2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-12-2005 

# F r ank lin P re v . NY T imes C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3404

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" F r a nk l in P r e v . NY Time s C o " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 481. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/481P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 3404

F R A N K L IN P R E S C R IP T IO N S , IN C ., t/ a Fr ankl i n D rug C ent er

v. N E W Y O R K T IM E S C O ., S ANDR A C OB UR N, J OHN DO E , J ANE DOE

F ra n k lin P re s c ri p tio n s , In c .,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 01- cv- 00145 ( H onor abl e C ynt hi a M
. R ufe)

A r gued M ay27, 20052 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , A L IT O a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed Sept ember12, 2005) GE OR GE A. BO CH E T T O, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) DAV I D P. HEI M , ES QUI RE Bo c h e t t o & Le n t z , P
. C. 1524 L ocus tSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19102 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant CA RL A. S OL ANO, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) Sc h n a d e rHarr i s o n Se g a l & Le wi s LLP 1600 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 3600 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or neyforA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge

. Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons chal l enges t he ju ryin stru c ti o n s in th is d e f a m a tio n a c tio n u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia l aw . A ti s s ue i s w hetherpl ai nt i ff pr oper l yobjected to the cour t ’ s j ur ychar ge under F ed era l R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 51,3 and w hetherpl ai nt i ff w as ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on on pr es um ed d a ma g e s a n d d e f

a ma t i on p e r se . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed F r a n k l i n P r e s c r i p t i o n s ’ mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l

. W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s, In c ., is a sm a ll p h a rm a c yin Phi l adel phi a s peci al i zi ng i n fert i l i t ym edi cat i ons . I n 1996, t he c o m p a n y b e g a n m a rk e tin g its n ich e p ro d u c ts o n th e in ter n e t v ia a n in f o rm a tio n -o n lyw e b site . T h e w e b site a llo w s F ra n k lin Pr esc ri pt i ons ’ cus t om er s t o s ur veyavai l abl e pr oduct s and pr i ci ng, butdoes notenabl e the onl i ne purc has e of pr es cr i pt i on drugs . Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons onl y acc ept s drug or der s byw ay o f ma i l , t e l e p h o n e , f

a x , o ri n p e r s o n , a n d o n l yt h e n wi t h a doct or ’ s pr es cr i pt i on. O n O ct ober 25, 2000, the N ew Y or k T i m es publ i s hed an ar t i cl e ent i t l ed, “A W eb B aza arT ur ns i nt o a Pharm ace ut i cal Fr ee ForA l l

. ” The ar t i cl e addr es s ed the r i s ks of pur chas i ng fert i l i t y drugs on t he i nt ernet
. I t des cr i bed “unsc rupul ous ” and “cl oak and dagger ” w ebs i t es t hat pr oces s onl i ne or der s for contr ol l ed d rugs w i t houtpr es cr i pt i ons . Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons w a s n o t m e n tio n e d in th e tex t, b u t th e a rticle c o n tain e d a g ra p h ic i ns er tw i t h an i m age of

t he Fr ankl i n Pr esc ri p t i ons w ebs i t e that i dent i fi ed Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons by n am e. T he i ns er tw as p l a c e d n e x tt o a s i d e - b a rl a b e l e d “ Sa f e t y T i p s f

o rBuy i n g EM edi ci nes ” thatw arned r ead ers to “ [a] voi d s i t es thatfai l or re f u s e to p ro v id e a U n i t e d S ta te s a d d re s s a n d p h o n e n u m b e r.” A l t hough Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons ’ w ebs i t e di d, i n fa ct, l i s tt he4 company ’ s addr es s and t el ephone num ber , t he par t i al image r epr odu c e d f

o rt h e a r t i c l e o mi t t e d t h i s i n for m at i on. Si gni fi cant l y , t he publ i s hed i m age a l s o om i t t ed partof the w eb sit e tha t st ated in bo ld-fa ce lang u ag e: “M u st ha v e d o ctor’s p re sc rip tio n f

