T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AC K S OL OMON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S T E VE N S P I E L B E R G, D e f

e n d a n t, a nd J U D Y G O FFM A N CU TLER, C o u n te r - d e f e n d a n t - A pp el l ee , v. A R T L O S S R E G I S T E R , I N C ., T h ir d - p a rty - d e f e n d a n t - A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15969 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 6 4 5 - R L HP AL ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED MA R 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

J AC K S OL OMON , P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. S T E VE N S P I E L B E R G, D e f

e n d a n t, a nd J U D Y G O FFM A N CU TLER, C o u n te r - d e f e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, v. A R T L O S S R E G I S T E R , I N C ., T h ir d - p a rty - d e f e n d a n t - A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 16049 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 6 4 5 - R L HP AL

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R oge rL . H unt , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry6, 2012

S a n D ie g o , C a lif

o rn iaT he H onor abl e R udi M . B r e w s t e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

3 B e f or e : M c K E O W N a nd M . S M I T H , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd B R E W S T E R , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** J a c kS o lo m o n ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t, f o llo w in g ab e n c h tr ia l, i n favor of Judy G offm an C ut l eri n thi s di vers i ty a ct i on concerni ng a di sput e over o w n e r s h ip o f

th e N o rm a n R o c k w e ll p a in tin g , R us s i an Sc hoolr oom ( the

“ P a i nt i ng” ) . O n c r os s - appe a l , C ut l e rc ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e nti n f

a vorof S ol om on a nd A rtL os s R e gi s t e r , I nc . ( “ A L R ” ) on C ut l e r ’ s c l a i m s f

orde f a m a t i on a nd i nt e nt i ona l t ort . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua nt t o 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e a f f i rm . B e c aus e the pa rt i e s a r e f a m i l i a rw i th the f a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h is to ryo f th is c a s e , w e r e p e a t o n lyth o s e f a c ts n e c e s s a ry to r e s o lv e th e is s u e s r a is e d o n ap p e a l. I . FBI T EL ETYPES E vi de nt i a ryrul i ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, a nd w i l l notbe r e v e r s e d ab s e n t p r e

ju d ic e . W

a te c C o . v . L iu , 4 0 3 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 0 n .3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he c ha l l e nge d t e l e type s w e r e pr oduc e d bythe F B I i n r e s pons e t o as ubpoe naa nd are “record ed co m m u n i cat i o n s am o n g F B I o ffi ces i n S t . L o u i s, N ew O rl ean s, C hi ca go , and N ew Y ork regardi ng the l ocat i on and st atus of the R us s i an Sc hoolr oom in O c to b e ra n d N o v e m b e r1 9 8 8 .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its4

d i s c r e t i o n i n a d mi tt i n g th e s e d o c u me n t s u n d e rFe d e r a l Ru l e o f Ev i d e n c e 8 0 3 ( 8 ) ( B) a s d o c u m e n ts c r e a te d b ya g e n ts a s s ig n e d to in v e s tig a te th e th e f t o f th e P a in tin g . B ec ause thi s i s nota c ri m i nal ca se , S ol om on ’ s argum ent s r egar di ng const i tut i on al proh i bi t i on s on the adm i ss i on of m att er s observed b y l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs ar e in ap p lic ab le . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng port i ons of the t e l e type s tha tr e l a ys t a t e m e nt s m a de byM a rt i n D i a m ond. F e d. R . E vi d. 805 (“ H ears ayi ncl ud ed w i thi n h ears ayi s notexcl ud ed un der the hears ayrul e i f e ac h p a rt o f th e c o m b in e d s ta te m e n ts c o n f o rm s w ith a n e x c e p tio n to th e h e a r s a yru le p r o v id e d in th e s e ru le s .” ) . A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t s p e c if ic a llyd e lin e a te its b a s is f

o ra d m ittin g th e s ta te m e n ts , it e x p la in e d w h yth e s ta te m e n ts a ttr ib u te d to D i am on d w er e trustw orthy and n ot ed that , af t ertw enty y ears , the evi dence w as m or e pr oba t i ve tha n a nyothe re vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the F B I ’ s i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o the th e f t o f th e P a in tin g . See F TCv. Fi gg i e I nt ’l Inc. , 99 4 F . 2d 59 5, 60 8-09 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( per c uri am ) ( up ho l di ng adm i ss i on un der r es i du al exce pt i on even w here tri al c ourtf a i l e d a de qua t e l yt o e xpl a i n r e a s oni ng) . I n a nye ve nt , S ol om on w a s not prej ud i ce d b y the adm i ss i on of these st at em ent s bec ause they w er e a l l corr ob orat ed by other e vi dence thatS ol om on do es no tchal l enge. T he st at em ent s thatar e5

