Court Opinion

ID: 9492975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:54:25.336188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:34.637594
License: Public Domain

JACOBS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Although I accept many of the stated premises of the majority opinion, and some of the holdings, I must disagree with the ultimate analysis and the result.
Thus I agree with the majority that “the elements of a libel action are heavily influenced by the minimum standards required by the First Amendment,” ante at 176; that the plaintiffs here are public figures who are required to demonstrate actual malice, see ante at 177; that the statements in the various articles are potentially defamatory, see ante at 185-86, 187-88; and that where (as in this case) the libel defendants resist a jury charge that re*192quires the jury to consider the alleged libels statement-by-statement within each publication (here within each article), and instead insist upon a jury finding of libel as to each publication, liability is properly sustained as to each publication if any one statement within it is actionable, see ante at 185. Finally, I agree that the evidence of falsity is insufficient to support the jury finding of liability as to the second of the three articles at issue. See ante at 188-89.
A
Because constitutional interests mandate that protected speech not be suppressed by libel lawsuits, public figures may recover libel damages only upon a showing that allegedly libelous statements were “made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
Here, because we hold that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the challenged statements in the second article were false, there can be no doubt that those statements are protected speech. In light of that conclusion, I agree with the majority’s remittitur of the punitive damages award (assuming of course that there is a compensatory damages award, or nominal one, that can properly furnish a predicate for punitive damages).
The most dangerous error of the majority opinion is to affirm the damage award— which was entered on an undifferentiated jury finding of actual malice as to all three articles — notwithstanding our unanimous rejection of the liability finding as to the second article. A plaintiff seeking damages resulting from both constitutionally protected and unprotected speech may recover only those damages arising out of speech that is unprotected. See NAACP v. Claiborne Rardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 915-30, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982); cf. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342-50, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (limiting discussion of when libel damages may be awarded to instances in which defamatory falsehoods have been proven). At this point, however, no one can say whether the damage award is solely attributable to one or both of the articles as to which the actual malice finding is sustained, or whether the damage award is solely attributable to the article now unanimously held to contain constitutionally protected speech. Since plaintiffs can recover a libel award only if the speech is unprotected, and since that showing cannot be made on this record, I would reverse the judgment on damages, and let the punitive damages award fall with it, or alternatively remand for a new trial.
The effect of the majority opinion is to affirm a libel award that (for all the record shows) may be attributable to constitutionally protected speech. Although it is true that the punitive damages award is the subject of remittitur and the remaining financial stake in this case is a one-dollar nominal damages award, that one dollar is (so far as I can tell) the first dollar in libel damages held on appeal to be payable by a journalist without regard to whether what was said is constitutionally protected. For that reason I fear that this is an important case and that the majority’s error is a subversive one.-
B
The majority opinion duly recites the principle that judges have a constitutional obligation to conduct an independent examination of the record to ascertain whether there is adequate support for a jury’s finding of actual malice. See ante at 183-84; see also Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 514, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) (“Appellate judges ... must exercise independent judgment and determine whether the record establishes actual malice with convincing clarity.”). The majority also recites the principle that any subsequent *193finding of actual malice must be supported by proof that is clear and convincing. See ante at 183.
With respect, I must say that the majority opinion recites the duty of independent examination without performing it. The majority opinion holds only that the evidence is sufficient to convince a reasonable juror,1 but fails to recognize that evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable juror is here not enough to “cross the constitutional threshold that bars the entry of any judgment that is not supported by clear and convincing proof of ‘actual malice.’” Bose, 466 U.S. at 511, 104 S.Ct. 1949; see also id. at 501, 104 S.Ct. 1949 (“[T]he rule of independent review assigns to judges a constitutional responsibility that cannot be delegated to the trier of fact, whether the factfinding function be performed in the particular case by a jury or by a trial judge”).
Under the independent review required by law and prudence, I conclude that the liability findings as to the first and third articles are unsupportable under applicable principles of law.
C
All of the challenged statements in the first article are reportage on a legal opinion rendered by Judge Mukasey in one of the underlying litigations. The sub-headline, which the majority opinion deems actual malice, says, “US judge finds Celle ‘negligent.’ ” The body of the first article repeats that observation, adding that the procedural act was the “dismiss[al]” of Celle’s summary judgment motion. The remaining statement at issue in the first article is a quotation from Judge Muka-sey’s opinion that describes a claim being asserted by one of the parties.
The majority opinion . evaluates these statements by setting forth an excerpt from the trial transcript and concluding that “[a] reasonable juror, hearing that exchange, could conclude that defendant Pelayo actually understood at the time of the writing that no determination of .negligence had actually been rendered.” Ante at 187 (emphasis added). I do not think that this excerpt can support a finding of actual malice. The record shows that the challenged passages from the first article are a non-lawyer’s mistaken, careless interpretation of a judicial opinion governed by relatively complex procedural rules. Such a mistake does not establish actual malice. See, e.g., Time, Inc. v. Pape,, 401 U.S. 279, 289-92, 91 S.Ct. 633, 28 L.Ed.2d 45 (1971) (finding that deliberate omission of the word “allegation” or its equivalent in an article describing a government report, while erroneous, was insufficient to create a jury issue regarding actual malice); Su-ozzi v. Parente, 202 A.D.2d 94, 616 N.Y.S.2d 355, 359 (1st Dep’t 1994) ( holding that “misinterpretation of a source or the resolution of an ambiguity adversely to the plaintiff or in accordance with a particular political view” does not constitute actual malice).
