Opinion ID: 1881719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: public figures and pretrial discovery

Text: The lower courts found the dispositive issue in this case to be whether Harold Montgomery was a public figure whose rights of publicity survived his death. The trial court granted summary judgment because Appellant could not prove that Harold Montgomery vigorously sought the attention of a national audience and has achieved such a level of success that he is considered a national celebrity. The Court of Appeals questioned the trial court's definition, but affirmed its conclusion because it found that Appellant had not demonstrated that Harold Montgomery's name and likeness possessed significant commercial value. While I believe the Court of Appeals correctly framed the inquiry, [1] I question its conclusion because Appellants did not have the opportunity to develop all possible evidence as to Harold Mongomery's commercial value. As one court has held, [t]he defendant's act of misappropriating the plaintiff's identity, however, may be sufficient evidence of commercial value. [2] This evidentiary inference, of course, is most applicable when the appropriation involves commercial merchandising [3] or advertising, [4] but the principle has application in this case as well and demonstrates the difficulty of separating the public figure or commercial value inquiry from the determination of whether the appropriation was done for commercial profit. In this case, Appellant sought evidence through its discovery requests which may have demonstrated that Appellees appropriated Harold Montgomery's name and image because the Appellees recognized the commercial value in the appropriation, but Appellants found themselves limited by the scope of the discovery and the nature of the inquiry in the trial court. Appellant initially submitted interrogatories to Appellee John Michael Montgomery seeking information relating to production research and profits associated with the I Miss You A Little video, but Appellee declined to answer many of these questions on the grounds that they would not lead to discoverable information and later obtained a protective order preventing discovery on these topics. During the Appellant's deposition of Appellee John Michael Montgomery, counsel for the Appellees, in accordance with the trial court's discovery limitations, objected to Appellant's questions concerning the song and music video, instructed his client not to answer the questions, and commented: Whoa. Objection. We're getting off track, Bill, let's get back on track. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether he's a public figure or not.... I'm objecting to any questions concerning the video, because it's not relevant for our purposes right now. So let's just move on. In my opinion, the trial court's restrictions on Appellant's access to discovery materials relating to the marketing and production of music videos possibly prevented the Appellant from obtaining relevant evidence concerning Harold Montgomery's commercial value. While I agree with the Court of Appeals that Appellant has yet to demonstrate that Harold Montogmery's name and likeness possess any significant commercial value, CR 56 was never intended to be a substitute for a court trial in cases where a party has not had an opportunity to present all the facts which might help lead the court to a just determination .... [5] Now that the Court of Appeals has clarified the definition of public figure, I believe that Appellant should be permitted the opportunity of full discovery to see whether they can produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harold Montgomery's name and likeness possessed significant commercial value. Accordingly, I would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand this case to the trial court for that purpose.