a ttr ib u te d to S o lo m o n w e r e a d m is s ib le a s p a rtya d m is s io n s . See F e d. R . E vi d. 80 1(d)(2). F i na l l y , the s w orn de c l a r a t i on f r om a n F B I R e c or ds U ni tS pe c i a l i s ta nd the l e tt e rf r om F B I A s s oc i a t e G e ne r a l C ouns e l w e r e s uf f i c i e ntt o authe nt i c a t e the te le typ e s . See U

n ite d S ta te s v . Es tr a da - E liv e r io , 583 F . 3d 669, 673 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “A p a rtyn e e d o n lym a k e ap r im af a c ie s h o w in g o f

au th e n tic itys o th a t a re as on abl e j uror coul d fi nd i n favor of authent i ci ty or i dent i fi ca t i on . ” ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . II . D AVID F I

NE ’ S T ESTIMONY AND O THER E VIDENCE T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in ad m itti n g D av idF in e’s t es t i m on y und erF eder al R ul e of E vi dence 807 and rul i ng thatfour-m on th’ s not i ce p r o v id e d af

a iro p p o rtu n ityto m e e t th e e v id e n c e . I n a n ye v e n t, b e c au s e th is e v id e n c e w a s c u m u la tiv e , a n ye rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . See U ni ted Stat es v. L i nd

se y , 63 4 F . 3d 54 1, 55 3 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( any e rr or i n adm i tt i ng po ss i bl e hears ayw as harm l es s bec ause other w i tness es t es t i fi ed t o the sa m e f ac t s) . S o lo m o n ’s r e m a in in g c la im s r e g a r d in g o th e rp o te n tia llyin a d m is s ab le e vi de nc e a r e c onc l us orys t a t e m e nt s uns upport e d byl e ga l ar gum e nta nd a r e thus in s u f f ic ie n t to p r e s e rv e th e c la im s . See F ed. R . A pp . P . 28 (a )( 9); E ntm ’t R es earc h G r p ., I n c . v . G e n e s is Cr e a tiv e G r p ., I n c ., 1 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 7 (9 th C ir.1 9 9 7 ) ( “W e6

w i l l notm a nuf

a c tur e a r gum e nt s f

ora n appe l l a nt , a nd aba r e a s s e rt i on doe s not p r e s e rv e ac la im . . . .” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . II I. F AC TU AL F I

NDI NGS W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac taf t era bench tri al for c l ear error. B e r te ls e n v . H

a rr is , 537 F . 3d 1047, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . S ol om on doe s not offe r any cr edi bl e argum entun derm i ni ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thathe had construct i ve no t i ce of the sa l e. T he 19 88 auct i on w as w i del y pub l i ci ze d, as w as Cu t l e r ’ s s u b s e q u e n tp u r c h a s e o f th e Pa i n t i n g . A c c o r d i n g t o th e r e c o r d , a n FBI agentcont ac t ed S ol om on di re ct l y t o i nform hi m of the sa l e. G i ven the subst ant i al e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f in d in g w a s n o t c le a r lye rr o n e o u s . T h e d istrict co u rt also d idn o t clear ly err in fin d in g th at C u tl er ’s i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o the pr ove na nc e of the P a i nt i ng m e tthe appr opr i a t e s t a nda r d of c a r e . P r i ort o the pur c ha s e , C ut l e rl ooke d a tthe pr ove na nc e pr ovi de d bythe au c tio n h o u s e c a ta lo g u e , c a lle d th e N o rm a n R o c k w e ll M u s e u m to a s c e rta in w he the rm us e um of

f i c i a l s ha d a ny a ddi t i ona l i nf orm a t i on, a nd c ons ul t e d N orm an R oc kw e l l : T

he D e f i ni t i v e Catalogue by L auri e N ort on M offa tt , w here she s aw si m i l ar p ro v en an ce t o th atp ro v i d ed i n th e au ct i o n h o u se cat al o g u e. T h ese i nqui r i e s m e tr e a s onabl e c om m e r c i a l s t a nda r ds , w hi c h de pe nd on the f a c t s a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g th e s a le . See Morgo ld, Inc. v. Kee ler , 891 F . S upp.7

1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 8 ( N .D . C a l. 1 9 9 5 ) ( s ta tin g th a t N e w Y o rkla w r e q u ir e s a n a rt d e a le rto t ake r ea sonabl e s t eps t o i nq ui re i nt o a pai nt i ng ’ s t i t l e) . I V. C HO I CEO F L A W D ETE RMI NA TI ON S R EGARDI

