Opinion ID: 739590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statements Made by Kruzel Were Conditionally Privileged

Text: 11 Under Oregon law, to create liability for defamation, there must be a false and defamatory statement. Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, 83 F.3d 1575, 1583 (9th Cir.1996). A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 559 (1976)). 12 A party who makes a defamatory statement will not be liable for such a statement, however, if the statement is conditionally privileged. See Bank of Oregon v. Independent News, 693 P.2d 35, 38 (Or.1985) (describing categories of affirmative defenses that are available in a defamation suit). Oregon law recognizes that a conditional privilege exists when a statement is made about a subject of mutual concern to defendants and the persons to whom the statement was made. Wattenburg v. United Med. Lab., 525 P.2d 113, 114 (Or.1974) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 594-96). 13 There is no dispute that Kruzel's letter was in response to Dr. Szewiel's request for information about the legitimacy of Hayhurst's certification of Elise Fischbacher--an applicant for admission to a British association of naturopaths. Kruzel and Dr. Szewiel share the mutual interest of assuring that only qualified naturopaths are placed on a public registry of naturopaths. We therefore agree with the district court's conclusion that Kruzel's letter was conditionally privileged. 14 B. There Were No Issues of Material Fact Raised With Respect to Whether Kruzel Lost his Conditional Privilege Through Abuse 15 Because Kruzel is entitled to a conditional privilege, Hayhurst bears the burden of proving that Kruzel lost the privilege. Gardner v. Hollifield, 533 P.2d 730, 733 n. 2 (Idaho 1975); Cribbs v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 272 P.2d 978, 981 (Or.1954). Thus, the question before us is whether Hayhurst raised an issue of material fact regarding whether Kruzel lost his conditional privilege. 16 A conditional privilege may be lost through abuse. Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 781 (Or.1979). Oregon courts no longer require a plaintiff to prove malice to show abuse of privilege. See Baker v. Schafroth, 553 P.2d 1046, 1049 (Or.1976). A conditional privilege may be lost if the speaker does not believe the speech is true, or has reason to disbelieve it. Wattenburg, 525 P.2d at 115-16; Bickford v. Tektronix, Inc., 842 P.2d 432, 434 (Or.Ct.App.1992). A conditional privilege may also be lost if a plaintiff shows that the defendant made the allegedly defamatory statement primarily for a purpose other than that for which the privilege was created or, that the privilege was exercised in an unreasonable manner. See Schafroth, 553 P.2d at 1049. 17 Hayhurst alleges that the letter contains several libellous statements which Kruzel knew were untrue and that nonetheless, Kruzel sent the letter containing the false information because he sought to injure Hayhurst. 2 Hayhurst submitted two pieces of evidence to support his allegations. First, Hayhurst points to a retraction of a negative article published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors. The retraction states that Hayhurst did attend UCLA; that Hayhurst did receive a naturopathic degree from Clayton University; that Clayton University is recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education; and that Hayhurst received a degree from Utah College. Kruzel admits that he had read this retraction before he sent the letter to Dr. Szewiel. The second piece of evidence submitted by Hayhurst is an affidavit by Patricia Hastings alleging that at AANP Board meetings there were general discussions concerning AANP's misrepresentation of Hayhurst's credentials, and about the retraction letter concerning Hayhurst. She states that Kruzel was in attendance at some of these meetings, but does not specify which meetings he attended or what was said at those meetings. 18 These submissions fail to create a triable issue of material fact relating to whether Kruzel knew that statements in his letter to Dr. Szewiel were false. As for Kruzel's statements--that [t]o my knowledge, no U.S. licensing agency would currently issue a license to practice naturopathy on the basis of a degree from the Utah or Clayton University; that plaintiff continues to issue 'certificates' without examination to individuals who would probably not qualify for licensure as a naturopathic physician; and that it was his understanding that no licensing board in the United States or Canada would find this 'certificate' adequate to allow the holder to practice naturopathic medicine--Hayhurst produced no evidence that these statements are untrue, let alone that Kruzel knew they were untrue or had any reason to disbelieve them. Furthermore, Kruzel based his belief about the uncertain[ty] of the existence of Utah College on a Douglas County sheriff's report which he had two independent reasons for believing was accurate. First, Kruzel knew that Hayhurst sued the County over the contents of the report and lost. Second, the former AANP director--an attorney whom Kruzel trusted--had verified that the report was accurate. We agree with the district court that Hayhurst has not submitted evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Kruzel knew his statements were false. There is thus no triable issue with respect to whether Kruzel abused his privilege.