Wintermute’s attorney sent a letter to Adelman, contending that

the article was false and defamatory, that Laforgia’s complaint

was baseless, and that Laforgia and Wintermute had settled the

lawsuit.    The letter demanded the removal of Wintermute’s name

from the worst-bosses list and the article from the website and

threatened legal action if Adelman did not comply.

    In an email response, Adelman defended the article, stating

that it contained no factual misstatements and was “clearly a

reporting of [Laforgia’s] complaint.”    Adelman, moreover,

asserted that ranking Wintermute on the list of the one-hundred

                                  6
worst bosses was clearly an expression of opinion protected by

the First Amendment.   Nevertheless, Adelman indicated that he

“made some minor changes to the wording” of the article and its

title “to make it even more clear that [the] article is a

factual reporting of [Laforgia’s] complaint.”

     Adelman provided a link to the modified article, entitled

“Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit Filed Against Petro-Lubricant

Testing Laboratories,” which was posted in December 2011.1   The

modified article retained the original date of the article’s

publication.   A number of changes were made to the article, some

seemingly minor.   In addition to altering the article’s title,

Adelman removed a photograph of Petro-Lubricant’s sign from the

article and changed some wording in the body of the article.

For example, while the original article stated that Laforgia

claimed Wintermute is “a violent, raging drunk,” the modified

article stated that Laforgia claimed he is “a 'dangerous and

violent alcoholic.’”

     The most significant change for purposes of this appeal is

the replacement of, “[Wintermute] also allegedly forced workers

to listen to and read white supremacist materials,” with “John

Wintermute also allegedly regularly subjected his employees to

1  The exact date of the publication of the modified article is
unknown but likely occurred on or about December 22, 2011.

                                 7
'anti-religion, anti-minority, anti-Jewish, anti-[C]atholic,

anti-gay rants,’” quoting from Laforgia’s complaint.

     Adelman continued to rank Wintermute as number thirty-nine

on eBossWatch.com’s worst-bosses list, and a hyperlink to his

name connected readers to the modified article.

                                B.

     Unsatisfied with Adelman’s response, plaintiffs filed the

present defamation action.   Adelman moved for summary judgment,

contending that the statute of limitations and fair report

privilege barred the lawsuit.   Ultimately, the trial court

concluded that the defamation claims relating to the publication

of the original article and the worst-bosses list were time-

barred.   The court came to a different conclusion concerning the

modified article.   The court found that because of alterations

to the original article, the single publication rule did not

apply, and therefore the limitations period had not expired on

the modified article.   Nevertheless, in the end, the court held

that the modified article fell within the ambit of the fair

report privilege and dismissed the defamation lawsuit.2

                                C.

     The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s

finding that the modified article constituted a second

2  We do not recite those portions of the procedural history not
germane to the appeal before us.

                                 8
publication.   Petro-Lubricant Testing Labs., Inc. v. Adelman,

447 N.J. Super. 391, 400-01 (App. Div. 2016).     The panel held

that under the single publication rule, a new statute of

limitations begins to run only “if a modification to an Internet

post materially and substantially alters the content and

substance of the article.”   Id. at 400.    The panel determined

that the modified article was “intended . . . to diminish the

defamatory sting” of the original article after Adelman received

the attorney’s letter threatening a lawsuit.     Ibid.   It reasoned

that “if a minor modification diminishes the defamatory sting of

an article, it should not trigger a new statute of limitations.”

Ibid.

    According to the panel, the only “substantive difference”

between the original article -- “Wintermute requir[ed] his

employees to listen to and read white supremacist materials” --

and the modified article -- “Wintermute subjected his employees

to 'anti-religion, anti-minority, anti-Jewish, anti-[C]atholic

and anti-gay rants’” -- was “immaterial.”      Id. at 399-400.    From

the panel’s perspective, “[t]he allegedly defamatory information

is the same in both articles.”   Id. at 400.    Because, in its

view, the modified article did not represent a second

publication, the single publication rule applied, and the one-

year statute of limitations commenced when the original article

was published in August 2010.    Ibid.   The panel therefore

                                 9
dismissed as untimely Wintermute’s defamation lawsuit filed in

June 2012, more than one year following publication of the

original article.    Id. at 400-01.

