Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-21191/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-21191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE CABLE NEWS NETWORK AND TIME

MAGAZINE “OPERATION TAILWIND”

LITIGATION

_______________________________________

This order relates to:

Hagen v. Cable News Network, et al.

C 99-21191-JF (RS)

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS)

Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

MDL Case No. 1257

ORDER1 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Defendants move for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims of Plaintiff

Michael Hagen (“Hagen”). The Court has considered the parties’ briefing as well as the

arguments presented at the hearing on May 19, 2006. For the reasons’ discussed below, the

motions will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This litigation arises out of Defendants’ publication of reports about Operation Tailwind,

a secret mission carried out during the Vietnam War. The parties and the Court are familiar with

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

the factual and procedural background of the case, which need not be set forth again here except

as relevant to the instant motion.

Hagen was a platoon sergeant who participated in Operation Tailwind. He provided indepth interviews regarding his experiences during Operation Tailwind, portions of which were

used in the reports at issue. He alleges that Defendants duped him into providing the interviews

by pretending that they were doing a story on his medical condition that would help him obtain

benefits from the Veterans Administration. He further alleges that Defendants never revealed

that their true objective was to obtain information for a sensational story about Operation

Tailwind. Hagen alleges that Defendants knew that he suffered from mental illness and was on

numerous prescription drugs, and deliberately took advantage of his condition by encouraging

him to make statements that would increase the sensational impact of the Operation Tailwind

story. Finally, Hagen alleges that Defendants knew that he was incapable of giving knowing and

intelligent consent to the use of his photographs and interviews. 

A number of Hagen’s original claims have been adjudicated by motion. Defendants seek

summary judgment with respect to Hagen’s remaining claims of fraud, intentional infliction of

emotional distress and defamation. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears

the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions

of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that

demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). 

If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A genuine issue for trial exists if the non-moving party presents

evidence from which a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Plancich, et al. v. Cable News Network, LLP, et al., Case No. 99-20137 JF (RS).

3

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

party, could resolve the material issue in his or her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49;

Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1134-36 (9th Cir. 1991). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Lack Of Substantive Opposition

As is discussed in more detail below, the Court concludes that Defendants have submitted

evidence sufficient to meet their initial burden with respect to all three of Hagen’s remaining

claims. The burden thus shifts to Hagen to present specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial. Hagen has not submitted any evidence in opposition. His entire written

opposition consists of a single sentence stating that he joins in the Plancich Plaintiffs’

oppositions to the motions for summary judgment filed against them in the Plancich action.2

However, the Plancich Plaintiffs’ briefs do not address most of the grounds upon which

Defendants seek summary judgment against Hagen. For example, the Plancich briefs do not

address fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the Plancich Plaintiffs do not

allege those claims. Moreover, while the Plancich briefs do address defamation, they do not

address whether Hagen suffered special damages as a result of the alleged defamation, which is a

critical issue with respect to the motions against Hagen.

At the hearing, counsel for Hagen took full responsibility for the failure to file an

opposition brief, stating that personal issues impacted his business during the last year. Counsel

also stated that he had believed that he had an agreement with counsel for the Plancich Plaintiffs,

under which the Plancich brief would address the issues particular to Hagen’s claims, and that

there must have been some miscommunication because the Plancich brief did not address those

issues. While it is appreciative of counsel’s willingness to accept responsibility for the current

posture of the case, and sympathetic to whatever circumstances have arisen in counsel’s personal

life, the Court is mindful of the fact that Defendants have expended resources to bring summary

judgment motions that, on the current record, appear to be meritorious. Accordingly, the Court

concludes that it is appropriate to rule on the motions at this time. The Court’s ruling is without

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Time Inc. is not named as a defendant to the fraud claim.

4

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

prejudice to a motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), if counsel for

Hagen believes that he can set forth facts adequately explaining the lack of substantive

opposition to Defendants’ motions. 

B. Fraud

The elements of a fraud claim under California law are: (1) a misrepresentation or

omission, (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter), (3) intent to defraud, (4) justifiable reliance and (5)

resulting damages. Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996). A fraud claim may lie

where the misrepresentation at issue is a false promise – that is, a promise that the defendant did

not intend to keep at the time it was made. Id. 

Hagen alleges that CNN, through its producer Amy Kasarda, promised to help him obtain

Veterans benefits when Kasarda and CNN had no intention of keeping this promise.3 Hagen

further alleges that Kasarda and CNN made this promise with the intent to defraud Hagen into

giving them access to intensely private information about Hagen’s experiences in Vietnam and

his medical problems arising out of those experiences. Hagen alleges that he justifiably relied

upon the representations of Kasarda and CNN, and therefore gave them access to his home,

family, medical records and memories. Hagen alleges that he suffered severe emotional distress

when he discovered that Kasarda and CNN did not intend to help him obtain Veterans benefits

and instead were broadcasting private and personal information as part of a sensational news

story. 