ro m a p h y sic ia n lice n se d in th e U n ited S tate s to p u rc h a s e V ia g ra .” Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons s ued fordefa m at i on. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rtd en ied th e N ew Y o rk T im es’ m o tio n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , fi ndi ng a genui ne i s s ue of m ater i al fac ton w hether t he new s paperpubl i s hed the art i cl e w i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d for its f a lsity . T h e c a se w e n t to trial, a n d th e ju ry f o u n d th e a rticle fal s e and de fam at or y . B uti taw ar ded no damages , fi ndi ng Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons s uffe r ed no ac tual harm caus ed byt he publ i cat i on. B efor e the j ur yw as ch arged, Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons s ubm i t t ed pr opos ed j ur yi ns t ruct i ons on pr es um ed damages and defa m at i on per se . N e ith e r p ro p o se d in stru c tio n w a s g iv e n to t he j ur y . T he part i es di s pute w hetherFr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons obje ct ed t o t he l ack of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on. Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons s ubm i t s t hat i t di d s o— off t he r ecor d— at an i n ca m era char gi ng confe r ence hel d i n chamber s . T he N ew Y or k T imes di s put es t hi s cont ent i on, m ai nt ai ni ng t hatt he pr es um ed dam ages i ns t ruct i on w as notdi s cus s ed att he c h a mbe r s c h a r g i n g c o n f e r e n c e . I n i t s M e mor a n d u m O pi ni on a n d O rder , t he D i stri ctC ou rtrej ect ed F rankl i n P res cri pti on s’ as s er t i on, s t at i ng that“the C our t te r m i nat ed the conf er ence b ef o re a d d ressing P lai n ti ff ’s pre su m ed d am ag es in stru ctio n .”5 Fr ankl i n P r es cr i

pt i ons , I nc. v. The N

ew Y ork Tim es C o. , 2004 W L 1770296, at*5 ( E
. D
. Pa. A ug. 5, 2004)

. W hetherornotan obj ect i on w as r ai s ed at t he char gi ng confe r ence , i ti s undi s put ed that F ran k li n P resc ri p ti o n s n ev er e n tered an o n -th e-rec o rd obj ect i on t o t he l ack of

a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on. In d en y ing the m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial , the D istri ct C o u rt hel d t hatFr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons fai l ed t o obj ect t o t he l ack of a p resu m ed d am ag es instruction u n d er F ed

. R
. C iv. P. 51 (c)(1), w hich provides that a partyobj ect i ng t o juryi nst ruct i on s “m ust do s o on t he r ecor d. ” A ddi t i onal l y , t he D i s t r i ct C our thel d t hat underPenns y l vani a l aw Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons w as notent i t l ed to a ju ry i n s tru c tio n o n p re s u m e d d a m a g e s . Fra n k lin P r es cr i pt i ons , 2004 W L 1770296, at*7- 8.

II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad di ver s i t yjuri sdi ct i on under28 U. S

. C. § 1 3 3 2

. W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 9 1 . O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew tu rn s o n w h e th e r F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i ons pr oper l yobj ect ed t o t he r el evantj ur ychar ge. W her e a pa r t ypr oper l yobj ect s t o a j ury i ns t ruct i on underFed. R
. C i v. P. 51, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew t o det erm i ne w hether th e i n s tru c tio n m is s ta te d th e a p p lic a b le la w . C ooperD is tr i b. C o. , I nc. v. A m ana R ef

r iger at i on, I

nc. , 180 F. 3d 5 42, 549 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng W

a ld e n v . G e o r

g ia -P a c . C o r

p ., 126 F. 3d 506, 5 1 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) )

. Wh e r e a p a r t yf a i l s t o o b j e c tp r o p e r l y , we m ayr evi ew for“pl ai n err ori n t he i ns t ru cti o ns aff ect i ng s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51( d) ( 2)

. U ndert he6 d iscreti o n ary p lai n erro r stan d ard , w e w il l r ev erse the tri al co u rt o n ly w h e re a p lain e rro r w a s “f u n d a m e n tal a n d h ig h ly p rejud ici al, su ch that the in stru cti o n s fa il ed to p rov ide th e jury w i t h adequa t e gui dance and ourr efus al t o con side r t he i s s ue w oul d r es ul t i n a m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Ryder v. W

est i ng ho use E l ec. C or

p. , 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ).

