Opinion ID: 3011783
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roberts and Newsweek

Text: The Tuckers' case against Roberts and Newsweek includes some evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer actual malice, but not the clear and convincing evidence needed to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, we must affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Roberts and Newsweek. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Tuckers, their attorney, Richard C. Angino, spoke with Roberts on August 20, 1997, six days before Roberts wrote Grabbing at a Dead Star. Accor ding to Angino, he told Roberts in the course of this phone call that consortium can mean, in some cases, sex. I said most of the time it doesn't and it doesn't in this case. Angino Dep., App. at 636. Other statements in Angino's deposition sever ely weaken the Tuckers' position, however, and make it impossible for them to satisfy the clear and convincing standar d. For instance, when asked exactly what he said to put Roberts on notice that the Tuckers' claim did not involve impairment of sexual relations, Angino r eplied: I said only in the rarest of cases would you have a count that actually involves sex. I'm under oath, so I cannot say to you that I said specifically, this case does not involve sex . App. at _________________________________________________________________ App. at 1631 (brackets in original). At most, however, this statement may show Mr . Tucker's intent at the time of the article, in August 1997. It hardly establishes that the Tuckers were seeking to recover for damage to their sexual relations after they later filed the Amended Complaint. Moreover, the dissent's interpretation of the statement attributed to Mr. Tucker in the article, while certainly r easonable, is not compelled. Without knowing the exact question posed by the reporter (and the question is merely paraphrased in the article), it is not possible to rule out the possibility that Mr. Tucker was simply referring to his claim for loss of consortium, which need not necessarily have pertained to sex. In other words, he may have said that the loss of consortium claim was just a brief reference [in the lawsuit]-- a small part of it. If evidence of this statement is admitted at trial, it will be for the trier of fact to interpret it. 14 431 (emphasis added). Actual malice requir es a plaintiff to establish that the defendant had a subjective belief that the statement was false when made, and Angino's equivocation about the exact words he used defeats any hope the Tuckers might have of proving actual malice on the part of Roberts or Newsweek by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we affirm the District Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of those parties.