Court Opinion

ID: 2964718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:02.896885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:00.426722
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1497

                               ABIGAIL MOJICA-ESCOBAR,

                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 GASPAR ROCA, ET AL.,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Selya, Circuit Judge. 
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               Nicol s Nogueras, Jr. for appellant.
               _____________________
               Juan  R.  Marchand-Quintero,  with  whom  Rivera  Cestero  &
               ___________________________               __________________
          Marchand Quintero was on brief for appellees.
          _________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 7, 1997
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant contends that summary
                    Per  Curiam. 
                    ___________

          judgment was improvidently granted to the defendant newspaper, El

          Vocero de Puerto Rico,  and its publisher in this  defamation and

          invasion  of  privacy suit  governed by  Puerto  Rico law.   Upon

          careful  consideration  of  the  record,  appellate  briefs,  and

          arguments in this case,  we affirm the district court's  grant of

          summary  judgment to  the defendants  for substantially  the same

          reasons provided in its Opinion and Order.  See Mojica Escobar v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Roca, 926 F. Supp. 30 (D. P.R. 1996).
          ____

                    Regardless   of   whether   the  appellant's   spouse's

          political  prominence was  sufficient to  render the  appellant a

          public figure,  the falsity of the  alleged defamatory statements

          was  a necessary  element  appellant had  to  prove in  order  to

          sustain relief  under  Puerto Rico  defamation law.   See  Ayala-
                                                                ___  ______

          Gerena  v. Bristol  Myers-Squibb Co.,  95 F.3d  86, 98  (1st Cir.
          ______     _________________________

          1996).  Appellant,  the non-movant, failed  to come forward  with

          anything  other than the most conclusory and vague allegations of

          falsity, and thus fell far short of establishing the existence of

          a "genuine  issue for trial"  with regard  to the falsity  of the

          newspaper articles, making summary judgment appropriate.  LeBlanc
                                                                    _______

          v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841-42 (1st Cir. 1993).  
             _______________________

                    We  are  unmoved  by   appellant's  argument  that  the

          defendants' failure  to respond to a  discovery request prevented

          her  from coming  forward  with concrete  evidence  to rebut  the

          summary judgment motion.   The newspaper articles giving  rise to

          appellant's  defamation   claims   were  published   and   widely

          distributed, and it is impossible to imagine that for want of the

          information   sought  in   her  unanswered   discovery  request,1

          appellant was unable to proffer any competent evidence tending to

          show that any of  defendants' statements were false, in  light of

          the fact  that, after  all, the  statements mainly concerned  the

          appellant's  (and  her  husband's)  finances  --  matters   which

          appellant should be in a fine position to address.   For example,

          appellant failed to come forward with  any proof that defendants'

          statements  regarding the financing of the purchase of a house in

          Orlando, Florida,  were false,  when it  is reasonable  to assume

          that  appellant possesses  records regarding  that purchase  -- a

          purchase which she claims she herself made.

                    With regard  to appellant's invasion  of privacy claim,

          we note that the right to privacy  as set forth in sections 1, 8,

          and 10  of  Article II  of  the Puerto  Rico Constitution  is  an

          important  right that  is  firmly safeguarded  under Puerto  Rico

          Supreme Court case law.  See,  e.g., Col n v. Romero Barcel , 112
                                   ___   ____  _____    ______________

          D.P.R.  573  (1982) (finding  violation  of  privacy right  where

          photograph of  murdered relative  was publicized for  purposes of

          crime-prevention advertisement).   Nevertheless, as the  district

          court  has stated,  the  photograph of  appellant's house,  which

          appellant does not deny was taken  from a public area outside  of

          the house, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy,
                              
          ____________________

          1   In  the unanswered  discovery request  that is  reproduced at
          length  in  her   appellate  brief,  appellant  mainly   requests
          information as  to how  the defendant newspaper's  reporters went
                             ___
          about  obtaining  information  about   the  appellant.    In  the
          circumstances  of this  case,  however, such  information is  not
          needed  to  prove  the   falsity  of  the  newspaper's  published
          statements.

                                         -3-

          for  it  is  not  "unreasonably  intrusive."    Dopp  v.  Fairfax
                                                          ____      _______

          Consultants, Ltd., 771 F. Supp. 494, 497 (D. P.R. 1990) (applying
          _________________

          Puerto Rico's constitutional privacy  guarantees).  There is also

          no legal  support for  appellant's claim  of invasion of  privacy

          based on the receipt of a single telephone call from an El Vocero

          reporter.

                    Affirmed.  Costs on appeal are granted to appellees.
                    Affirmed.  
                    ________

                                         -4-