Opinion ID: 2631067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Press Generally Lack a Sufficient Connection to Judicial Proceedings

Text: ¶ 41 In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, [79] the United States Supreme Court held that Fitzsimmons, a prosecutor who allegedly made defamatory statements in a pretrial press conference, was not entitled to absolute immunity. [80] The Court noted that while the speech of a counsel is privileged by the occasion on which it is spoken, [c]omments to the media have no functional tie to the judicial process just because they are made by a prosecutor. [81] ¶ 42 Although the Court never discusses an excessive publication exception to the judicial proceeding privilege, it appears that, in Buckley, the Court was of the view that, at the very least, statements made by counsel to the press concerning a case are not per se covered by an absolute privilege. And while Buckley arose in a criminal context and concerned state officials, the Court stated that prosecutors, like all attorneys, were entitled to absolute immunity from defamation liability for statements made during the course of judicial proceedings and relevant to them, [while] most statements made out of court received only good-faith immunity. [82] It appears that the Court was unwilling to provide the privilege to statements made to people or in places that have no functional or legal tie to the judicial proceedings. [83] ¶ 43 In Green Acres Trust v. London, [84] the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the press generally lack a relationship to the proposed or pending judicial proceeding, and therefore the judicial proceeding privilege did not apply to statements made by counsel during a press conference. [85] In that case, the attorney defendants were preparing to file a class action lawsuit against Green Acres on behalf of various clients. [86] The attorneys met to review the draft of their complaint, and one of the attorneys invited a reporter to their law offices to learn about the basis for the class action. [87] The attorneys gave the reporter a draft of the complaint, and at least one attorney discussed the case with her. [88] Based in part on information obtained from the draft of the complaint and the conversation held with the attorneys, the reporter wrote an article describing the grounds of the class action suit and unfavorably characterizing the manner in which Green Acres did business. [89] ¶ 44 Green Acres sued the attorneys for defamation regarding the statements made and distributed to the reporter. [90] The attorneys claimed that there was an absolute privilege for statements made to the press by attorneys concerning pending litigation. [91] But the Arizona Supreme Court held that the reporter had no relation to the proposed class action and played no role in the actual litigation other than that of a concerned citizen. [92] The court concluded that because the reporter lacked a sufficient connection to the proposed proceedings, public policy would be ill served if [the court] immunized the communications made to the reporter by the lawyer defendants. [93] Moreover, [t]he press conference simply did not enhance the judicial function and no privileged occasion arose. [94] ¶ 45 In Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., [95] the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also declined to extend the judicial proceeding privilege to statements, including a previously filed complaint, made and distributed to the media. [96] The court stated, In determining whether an occasion is absolutely privileged, the pivotal factor is frequently to whom the matter is published. Publication to the news media is not ordinarily sufficiently related to a judicial proceeding to constitute a privileged occasion. [97] ¶ 46 We are inclined to agree with the Arizona Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit in this matter. We hold that the press generally lack a connection to judicial proceedings sufficient to warrant an extension of the judicial privilege to statements made by parties to the press. Thus, in this case, the Nelsons' statements, when made to the press, were not protected by the judicial proceeding privilege. Their statements were published to more persons than necessary to resolve the dispute or further the objectives of the proposed litigation. The press had neither any relation to the pending litigation nor any clear legal interest in the outcome of the case. At most, the reporters at the press conference were acting only in the capacity of concerned citizens. Further, the reporters played no legitimate role in resolving the dispute between the parties. As a result, the press in this case clearly lacked a sufficient connection to the pending proceedings.