III . A. T he D i s t r i ct C our t hel d thatFr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons fai l ed to p re se rv e its p re su m e d d a m a g e s o b jec tio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 1 (c )(1 ) , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t a p a rty obj ect i ng “t o an i ns t ruct i on ort he fa i l ur e t o gi ve an i ns t ruct i on m us tdo s o on the r ecor d, s t at i ng di s t i nct l y the m at t erobj ect ed to a n d th e g ro u n d s o f th e o b jec tio n .” N o tw ith sta n d in g th e p lain la n g u a g e o f

R u le 5 1 , F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s c o n ten d s it p rese rve d it s o b

jecti o n b ysu b m itti n g a f o rm al req u est fo r a pr es um ed damages char ge and bypr es s i n g for thati ns t ruct i on dur i ng t he i n ca m era char gi ng confe r ence . M er el ypr opos i ng a j ur yi ns t ruct i on t hat di ffe r s fr om t he c h a rg e g iv e n is in s u f

f ic ie n t to p re s e rv e a n o b

je c tio n . A buan v. Level 3 C om m uni cat i ons , I

nc. , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 7 2 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); C ar us o v. Fors l und , 4 7 F .3 d 2 7 , 3 1 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); A dvi s or yC om m itt ee N ot e t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51 ( “M anycas es hol d t hata pr operr eques tfora j ur yi ns t ruct i on i s notal one enoug h to pr es erve the r i ghtt o appea l fai l ur e t o gi ve the i ns t ruct i on. ”)

. A s t he A dvisory C om m i t t ee N ot e t o R ul e 517 ex p lai n s, ch all en g es to th e f ail u re to g ive a p rop o sed jury in s tru c tio n “ m u s t b e re n e w e d b yo b je c tio n .” N ordoes Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons ’ purpor t ed cha r gi ng confe r ence obj ect i on pr es erve the i s s ue. Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons ci t es t o Sm i th v. B orou gh of W i lki nsbu rg , 147 F. 3d 272, 277- 78 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ), w h ere a p arty su b m itted a p rop o sed jury i ns t ru ct i on and l at erobj ect ed t o i t s om i s s i on atan i n ca m era char gi ng confe r ence . W e found t he obj ect i on pr es erved under R ul e 51 bec aus e “the di s t r i ctcour tw as f u ll y appr i s ed of [ t he p a rt y ’s ] po sit ion , an d itw o u ld se rve n o p u rpo se to req u ir e couns el t o have f

or m al l yr eas s er t ed the obj ect i on aft ert he char ge had be en gi ven t o t he j ur y . ” Id

. at278. B u t Sm ith i s unavai l i ng her e. T he pr emi s e of Sm ith w as t hat t he t r i al cour t w as “ful l yappr i s ed” of t he part y ’ s obj ect i on and n ev erthe l es s r ej ect ed i t
. B ot h t he part i es and the D i s t r i ct C our ti n Sm i th agr eed the r e had be en an obj ect i on and a defi ni t i ve rul i ng on t he i s s ue. T hati s nott he ca s e her e. F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s’ a lleg e d o f f -th e -re c o rd o b

jec tio n is d isp u ted b y th e N e w Y o rk T im e s. M o re im p o rta n tly , itis f latly c o n tra d icte d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w h ich sta ted th a t F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i ons ’ “r ecol l ect ion of t he M ar ch 18, 2004 confe r ence is i n ac cu rate .
. . . the C o u rtterm inated the c o n fe ren ce b ef o re ad d ressing P lai n ti ff ’s pre su m ed damages i ns truct i on. ” 2004 W L 1770296, at*5. U nli ke Sm ith , t her e i s no cons ens us t hatt he D i stri ctC ou rtw a s ful l yapp ri sed of F rankl i n P res cri pti on s’ obj ect i on and no i ndi cat i on of a de fi ni t i ve tr ial co ur trul i ng on th e m a tte r. C