The challenged statements in the third article are that “AT & T is reportedly withdrawing its sponsorship of Radyo Pi-noy when its contract expires in July”; that “AT & T is being shortchanged of its allotted time slot” by Radyo Pinoy; and that “[cjritics of Radyo Pinoy claim” that they cannot receive its' signal even in nearby areas. With respect to the last statement, the majority opinion declines to reach whether the statement was made with actual malice.2 With respect to the other statements, the evidence at trial shows only that Pelayo relied on a dubious source and failed to investigate the story *194fully when he made these statements. Pe-layo talked to only one official at AT & T, and that source was no longer involved with the Radyo Pinoy account. Pelayo also gave conflicting testimony about whether that official, or someone else, told him that AT & T was being shortchanged. These shortcomings also do not establish actual malice. “[T]he failure to investigate [a statement’s] truth, standing alone, is not enough to prove actual malice even if a prudent person would have investigated before publishing the statement.” Sweeney v. Prisoners’ Legal Servs., Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 786, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 899, 647 N.E.2d 101 (1995); see also St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 733, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968) (“Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith.”). More particularly, reliance on biased sources, or failure to investigate when bias is revealed, is insufficient to establish actual malice. See Loeb v. New Times Communications Corp., 497 F.Supp. 85, 92-93 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
D
For the reasons stated above, actual malice cannot be shown in the first article solely on the basis of a layman’s confused reporting of a legal proceeding, and actual malice cannot be shown in the third article solely on the basis of an untalented reporter’s reliance on dubious sources. All that is left to support the majority’s holding of liability with respect to the first and third articles is that both articles were published in an atmosphere of spite and ill will between the parties.
It is hornbook law, however, that spite and ill will are simply not enough to establish actual malice as the motive for erroneous reporting. See Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666 & n. 7, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (“[T]he actual malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”); Herbert v. Lando, 781 F.2d 298, 307-09 & n. 6 (2d Cir. 1986) (finding previous hostile statements between parties, including “I’ll get you” and “I’ll destroy you,” insufficient to establish actual malice). “In the context of a libel suit, ‘actual malice’ simply does not mean ill-will or spite.... ‘Actual malice’ is now a term of art having nothing to do with actual malice.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Barron’s, 442 F.Supp. 1341, 1349-50 (S.D.N.Y.1977). We may not affirm unless we are confident that the evidence presented at trial established that Pelayo published the statements “with knowledge that [they were] false or with reckless disregard of whether [they were] false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
The majority opinion recognizes this principle, see ante at 183, but does not apply it. Thus, in respect of the first article, the majority concludes that “[a] reasonable juror — considering the ill will, and the factual similarity between the basis for that ill will and the publication of the challenged statement here — could conclude that Pelayo was imposing in-kind retribution on Celle by exaggerating the status of the legal proceedings against him.” Ante at 186. In respect of the third article, the majority concludes that “[e]onsidering the evidence of ill will Pe-layo felt towards Celle, a reasonable juror could conclude that Pelayo knowingly and recklessly ignored the probable falsity of the story and printed it.” Ante at 190.
I think it is dangerous to rely on ill will between the parties to save an otherwise insufficient finding of actual malice. Here the ill will is personal, but ill will can also be based on politics (not to mention everything else). The holding of the majority opinion is that ill will combined with sloppy reporting, or with a non-lawyer’s confusion over a judge’s ruling, will support a finding of actual malice. In my view, that goes some distance toward undoing New York Times v. Sullivan.
*195E
I appreciate that the judgment at stake here is a single dollar, and that my approach might require a remand for another trial over that trifling sum. But judicial economy is not a substantive principle of law, and while I do not suggest that the result reached by the majority is driven by a reluctance to compel a new trial over a nominal award, I think it is fair for me to explain why I would impose that burden on a busy district court in this case.
In arriving at the result that may avoid a retrial, the majority opinion unsettles a series of legal principles. By way of summary, the majority opinion allows a damage award to stand even though it may punish constitutionally protected speech; it allows a finding of actual malice to be based on the kind of confused reporting of legal proceedings that is only too common when the lay press reports judicial acts, and on sloppy sourcing and reporting, which is epidemic; and it allows the deficiencies of those proofs to be made up by evidence of some ill will. Hostility, however, is no offense against standards of journalism, and ill will is the mother’s milk of political reportage and opinion.
I would resolve this case by holding (upon an independent review of the evidence) that actual malice was not shown, and I would emphasize the observation set forth in the majority opinion that public figures — by definition — have the public opportunity to rebut the falsehoods uttered against them. See ante at 177. And, here, where the plaintiffs and defendants both have the ear of the same tightknit community, the rigorous standards of actual malice may be applied to defeat this claim without reputational damage on any matter plaintiffs wish to dispute in the public forum to which they have open access.

. For example, with respect to the third article, the majority opinion analyzes the evidence and concludes that "[i]n light of these circumstances, a reasonable juror could infer actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” Ante at 190 (emphasis added); see also ante at 186-87 (discussing first article).

. It was undisputed at trial, however, that the station could not be heard without special equipment, about which the article was silent.