    The panel did not decide whether the fair report privilege

barred the defamation action, as the trial court had concluded.

    We granted Wintermute’s petition for certification.        
229 N.J. 136 (2017).    We also granted the motions filed by the

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), the New

Jersey Press Association, and the Reporters Committee for

Freedom of the Press to participate as amici curiae.

                                 II.

                                 A.

    Wintermute does not dispute that the single publication

rule applies to internet postings.     He urges this Court,

however, to reject the Appellate Division’s standard for

determining when an internet article constitutes a republication

triggering the running of a new statute of limitations.

Wintermute argues that a republication occurs when modifications

are made or material is added to a defamatory posting or when

the modified posting is circulated to attract a new audience.

He also contends that a modified article does not lose its

status as a second publication merely because the author intends

to soften the defamatory impact or make the article “less”

defamatory.   Wintermute concludes that the changes made to the

                                 10
article as a whole, whether judged by the Appellate Division’s

or his proposed standard, constituted a republication.3

                                B.

     Adelman submits that the Appellate Division applied the

correct standard in finding that, under the single publication

rule, the minor modifications to the article did not transform

it into a second publication restarting the statute of

limitations.   He therefore asserts that Wintermute’s defamation

action is time-barred.

     Amici curiae ACLU-NJ, the New Jersey Press Association, and

the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintain that a

republication occurs only if the modifications to an internet

article are material and substantial and the modified article is

intended to reach a new audience.    They note that if the

modified article is qualitatively the same as the original

article, then the single publication rule applies.    Amici also

assert that changes to an article that soften its defamatory

content should not be the basis for restarting a limitations

period because publishers should not be punished for taking

remedial measures.   The Press Association argues that the

definition of material modifications to an article, for

3  Although the Appellate Division’s opinion does not address the
fair report privilege, Wintermute argued before the panel that
the privilege could not be invoked because Adelman failed to
inform the reader that the Laforgia lawsuit had settled.

                                11
republication purposes, are those “that result in a more

negative view of [a complainant] in the mind of the reader than

was created by the original version of the publication.”    In

that vein, the ACLU-NJ contends that the term “white

supremacist” is “widely understood to include animus based on

race, religion, and sexual orientation,” and therefore no

qualitative difference exists between the original and modified

articles.   Finally, amici state that because the source material

for the modified article is a court-filed civil complaint, the

article is protected by the fair report privilege.

                                III.

                                 A.

     We must decide when modifications to an allegedly

defamatory internet article sufficiently alter the defamatory

meaning of the article to render it a republication, triggering

a new statute of limitations.   The standard for determining what

constitutes a republication is an issue of law that we review de

novo.   In setting that standard, we owe no deference to the

interpretative conclusions reached by the trial court and

Appellate Division.   See Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 
200 N.J. 507,

512-13 (2009).

                                 B.

     A defamation action must be filed within one year of the

publication of an actionable writing or utterance.   N.J.S.A.

                                 12
2A:14-3.   Generally, every repetition of a defamatory writing or

utterance gives rise to a separate cause of action under the

multiple publication rule.    Churchill v. State, 
378 N.J. Super.
 471, 479 (App. Div. 2005); Barres v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

Inc., 
131 N.J. Super. 371, 378-79 (Law Div. 1974), aff’d o.b.,

141 N.J. Super. 563 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d o.b., 
74 N.J. 461

(1977); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A(1) cmt. a (Am. Law

Inst. 1977) [hereinafter Restatement]; see also Salzano v. N.

Jersey Media Grp. Inc., 
201 N.J. 500, 512 (2010) (noting that

liability generally is imposed on “one who repeats or

republishes the defamatory statements of another”).     However,

the application of this rule to mass publications would lead to

an endless replication of legal actions and threaten a publisher

with boundless financial liability.    Churchill, 
378 N.J. Super.

at 480 (citing Firth v. State,