f. F ed

. R
. C iv

. P
. 5 1 (d)(1 )(B ) (ex cu sing a p arty ’s8 fai l ur e t o obj ecton t he r eco rd w her e “the courtm ade a d ef init ive ru li n g o n the re co rd re jecti n g the re q u est”). F u rth erm o re, prior t o ch arg ing the ju ry , the p arti es h ere w er e pr ovi ded w i t h a w r i t t en dr afto f the cour t ’ s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i ons and expl i ci t l yi nvi t ed t o l odge except i ons fort he r ecor d. T he r ecor d r evea l s no obj ect i on to the o m i s s i on of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on. Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons ent er ed cert ai n obj ect i ons t o t he cha r ge but r emai ned s i l enton t he i s s ue o f p re su m e d d a m a g e s. N o r d id F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s o b jec t to t he r el evantas pect s of t he s peci al ver di ctfor m , w hi ch i ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hati tcoul d notaw ar d damages abs enta s how i ng of actual har m . T he v erdict f o rm , l i ke the propo sed i nst ruct i on s, p recl ud ed an aw ard of p res um ed d am ages. F rank lin Pr es cr i pt i ons ’ fai l ur e t o obj ect t o ei t her t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons ort he ver di cts heetcons t i tut es a fa i l ur e t o pr es erve i t s pr es um ed d a m a g e s o b

je c tio n . N

eel y v. C l ub Med M

gm t
. Ser vs . , I

nc. , 63 F
. 3 d 1 6 6 , 2 0 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) (en b an c). B u t th e re is a m o re f

u n d a m e n tal re a so n to re jec t F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i on s ’ p r e s u me d d a ma g e s c h a l l e n g e

— th e p l a i n l anguage of Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 51. T he for egoi ng chai n of event s , and t h e fa ctual di s put e the part i es cont i nue t o pr es s on appea l , i l l us t r at es pr eci s el yt he r at i onal e behind t he 2003 amendm entof thi s rul e. T he amendm entaddi ng R ul e 51( c) ( 1) t ook eff ect on D ece m ber 1, 2003, and appl i es t o pendi ng pr ocee di ngs “i ns ofar as j us t and pr act i cabl e. ” See O r ders of the Supr em e C our tof

the U ni t ed Stat es A dopt i ng and A m en di ng R ul es , F ed

. R
. C iv. P
. 2 3 , 5 1 , 5 3 , 5 4 , an d 7 1 A (M ar. 17 , 2 0 0 3 ).9 T he am end ed rul e provides, i n cleart erm s, th a t p art i es m ust objectt o pr opos ed j ur yi ns truct i ons “on the r ecor d, s t at i ng di s t i nct l yt he mat t erobj ect ed t o and the gr ounds of the obj ect i on. ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51( c) ( 1)

. T he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot e expl ai ns that “[s ] ubdi vi s i on ( c)

. . . . m akes expl ici t the re q u ir e m e n t th a t th e o b

je c tio n b e m a d e o n th e re c o rd .” R ul e 51( c) ( 1) w o r ks i n conj unct i on w i t h R ul e 51( b) ( 2) and R ul e 51( d) t o fore s t al l and r es ol ve the verys i tuat i on pr es ent ed her e— a di s put e among t he part i es r egar di ng off- t her ecor d obj ect i ons . R ul e 51( b) ( 2) r equi r es t he cour t t o “gi ve the par t i es an opp o rt u n it y t o obj ecton t he r ecor d and outof the ju ry ’s h e a rin g to th e p r o p o se d in stru c tio n s.” R u le 5 1 (c )(1 ), in turn , req u ir es that p arti es a v ail them selv es o f th e o n -th e-rec o rd oppor tuni t y . I f a par t y fai l s t o do s o, R ul e 51( d) ( 2) pr ovi des t hat o n ly d is c re tio n a r y“ p la in e rr o r” re v ie w m a yb e a v a ila b le

. See A d v isory C om m i t t ee N ot e t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 51 ( “an e r r ornot pr es erved under R u l e 51 maybe r evi ew ed i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s ”)

. B ym andat i ng on- t he- r ecor d exce pt i ons , and i m pos i ng a pena l t y for fai l ur e t o ent er t hem, R ul e 51 s erves t he c ritica l p u rp o se o f a p p risin g th e trial c o u rt o f p o ss ib le e rro rs in th e c h a rg e a n d a f

f o rd in g th e c o u rt a n d th e p a rties a n o p p o rtu n ity f o r c o r r e c tio n b e f

o re s u b m is s io n o f

th e c a s e to th e ju ry. See Fas hauerv. N

. J. Trans i tR ai lO

per at i ons , 57 F. 3d 1269, 1288 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our ti n this c as e adhe r ed t o t he R ul e 51 fr a me wor k