NG C ONSENT W e do notr e a c h the i s s ue of w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n appl y i ng N e va dal a w t o S ol om on’ s e qui t abl e c l a i m s s e e ki ng t i t l e a nd pos s e s s i on of the P a in tin g a s S o lo m o n w o u ld n o t p r e v a il u n d e re ith e rN e w Y o rko rN e v a d ala w . See So lo m o n R . G u g

g e n h e im Fo u n d. v . L u b e ll , 569 N . E . 2d 426, 431 ( N . Y . 1991) ( n o tin g th a t th e d e f

e n s e o f la c h e s is s till a v a ilab le e v e n th o u g h N e w Y o rk ’s s ta tu te o f l i m i t at i o n s fo r co n v ersi o n d o es n o tb eg i n t o t o l l u n t i l th e tru e o w n er d em an d s, and i s r ef used, re turn o f the artw ork). V. C UT L ER ’ S D EFAMAT I ON C RO SS A PPEAL W e d o n o t r e a c h th e is s u e o f w h e th e rM is s o u r i o rN e v a d ala w ap p lie s to C u tle r ’s d e f

a m a tio n c la im b e c au s e s h e c a n n o t p r e v a il u n d e re ith e rs ta te ’s la w . U n d er M i sso u ri l aw , ex p ressi o n s o f o p i n i o n are p ri v i l eg ed u n d er th e F i rst A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e o f f r e e d o m o f

s p e e c h . S ta te ex r e l. D ie h l v . Kin tz , 162 S . W . 3d 152, 155 ( M o. C t . A pp. 2005) . L i ke w i s e , unde rN e va dal a w , s t a t e m e nt s of o p in io n c a n n o t f

o rm th e b a s is o f

ad e f a m a tio n c la im . Se e P egas us v . R e no N ew spap er

s, Inc. , 57 P . 3d 82, 87 ( N e v. 2002) . H ow e ve r , e xpr e s s i ons of opi ni on8

m a ys u g g e s t th a t th e s p e a k e rk n o w s c e rta in f a c ts to b e tru e o rm a yim p lyth a t f a c ts e x is t, w h ic h w ill b e s u f

f ic ie n t to r e n d e rth e m e s s a g e d e f a m a to ryif

f a ls e . I d. a t88. S ol om on ’ s s t at em entre gardi ng w hatC ut l er“ shou l d h ave” or “ coul d h ave” do ne ar e e xp re ss i on s of opi ni on and, as such, ar e notac t i on abl e. A s the di stri ct courtno t ed, “ S ol om on ’ s s t at em entthatC ut l ercoul d h ave don e m ore r es earc h be f or e buy i ng the pa i nt i ng . . . i s a n opi ni on ba s e d on S ol om on’ s vi e w of the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng C ut l e r ’ s pur c ha s e . ” A c c or di ngl y , s um m a ryj udgm e nt w a s ap p r o p r ia te . V I . C UT L ER ’ S I

NT EN TI ON AL T ORT C LA IM N ew Y ork l aw re qu i re s apl ai nt i ff t o p rove thatshe s uffe re d speci al dam ages w h e n s h e s e e k s to r e c o v e rf o rin te n tio n a l to rt. Chen v. U ni ted Stat es , 854 F . 2d 6 2 2 , 6 2 7 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . C u tle rte s tif ie d th a t s h e h a s n o t lo s t a n yc lie n ts a s ar e s u lt of A L R ’ s a c t i ons orthe publ i c i tyge ne r a t e d bythe c a s e . S he a l s o pr ovi de d no e v i d e n c e th a tAL R ’ s a c t i o n s c au s e d h e rt o i n c u ra n ya d d i t i o n a l a tt o rn e y ’ s f e e s . On appeal , C ut l erdo es no tpo i ntt o any other s peci aldam ages ; thu s, the di stri ctcourt d id n o t e rr . V I I . M OTI ON FOR S ANCTI ONS T ho ug h sanct i on s are avai l abl e f or fr i vo l ou s app ea l s, such re l i ef i s grant ed o n lyif th e r e s u lt is o b v io u s o rif th e c la im s o f

e rr o ra r e w h o llyw ith o u t m e r it.9

Sel lerA gency C ou nci l

, Inc. v. Kennedy C tr. f

or R eal Estat e E du c. , Inc. , 621 F . 3d 981, 991 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . B e c aus e C ut l e r ’ s a r gum e nt s a r e notw hol l yw i thout m e r i t , A L R ’ s m ot i on f

ors a nc t i ons i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D; MOT I ON F OR S AN CT I ON S DE NI E D.