Defendants Kasarda and CNN point to Hagen’s own deposition testimony in which he

admitted that Kasarda and CNN did not make any specific promises about what piece CNN

would do, or what the piece would say. Hagen also admitted that he believed he would be

interviewed about both his health problems and Operation Tailwind. Kasarda states in her

declaration that at the time of the interview CNN was considering including a segment

specifically on Hagen’s health problems. Kasarda Decl. ¶ 17. Thus, although Hagen’s own

deposition testimony concedes that Kasarda did not make any representations as to the content of

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 Defendants additionally argue that to the extent they promised to help Hagen obtain

benefits, they did help him by contacting the VA for interviews. The VA declined, but shortly

thereafter raised Hagen’s disability rating and gave him the benefits he had been seeking

unsuccessfully for two years.

5

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

the piece, if Kasarda did represent that the piece would be about Hagen’s health problems,

Kasarda’s declaration indicates that such representation was true when made. This evidence is

sufficient to negate the false promise upon which Hagen’s fraud claim is based.4 

Hagen does not present any evidence in opposition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion

will be granted as to the fraud claim.

C. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

The elements of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme

and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for

the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme

emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the

defendant's outrageous conduct. Wilkins v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 71 Cal.App.4th

1066, 1087 (1999). 

Hagen alleges that Defendants deliberately took advantage of his weakened mental and

physical condition in order to trick him into revealing highly personal and private information

which they then broadcasted to the world at large; that he suffered severe emotional distress for

which he required medical treatment; and that this emotional distress was caused by Defendants’

conduct. 

Because Hagen’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is based upon his

allegations of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment

with respect to the fraud claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to the

emotional distress claim as well. As an additional basis for summary judgment, Defendants

point to an absence of evidence in the record that Hagen suffered severe or extreme emotional

distress. Hagen received psychiatric treatment for years before the CNN broadcast, and there

does not appear to be any evidence in the record that Hagen’s depression and other conditions

worsened because of the broadcast. 

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

Hagen does not present any evidence in opposition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion

will be granted as to the emotional distress claim. 

D. Defamation

California’s retraction statute, California Civil Code § 48a, provides legal protection to

the publisher of a “newspaper.” Cal. Civ. Code § 48a. Whether a publication is called a

“newspaper” is not controlling; the substance of the publication controls. Burnett v. National

Enquirer, Inc., 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 1004 (1983). The inquiry turns upon whether the

publication engages in the immediate dissemination of news. Id. 

This Court previously ruled that, because Hagen failed to comply with California’s

retraction statute, his defamation claim is limited to special damages with respect to CNN. The

Court left open the question of whether Time Inc. is entitled to protection under the retraction

statute. Defendants introduce substantial evidence that TIME Magazine does disseminate

breaking news. During the period in question, TIME Magazine was distributed each week, as

early as Sunday evening at some newsstands. Stacks Decl. ¶ 9. TIME often changed the

magazine’s cover to reflect new reporting on breaking news as late as Sunday night. Id. at ¶ 10. 

TIME researched and developed stories up to the time of publication. Id. This evidence is

sufficient to meet the initial burden of Time Inc. as to whether TIME Magazine disseminates

breaking news. Hagen has not submitted any substantive opposition on this point. 

Based upon the evidence in the record, the Court must conclude that the retraction statute

applies to Time Inc. as well as CNN. Because Hagen failed to comply with the retraction statute,

he is limited to special damages arising out of the defamation. Defendants point to an absence of

evidence in the record of any special damages. Hagen previously indicated that he had suffered

special damages in the form of medical bills. However, Hagen failed to produce any specific

medical bills when asked for such bills in discovery. Accordingly, there does not appear to be

any evidence in the record that Hagen suffered any special damages.

Based upon Defendants’ evidence, and in the absence of substantive opposition, the Court

will grant Defendants’ motions as to the defamation claim. 

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

IV. ORDER

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment against Hagen are GRANTED.

DATED: 5/19/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Case No. C 99-21191 JF (RS) / Lead Case No. C 98-20946 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order mailed to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Kevin R. McLean

Law Offices of Belli & McLean LLC

473 Jackson Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Counsel for Defendants:

Kevin T. Baine

Nicole Seligman

Williams & Connolly LLP

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Steven R. Manchester

Manchester, Williams & Seibert

125 S. Market St., Suite 1100

San Jose, CA 95113-2286 

Case 5:99-cv-21191-JF Document 49 Filed 05/19/06 Page 8 of 8