. Th e p a r t i e s wer e p r o v i d e d wi t h a wr i t t e n d r aftof t he pr opos ed j ur ychar ge and expr es s l y i nvi t ed t o ent eron- t he-10 re c o r d o b

jec tio n s b e f

o re th e c a se w e n t to th e ju ry . F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s a v a iled itse lf o f th is o p p o rtu n ity in c e rta in re sp e c ts

— r e g is te r in g o n - th e - r e c o rd o b jec tio n s to se v e ra l as p e c ts of the cha r ge— butr emai ned s i l enton t he i s s ue of pr es um ed d a m a g e s. A c c o rd in g ly , th e o b jec tio n w a s n o t p r o p e rly p rese rve d , an d w e w il l con side r it u n d er th e p lai n erro r st an d ard o f re v iew

. F ed

. R
. C iv. P. 51 (d)(2 ). B. U n d e r t h e p la i n e rr o r s ta n d a rd , w e c o n s id e r, in tera lia , th e “ o b v io u sn e ss o f

th e e rro r, th e sig n if

ica n c e o f th e in ter e st” i nvol ved, and “t he re put at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs i f the err or s t ands uncorr ect ed. ” U ni t ed States v. R i char ds , 241 F. 3d 335, 3 4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); see al so A dvi s or y C om m i t t ee N ot es t o Fed. R . C iv . P . 5 1 (d )(2 ). P lain e r ro r re v iew is d isc re tio n a ry

— it “s hould b e exe r ci s ed s par i ngl y ” and “ s houl d onl ybe i nvoked w i t h extr eme caut i on i n t he ci vi l cont ext
. ” Fas hauer , 57 F. 3d at 1289 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ars on , 52 F. 3d 1173, 1188 ( 2d C i r . 1995) )

. H er e, w e w i l l aff i r m beca us e w e s ee ne i t her fundam ent al err ori n t he omi s s i on of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on norpr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce.

“ A lth o u g h re p le te w ith F ir s t A m e n d m e n t im p lic a tio n s , a d e f a m a tio n s u it f

u n d a m e n ta lly is a s ta te c a u s e o f a c tio n .” Schi avone Constr . C o . v. Tim e I nc. , 847 F. 2d 1069, 1082 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e a p p lyP e n n sy lv a n ia defa m at i on l aw i n t hi s di ver s i t ym at t er , w i t h due r egar d fort he under l y i ng Fi r s tA m endmentpri n ci pl es . W her e a que s t i on of11 sta te la w is u n se ttl e d , w e m u st p re d ict th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s re so lu tio n o f th e iss u e , g iv in g c o n sid e ra tio n to app l i cable deci si on s of t he int e rm ediat e app el l at e st at e cou rt s. T ra v e lers In d e m . C o . o

f Ill. v . D iB a rto lo , 131 F. 3d 343, 348 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). A ti s s ue i s w hetherom i s sion of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on cons t i tut ed a f undament al err orr es ul t i n g i n a m i s carr i age of

just i ce unde rPenns y l vani a l aw . T he D i s t r i ct C our trul ed thatFr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons w as notent i t l ed t o an i n s t ru c t i o n o n “ p r e s u me d d a ma g e s ” u n d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w. 2 0 0 4 W L 1 7 7 0 2 9 6 , at *7 (po st- tr ial o p in ion an d o rde r). “P res um ed damages ” al l ow a def amat i on pl ai nt i ff t o r ecove r co m p en sato ryd am ag es w ith o u t p rov ing the d ef am atory s t at ementcaus ed ac tual harm . T he r at i onal e fort hi s appr o ach is th at i t m ay be unfa i r t o r equ i re proof of actual harm to r eput at ion be caus e r eput at i onal i nj ur yi s di ffi cul tt o pr ove and m e a s u re . See W
. Page K eet on et al

