Opinion ID: 2555874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Respondents' Publication of the Complaints to the Press.

Text: Norman avers that Respondents provided the press with a copy of the complaint before it was filed in state court and, thus made it public before its time. [21] Accepting this factual averment in Respondents' favor, as did the Court of Special Appeals, we may say fairly that a complaint is a public document and [t]he law does not distinguish where, or in what manner, a public document is viewed. Norman, 192 Md.App. at 427, 994 A.2d at 1031-32. If we assume that the State complaint was not public yet when given to the press and, importantly, this initial version which did not identify by name any owner or employee of Sussexdefamed Norman sufficiently for standing purposes, [22] our analysis, but not the result, would change. In the assumptive latter scenario, the complaint appears to be a statement instigating an investigation and/or proceeding. If so, because the complaint was not communicated to an authorized or germane investigating body, its delivery had neither the necessary investigatory design nor possible effect in order to qualify for refuge in the first category ( i.e., statements producing a proceeding), as delineated supra. Considered under the second category, the complaint can be viewed as a statement prepared for a pending proceeding. Most complaints are meant to be filed in a court. Militating against this characterization, however, is the fact that Respondents delivered the draft complaint to the Fourth Estate, which, its self-image notwithstanding, is uninvolved in the evaluation and investigation of facts and opinion in this context or the generat[ion] of such documents. . . . Adams, 288 Md. at 8, 415 A.2d at 295. Thus, category two ( i.e., prefatory statements) is an ill fit. Considered in its best light, however, the complaint is simply a third-party communication, made extrinsic to an imminent proceeding. As discussed supra, we evaluate whether the underlying proceeding satisfies the prongs of Gersh, which it does manifestly. Importantly, we analyze also whether the context of the challenged statements supports the conclusion that they were made during the course of the proceeding. Respondents, at worst, published their allegedly defamatory statements in a draft version of their ultimate pleading, which they handed-over to the press on the same day the pleading was filed. By republishing or reporting on those erstwhile pleadings, the press could be seen as a tool assisting in the notification to potential class members of the contemplated proceedings. Thus, we conclude that Respondents issued these statements during the course of the putative class action. [23] Finally, as Respondents were the attorneys of record, we also inquire as to whether the statements themselves (not necessarily the instrument or conversation in which they were made) had some relevance to the matter presented to the trial court. We conclude that the Respondents' challenged statements in the State complaint were related sufficiently to the subject of inquirythe mortgage rescue scam.