. , Pr os s er& K eet on on T he L aw of T or t s § 116A , at 843 ( 5t h ed. 1984 ). B efor e G er t z v. R ober tW

el ch, I nc. , 418 U

. S. 3 2 3 ( 1974) , pr es um ed damages w er e ava i l abl e i n Penns y l vani a w i t houtcons t i tut i onal lim ita tio n s . See, e. g. , Fox v. Kahn , 221 A

. 2d 181, 184 ( Pa. 1966)

. I n G e rtz , ho w ever, t he S up rem e C ou rtheld that the F i rs t A m en d m ent bar s pr es um ed damages abs enta s how i ng of “know l edge of

fal s i t y orr eckl es s di s r egar d fort he trut h. ” 418 U .S

. a t 3 4 9 ; see a l

so D un & B radstreetv. G reenm oss B uilders , 472 U

. S. 749 ( 1985) ( l i m i t i ng G ert z to case s w her e the12 chal l enged s peec h i nvol ves a “mat t erof publ i c conc ern”) (plu rali tyo p inion ). A s s up po r tfo rt he a va i l a bi l i t yof pr e s umed dam ages, F rankl i n Pr escripti o n s cit es to a stan d ard fo rm P en n sy lvan ia j u ry i ns t ruct i on w hi ch pr ovi d es : “[i ] f y ou fi nd t hatt he def endant act ed eithe r in ten t i on al l yor r eckles sl yi n p ub l i shi ng t he fa l se and def amat or ycomm uni cat i on y ou m aypr es um e thatt he pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed both i nj ur yt o hi s r eput at i on and the emot i onal d istre ss , m e n tal a n g u ish a n d h u m ili a ti o n su c h a s w o u ld re su lt fro m su ch a c o m m u n icati o n . ” 2 P a. S u g . S tan. C iv. J. In s t. § 13. 10( B ) ( 2d ed. 2003)

. I n Fr is k v. N ew s C o. , th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Super i orC our tuphel d t he val i di t yof thi s i ns t ruct i on. 523 A

. 2d 3 4 7 , 3 5 4 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 6 ). B u t sev en y ea rs af ter Fr i s k w as deci ded, t he Pen n s y l v a n i a Su p e r i o rCou r ta g a i n c o n s i d e r e d p r e s u med damages i n W

alker v. G r and C entr al Sani t at i on, I nc . , 634 A

. 2d 2 3 7 (P a . S u p e r . C t. 1 9 9 3 ). W alker hel d t hat“a de fenda ntw ho p u b li sh es a statem en t w h ich c an b e c o n side red slan d er per se is l i abl e for t he pr oven, actual harm t he publ i cat i on caus es . ” I d. at 2 4 4

. U n d er W

alker , a slan d er per se p lain tiff is re q u ire d to s how “gene r al damages ”— pr oof of ha r m t o r eput at i on or per s onal hum i l i at i on— butnot“s peci al damages ”— pr oof of a c tu a l m o n e t a r y l o s s . I d. at243- 44 ( “the bur den i s on t he p lain tiff to e sta b lish a t le a st g e n e ra l d a m a g e s” ); s ee al s o B r i ni ch v. Jenc ka , 7 5 7 A. 2 d 3 8 8 , 3 9 7 ( P a . S u p e r . Ct

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ ‘ [ A] defe ndantw ho publ ishe s a s t at ementw hi ch ca n be cons i der ed slan d er per se i s l i abl e fo r the pr oven, actual harm t heW alkerdi d notexpl i ci t l y ad d ress t he ava i l abi l i t yof 1 pr es um ed damages i n a cas e of actual m al i ce— al t hough i tm ay sig n a l th a t p re su m e d d a m a g e s a re u n a v a ilab le in P e n n sy lv a n ia w h e th e r o r n o t ac tu a l m a lic e is p ro v e n . C om par e W alker , 634 A

. 2d at243 ( “thi s C our tent er t ai ns a pol i cyagai ns tal l ow i ng d a m a g e s w ith o u t a n yp ro o f o f a c tu a l h a rm ” ), w ith B e v e rly E n t e rs . , I

n c . v . T r u mp , 182 F. 3d 183, 188 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( not i ng, w i thoutci t i ng W alker , t hatpl ai nt i ff need notpr ove ac tual d am ag es w h ere d ef en d an t acted w ith ac tual m ali ce ). 13 publ i cat i on caus es . ”) ( quot i ng W alker )

. A l t hough W

alker appea r s gener al l y t o for ecl os e pr es um ed damage s u nder Penns y l vani a l aw , i ti s notent i r el ycl earw hetherpr es um ed damages r emai n avai l abl e w h ere t he pl ai nt i ff pr oves actual m al i ce. 1 E ven i f w e assum e, favo rabl yt o Frankli n P res cri pti on s, th a t W alkerall o w s an aw ard o f pre su m ed d am ag es up o n a jury fi ndi ng of ac tual m ali ce, t he j ur yher e made no s uch fi ndi ng. Q u e stio n f

iv e o f th e v e rd ict sh e e t, to w h ic h F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i ons neverobj ect ed, as ked the j ur yt o det erm ine t he fol l ow i ng: D id F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s, In c . sa tisf yits bur den of pr ovi ng bya pr epon d era nce of t he evi dence t hatT he N ew Y or k T i m es act ed in ten tio n a lly , r e c k les slyo r n e g lig e n tlyw h e n it publ i s hed the def

amat or yi m pl i cat i on (s) i n t he ar t i cl e?I n the openi ng par agr aph of i t s br i ef, Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons 2 e rro n e o u slysu g g e sts th a t th e ju ryf o u n d a c tu a l m a lice . F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i ons s t at es t he j ur yfound thatt he N ew Y or k T i m es a c t e d “ n e g l i g e n t l y, r e c k l e s s l y, o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y ( i

. e. , w i t h actual m al i ce). ” T his qu ote i s m i sl eading. T he w ords i n p arent hesi s,
“ i

. e. , w i th actual m al i ce, ” do notappea ri n t he ver di ctfor m and d o n o tr e p r e s e n ta f

i n d i n g o f th e j u r y. 14 T he j ur yans w er ed “y es ” t o t hi s ques t i on, fi ndi ng t hatt he N ew Y o r k T i m e s a c t e d “ i n t e n t i o n a l l y, r e c k l e s s l y orn e g l i g e n t l y” ( emphasi s added)

. B utt hi s i s nota fi ndi ng of ac tual m al i ce. 2 T he w ord “or” l eaves o pen th e po ssi bil i t yt hat the jury ’s “y es” t o ques t i on fi ve r epr es ent ed i t s bel i ef t hat t he N ew Y or k T i m es act ed negl i gent l y . M er e negl i gence does not r i s e t o t he l evel of actual m al i ce, w hi ch r equi r es a s how i ng of know ledg e or re c k le s s d is re g a rd o f t h e p u b lic a tio n ’s f a ls ity. See Nort on v. G l enn , 860 A

. 2d 48, 54 ( Pa. 2004) ( “ac tual m al i ce w i l l notbe m ade outon a mer e s how i ng t hatt he medi a def endantw as negl i gent ”)

. Fur t herm or e, t he bur den of pr oof on ques t i on fi ve w as “pr eponder ance o f the evi dence , ” not“cl earand c o n v in c in g ,” w h ic h a f in d in g o f a c tu a l m a l ic e re q u ir e s . B ose C or p. v. C ons um ers U

ni on of U

. S. , I

nc. , 466 U
. S. 485, 511 n. 30 (19 8 4 ). Q ues t i on s i x of the ver di cts heet , i n tu rn, in st ruct ed the j ur y t o r etur n t o t he cour t r oom i f i tfound i ns uffi ci entevi dence o f a c tu a l h a rm . F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s d id n o t o b jec t to th is q u e stio n , w h ich a sk e d th e ju ry :W e not e t hat t he s t ructur e of t he ver di ct s heetm ayw el l have 3 been t o Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i on’ s advant age, as i taut hor i zed a n aw ar d of damages on t he bas i s of m er e negl i genc e w i t hout r equi r i ng an ant ece dentfi ndi ng of ac tual m al i ce. 15 D i d Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons , I nc. , s at i s fyi t s bur den of pr ovi ng bya prep o nder ance of the evi dence t hatFr ankl i n s uffe r ed ac tual h arm t hatw as s ubs t ant i al l ycaus ed byt he art i cl e? A ns w er i ng ques t i on s i x i n t he nega t i ve, t he j uryfound no ac tual harm and r etur ned t o t he court r oom w i t houtans w er i ng t he s ubs equentver di cts heetques t i ons conce r ni ng actual m al i ce. I n s um , i tappea r s t hatPenns y l vani a l aw is uns et t l ed on th e a v a ila b ility o f

p re s u m e d d a m a g e s in th is c a s e . C f

. U ni t ed St at es v. V

az quez , 271 F. 3d 93, 100 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( expl ai ni ng t haterr ori s plai n o n l yw her e the pr opercour s e i s “cl earunder c u rre n t law ” ) (e n b a n c ); C onnel l y v. H yundaiMot orC o. , 351 F .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 4 6 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t er ro r c a n n o t b e p lain w her e curr entl aw i s uns et t l ed)

. I n anyeven t, w e nee d not deci de thi s i s s ue. E v e n a s s u mi n g Pe nns y l vani a al l ow s pr es um ed d a m ages up on a show i ng of ac tual m al i ce, F rank lin Pr es cr i pt i ons i ni t i al l y fai l ed t o ent eran on- t he- r ecor d obj ect i on t o t he l ack of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i on and then ac cede d t o a ver di cts heett hatcompel l ed the j u r yt o r etur n t o t he c o u r t r o o m before addr es s i ng t he i s s ue of a ctual m al i ce. 3 B eca us e Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons fai l ed t o s eek orobt ai n an ant ece dentj ur yfi ndi ng of ac tual m al i ce, w e s ee no pr ej udi ce16 ri sing to the leve l of

p lai n erro r. F u rth erm o re, the D istri ct C o u rt n o ted th at “ the e v iden ce at tri al fe ll w ell sh o rto f th at ne ce ssary f o r a s h o w i n g o f a c tu a l m a l i c e o rr e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d

. ” 2 0 0 4 WL 1770296, at * 7
. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s om i s s i on of a pr es um ed damages i ns t ruct i o n c a n n o tc o n s t i tut e a f undament al e rro r re su lti n g in a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e , if it w a s e rro r a t all. I V. Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons al s o cont ends i tw as ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on o n d efam at i on per se . A c c o rd in g to F ra n k lin Pr es cr i pt i ons , t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fai l ur e t o i s s ue a “ defa m at i on per se ” cha r ge mi s t akenl yi ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hatpr oof of s peci fi c fi nanci al harm w as r equi r ed t o s uppor t an aw ar d of c o m p e n s a to ryd a m a g e s. F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s p ro p e rly obj ect ed att r i al t o t he l ack of a def amat i on per se i ns t ruct i on. D ef am ati o n o r sl an d er per se occur s w her e a publ i cat i on “i m put es t o another conduct , char act er i s t i cs , ora condi t i on t hat w o u ld adver s el yaff

ectheri n herl aw ful bus i nes s ort r ade[

. ]” W alker , 634 A

. 2d at241. A defa m at i on per se pl ai nt i ff need not prove “ speci al dam ages, ” i

. e. , m on et aryor out- of-po cket l oss. In s te a d , a p l a i n tif

f n e e d o n ly p ro v e “ g e n e ra l d a m a g e s ,” i.e ., “p roo f th at on e’s rep u tat ion w as ac tually af fe cted b ythe s land er, ort hats he s uffe r ed per s onal hum i l i at i on, orbot h. ” I d. at242. T he j ur ychar ge, w hi l e omi t t i ng t he t erm “def amat i on per se ,” m a d e c lea r th a t F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s w a s n o t re q u ire d to pr ove fi nanci al harm . T he j ur ychar ge w as expl i ci tt hat“ac tual in ju ryc a n in c lu d e im p a irm e n t o f re p u tat io n ,” th a t F ra n k lin17 Pr es cr i pt i ons s houl d be co m pens at ed for“al l harm i ts uffe r ed, ” and that t he j ur y coul d compensa t e for “the actual harm t o t he p lai nt i ff’ s r eput at i on. ” W e s ee no err or . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt acc ur at el ychar ged that t he j ur ycoul d aw ar d compensa t i on bas ed on harm t o r eput at i on al one. V . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng rea so n s , w e w i l l aff i r m t he deni al of th e m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial.