Benjamin L. Little v. Consolidated Publishing Company and Megan Nichols
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 5/13/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090705 Benjamin L. L i t t l e v. C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g Company and Megan N i c h o l s Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-09-900147) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PER CURIAM. This and court's o p i n i o n o f December 3, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , the following i s substituted therefor. 2090705 Benjamin e n t e r e d by favor of L. Little the Calhoun appeals Circuit from a summary Court ("the Consolidated Publishing trial judgment court") in Company ("CPC") and Megan Nichols. The e v i d e n c e t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f , and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o , N i c h o l s and CPC's m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t e n d e d t o show t h e f o l l o w i n g . has b e e n an 2000. Anniston c i t y Little, councilman a Christian since minister, his election in I n e a r l y 2007, L i t t l e , a c t i n g on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f Phillip White, then mayor Jackson, a possibly addressing of Uniontown, human-resource-management what Little contacted Yolanda consultant, considered to about be the substandard human-resources p r a c t i c e s of the C i t y of A n n i s t o n ("the city"). On F e b r u a r y 10, 2007, L i t t l e d r o v e t o U n i o n t o w n t o p i c k up J a c k s o n , and t h e two o f them went t o D e m o p o l i s dinner, talked a l l a t the expense of the c i t y . f o r between 90 m i n u t e s and drove J a c k s o n back t o Uniontown, and returned to Anniston. resume to Little, 2 hours, and and Jackson then Little dropped her a t the c i t y The indicating Little next her day, Jackson willingness to for hall, sent her assist in d e v e l o p i n g new h u m a n - r e s o u r c e s p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e 2 2090705 city. Little recommended J a c k s o n members, b u t , interest at i n having human-resources A that year interest time, Jackson they city-council a p p a r e n t l y showed perform an audit of little the city's practices. later, however, i n the matter Jackson to the other and i n Uniontown, the city Little, arranged council renewed i t s a f t e r meeting f o r Mayor W h i t e a t t e n d a c i t y - c o u n c i l m e e t i n g i n A p r i l 2008. again with and her At that meeting, J a c k s o n i n f o r m e d t h e c o u n c i l o f h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and White related helping Uniontown w i t h i t s human-resources problems. The c i t y council voted an city's t o pay success Jackson human-resources meeting, Little took of Jackson's $2, 500 to perform practices. Jackson and efforts Mayor in 5-0 the to audit F o l l o w i n g the Mayor White to of the council dinner i n Anniston. Jackson performed the audit. During the auditing p r o c e s s , J a c k s o n d i d n o t meet p e r s o n a l l y w i t h L i t t l e , b u t she did the t a l k w i t h h i m on t h e t e l e p h o n e s e v e r a l t i m e s . a u d i t was After c o m p l e t e d , L i t t l e d r o v e t o U n i o n t o w n and t a l k e d w i t h J a c k s o n a b o u t t h e a u d i t f o r a b o u t 20 m i n u t e s . The r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e any o t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n L i t t l e and J a c k s o n . 3 2090705 I n November 2008, J o h n S p a i n was city council. At a e l e c t e d to the c i t y - c o u n c i l meeting Anniston conducted at p o i n t i n F e b r u a r y 2009, S p a i n q u e s t i o n e d t h e u s e f u l n e s s audit conducted by Jackson i n v e s t i g a t e the matter. Star, a S p a i n and newspaper Little 19, the owned and published and to by CPC, Anniston interviewed notes from i n t e r v i e w s , N i c h o l s w r o t e an a r t i c l e that f r o n t page o f The 2009, u n d e r t h e h e a d l i n e : facts the intention his of N i c h o l s , a r e p o r t e r f o r The HR a u d i t o r d e r e d by L i t t l e . " some stated a f t e r the meeting. t h e m e e t i n g and h e r a p p e a r e d on and some the including Spain, that conducted poorly and addition, the article Anniston Star on February " S p a i n wants i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o In t h a t a r t i c l e , N i c h o l s r e l a t e d opinions of indicated had B a s e d on h e r yielded certain that city officials, audit had been productive. In the nothing stated: "Spain a l s o s a i d there i s a buzz i n the c i t y t h a t L i t t l e had o r has a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h J a c k s o n and t h a t ' s why he p u s h e d f o r h e r h i r i n g l a s t year. " ' I f t h i s i s not the case, i t ' s v e r y u n f a i r t o Councilman Little,' Spain said. ' I f there is s u b s t a n c e t o i t , i t n e e d s t o be d i s c l o s e d . ' " L i t t l e , who i s not m a r r i e d , i n v o l v e d p e r s o n a l l y with Jackson. 4 said he is not 2090705 " ' I know a l o t o f p e o p l e , ' he s a i d . 'But I ' v e never had a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h a t g i r l . And i f I d i d have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r , t h a t w o u l d n ' t r e l a t e t o t h e c i t y anyway.' "Several attempts t o reach Jackson this week failed." Nichols for a s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t summary interview with judgment i n which Spain, he made a t t r i b u t e d t o him i n t h e a r t i c l e . been h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g that interview that i n support of the motion she s t a t e d that, the statements Nichols i n her that s t a t e d t h a t i t had f r o m s t a t e m e n t s made b y S p a i n "there during were r u m o r s i n t h e community C o u n c i l member L i t t l e may have b e e n d a t i n g a c o n s u l t a n t by t h e C i t y . " were that hired In her d e p o s i t i o n , Nichols c l a r i f i e d that Spain had a l s o i n d i c a t e d t o h e r t h a t t h e r e was a " b u z z " t h a t had based h i s d e c i s i o n t o "push" f o r J a c k s o n ' s h i r i n g because of t h e i r rumored p e r s o n a l and her deposition relationship. testimony, Nichols In both her a f f i d a v i t attested that quoted Spain and L i t t l e a c c u r a t e l y i n t h e a r t i c l e . the e d i t o r o f The A n n i s t o n t h a t he h a d c o n t r i b u t e d Star, t e s t i f i e d context." 5 to give she h a d Bob D a v i s , i n h i s deposition t o the a r t i c l e by n o t i n g was n o t a m a r r i e d man, i n o r d e r Little that the a r t i c l e Little "greater 2090705 Nichols stated i n her a f f i d a v i t out of i l l will, spite, that she d i d n o t w r i t e the article or malice t o w a r d anyone. She s t a t e d t h a t she was s i m p l y r e p o r t i n g t h e words o f S p a i n as t o l d t o h e r a s p a r t o f h e r j o b as a r e p o r t e r , w h i c h covering the meetings of the c i t y council. included Nichols further a t t e s t e d i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she h a d no c o n c e r n s o r d o u b t s about t h e a c c u r a c y She of the information quoted i n the story. s t a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d w h e t h e r , i n f a c t , rumor was circulating about Little and J a c k s o n ; v e r i f y o n l y t h a t S p a i n h a d a s s e r t e d as much. she could As f o r c h e c k i n g t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s o f t h e a l l e g e d rumor, N i c h o l s t e s t i f i e d she had asked Little contact Jackson. had reason no Although about t o doubt Nichols Anniston Little Spain's able of L i t t l e ' s t o reach Harry Brandt Ayers, no e d i t o r o r o t h e r had attempted person to ascertain statements. 6 they denial. Jackson, the the publisher of S t a r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew S p a i n but that newspaper the v e r a c i t y had n o t been that and had attempted t o N i c h o l s and D a v i s b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t a r t i c l e was p u b l i s h e d . The t h e rumor a d i d not l i k e employed by t h e the f a c t u a l basis of 2090705 On February 20, 2009, The Anniston Star published e d i t o r i a l t h a t D a v i s had w r i t t e n t i t l e d : "Ben's g r e a t e s t A l i t a n y of crumbling plans." an hits: In t h a t e d i t o r i a l , Davis wrote: "Most r e c e n t l y we've l e a r n e d more d e t a i l s a b o u t C o u n c i l m a n Ben L i t t l e ' s s w e e t h e a r t HR a u d i t d e a l . At L i t t l e ' s u r g i n g , Anniston p a i d Yolanda Jackson of Uniontown $2,500 to examine the city's human resources practices. Working for what city o f f i c i a l s s a y i s a few h o u r s and she c l a i m s was s e v e r a l days, Jackson produced a r e p o r t t h a t i s v i r t u a l l y useless. Not one r e c o m m e n d a t i o n has b e e n implemented." Davis then recounted several u n d e r t a k e n w h i l e he was have b e e n On to of requesting that the f o r L i t t l e wrote a newspaper i n t h e a r t i c l e and which L i t t l e considered voted evidence, shows retract t o be false that council to construed Nichols voted 5-0 to hire certain and malicious. s a i d , the to h i r e Jackson to conduct the i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e attended the Jackson 7 meeting and letter t h a t L i t t l e had t h e a u d i t o r h i r e d J a c k s o n ; r a t h e r , he c o u n c i l had The had the e n t i r e e d i t o r i a l , S p e c i f i c a l l y , L i t t l e ' s counsel maintained ordered Little a councilman that Davis considered 2009, c o u n s e l statements contained both endeavors unsuccessful. F e b r u a r y 24, Ayers, other that at city audit. to L i t t l e , which Nichols not the city knew that 2090705 L i t t l e had n o t " o r d e r e d " t h e a u d i t , as s t a t e d i n t h e h e a d l i n e above the i n i t i a l article reporting that Spain wished investigate the circumstances surrounding the audit. counsel also asserted that the a r t i c l e to Little's had repeated false g o s s i p p r o v i d e d b y S p a i n , who was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l e t t e r as "a w e l l known o p p o n e n t o f Mr. L i t t l e on t h e c i t y c o u n c i l , " t o the effect that Little had a had "pushed" personal f o r Jackson's because Little Little's counsel further objected t o the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the a u d i t i n the e d i t o r i a l had "urged" article of as a " s w e e t h e a r t " with Jackson. deal that L i t t l e t h e c o u n c i l t o make. On F e b r u a r y retraction relationship hiring 26, 2009, L i t t l e ' s t o counsel f o r CPC. t i t l e d "For the Records" t h a t day's edition counsel On F e b r u a r y sent a proposed 27, 2009, i n an t h a t was p r i n t e d on page two o f The A n n i s t o n Star, the following appeared: "A h e a d l i n e f o r a F e b . 19 a r t i c l e i n The Anniston Star mischaracterized Anniston City C o u n c i l m a n Ben L i t t l e ' s r o l e i n h i r i n g a c o n t r a c t o r t o a u d i t t h e c i t y ' s human r e s o u r c e s p r a c t i c e s . In f a c t , t h e c o u n c i l a s a w h o l e o r d e r e d t h e a u d i t . The Star a p o l o g i z e s t o Councilman L i t t l e f o r t h i s e r r o r . "Furthermore, the a r t i c l e quoted another city councilman concerning the existence o f rumors c i r c u l a t i n g t h a t L i t t l e h a d some t y p e o f p e r s o n a l 8 2090705 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c o n t r a c t o r h i r e d by the e n t i r e council. I n c o n t e x t , i t was c l e a r t h a t t h e p e r s o n q u o t e d was n o t s t a t i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r u m o r s were t r u e a n d t h e p e r s o n was e x p r e s s l y q u o t e d as saying that i f t h e r u m o r s were u n t r u e , those s p r e a d i n g t h e r u m o r s w o u l d be u n f a i r t o b o t h L i t t l e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r . The A n n i s t o n S t a r w i s h e s t o make a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r t h a t i t h a s n o t a n d i s n o t a l l e g i n g t h a t such a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s o r t h a t s u c h r u m o r s have a f a c t u a l b a s i s . In f a c t , L i t t l e has v e h e m e n t l y d e n i e d s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s . " Later that day, objecting foregoing because Little's he counsel had not wrote reviewed a r t i c l e b e f o r e i t was p u b l i s h e d d i f f e r e n t wording appear CPC's or counsel, approved the and demanding that on t h e f r o n t page o f t h e n e w s p a p e r . No f u r t h e r c o r r e c t i o n a p p e a r e d i n t h e p a g e s o f The A n n i s t o n Star. On March 24, 2009, another editorial appeared i n The A n n i s t o n S t a r i n w h i c h i t was r e c o u n t e d t h a t some i n d i v i d u a l s had taken Little copies and margins." had That of past "penned editorials threats editorial that were to Little's quoted Little as critical life of i n the blaming the e d i t o r i a l b o a r d o f The A n n i s t o n S t a r f o r p r o v o k i n g t h e d e a t h t h r e a t s t h r o u g h i t s " v i c i o u s and i n c o r r e c t " e d i t o r i a l s . editorial then stated: " L i t t l e h a s so f a r p r o v e n no m a j o r i n a c c u r a c i e s i n the e d i t o r i a l s . I n f a c t , the paper d i d run a minor 9 That 2090705 c o r r e c t i o n a n d an a p o l o g y on a news s t o r y , a f t e r t h e m i s t a k e was b r o u g h t t o t h e p a p e r ' s a t t e n t i o n . B u t L i t t l e h a s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e o f ' v i c i o u s n e s s ' o r ' i n c o r r e c t n e s s ' t o t h e n e w s p a p e r , e v e n t h o u g h he h a s been i n v i t e d t o . " That editorial space ended w i t h an i n v i t a t i o n for Little i n t h e newspaper f o r any r e b u t t a l . March 27, 2009, Little's counsel In a l e t t e r objected c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the e a r l i e r "For the Records" a f o r another "minor correction" and asked t o use dated to the a r t i c l e as retraction. The r e q u e s t was n o t g r a n t e d . L i t t l e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t CPC a n d N i c h o l s , as w e l l as s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s , on May 18, 2009. that complaint, Little alleged maliciously published false him i n the February editorial retracted. that, Little he 19 that CPC and defamatory article claimed, and had and N i c h o l s had statements been 20 effectively further asserted: " [ L i t t l e ] a v e r s t h a t [CPC] h a s waged a l o n g campaign t o l i b e l and v i l i f y L i t t l e i n t h e A n n i s t o n community c a l l i n g h i m names s u c h a s 'a c r a n k . ' The o b j e c t o f t h e c a m p a i g n was r a c i a l i n n a t u r e a n d was i n t e n d e d t o make [ L i t t l e ] an o b j e c t o f s c o r n a n d h a t r e d i n t h e A n n i s t o n , A l a b a m a community b e c a u s e o f [Little's] efforts to a i d the African-American community t o have a f a i r v o i c e i n A n n i s t o n community a f f a i r s , even i f t h a t v o i c e i s n o t p l e a s i n g t o t h e A n n i s t o n w h i t e community. The e f f e c t o f t h e c a m p a i g n 10 about i n the February not In 2090705 o f [CPC] has b e e n t o c r e a t e an a t m o s p h e r e o f h a t r e d o f L i t t l e i n w h i c h [CPC's] v i e w s o f t h e g o o d o f t h e community was b e l i e v e d t o r e q u i r e t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f L i t t l e from the a f f a i r s of the C i t y of A n n i s t o n . " Little averred vilification" margin of t h a t , as a direct c o m m i t t e d by CPC, The Anniston Star result and punitive the tort of "campaign death t h r e a t s w r i t t e n i n editorials p u b l i c places throughout Anniston. libel of the outrage had Little and been p l a c e d and Nichols 12-19-270 et seq., deposition of Little, summary j u d g m e n t on P. Little but he motion i n order R. Civ. filed an P. Ala. of compensatory and sought answer CPC Code and and S e p t e m b e r 4, also requested a counterclaim to complete d i s c o v e r y . court 2010. The arguments See a motion R u l e 56, for Ala. i n opposition to See a hearing the motion on 11 s e t out a R. the the Rule 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . Little on February a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r to both claims § the summary-judgment m o t i o n . on court entered N i c h o l s as filed See taking much o f t h a t d i s c o v e r y , trial heard After to postpone a second response to the and 2009. responded w i t h a b r i e f A f t e r completing trial 1975. Nichols filed CPC in asserted claims p u r s u a n t t o the Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t . motion, the damages. CPC Civ. of i n the The 22, of complaint. 2090705 Little t h e n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a ; that court t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s court, pursuant to § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code Little the contends t h a t summary-judgment Specifically, evidence 1975. Little creating a 1 the t r i a l motion on asserts that genuine issue court erred in granting his claim of libel. he presented substantial of m a t e r i a l fact w h e t h e r N i c h o l s and CPC h a d m a l i c i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d d e f a m a t o r y rumor a b o u t L i t t l e , Jackson's hiring with her. Therefore, entered his because a false to and i . e . , t h a t he h a d " p u s h e d " f o r was i n a personal he c o n t e n d s , t h e t r i a l a summary j u d g m e n t libel he as i n favor relationship court of Nichols improperly and CPC as t o claim. Among t h e g r o u n d s on w h i c h CPC summary judgment was that and N i c h o l s the statements moved f o r a at issue were not T h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m filed b y CPC a n d N i c h o l s ; h o w e v e r , " [ o ] u r c a s e l a w has ... c l a r i f i e d that the f a i l u r e of a t r i a l court to s p e c i f i c a l l y reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an [Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ] c l a i m i n a summary-judgment o r d e r i m p l i e d l y d i s p o s e s o f t h e c l a i m and r e n d e r s t h e summary j u d g m e n t f i n a l . See G o n z a l e z , LLC v. D i V i n c e n t i , 844 So. 2d 1196, 1201 ( A l a . 2002) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we h o l d t h a t t h e summary judgment i s a f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h a t w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " McGough v. G & A, I n c . , 999 So. 2d 898, 903 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 12 2090705 published they with "constitutional are protected and t h a t , therefore, f r o m an a c t i o n f o r damages b y t h e F i r s t Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d Times v . S u l l i v a n , malice" States Constitution. 376 U.S. 254 When a p l a i n t i f f See New York (1964). in a libel action i s a public official and t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t r e l a t e s t o h i s c o n d u c t as a public official, the plaintiff establish "constitutional malice" Gary v. Crouch, 923 So. 2d 1130, 1138 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) (citing by c l e a r must W i g g i n s v. M a l l a r d , and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. 905 So. 2d 776 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d S m i t h v . H u n t s v i l l e Times Co., 888 So. 2d 492 ( A l a . "Constitutional malice" New Y o r k Times Co. v. S u l l i v a n , satisfied by proof knowledge that whether r e f e r s t o the standard that a false i t was f a l s e i t was f a l s e supra. statement or with or not."'" "This 2004)). set forth i n standard i s was made '"with reckless disregard of Smith, 888 So. 2d a t 499 ( q u o t i n g H a r t e - H a n k s Commc'ns, I n c . v . C o n n a u g h t o n , 491 U.S. 657, 376 659 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , quoting i n t u r n New Y o r k Times v . S u l l i v a n , U.S. a t 2 7 9 - 8 0 ) . 13 2090705 I n t h e c o n t e x t o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n as t o a c l a i m of libel involving Supreme C o u r t has a public official, the United States explained: "'[W]here the New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n ] " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g " e v i d e n c e requirement a p p l i e s , the trial judge's summary j u d g m e n t i n q u i r y as t o w h e t h e r a g e n u i n e i s s u e e x i s t s w i l l be w h e t h e r t h e evidence presented i s such t h a t a j u r y applying that e v i d e n t i a r y standard could reasonably f i n d f o r e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f or t h e d e f e n d a n t . Thus, where t h e factual dispute concerns a c t u a l [constitutional] m a l i c e , c l e a r l y a m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n a New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n ] c a s e , the a p p r o p r i a t e summary j u d g m e n t q u e s t i o n w i l l be w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d c o u l d support a reasonable j u r y f i n d i n g e i t h e r that the plaintiff has shown actual [constitutional] malice by clear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence or t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has n o t . ' " A n d e r s o n v. L i b e r t y L o b b y , I n c . , 477 U.S. 242, 255¬ 56, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . The Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a has r e i t e r a t e d t h a t '[a] t r i a l j u d g e i s n o t r e q u i r e d " t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e and d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u t h o f t h e matter but to determine whether t h e r e i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . " ' Camp v. Y e a g e r , 601 So. 2d [924,] 927 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ] ( q u o t i n g A n d e r s o n , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. C t . 2 5 0 5 ) . " Gary v. 2005). Crouch, On a p p e a l 923 So. 2d 1130, 1138-39 (Ala. Civ. f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t , t h i s c o u r t 14 App. reviews 2090705 the c a s e de n o v o , court. applying t h e same s t a n d a r d s as t h e t r i a l See i d . "When d e t e r m i n i n g i f a g e n u i n e f a c t u a l i s s u e a s t o actual [ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ] malice e x i s t s i n a l i b e l s u i t b r o u g h t b y a p u b l i c f i g u r e , a t r i a l j u d g e must b e a r i n m i n d t h e a c t u a l quantum a n d q u a l i t y o f p r o o f n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t l i a b i l i t y u n d e r New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n , 376 U.S. 254 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e i f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d in the opposing affidavits i s of i n s u f f i c i e n t caliber or quantity to allow a rational finder of f a c t t o f i n d [ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ] m a l i c e by c l e a r and convincing evidence." A n d e r s o n v. L i b e r t y L o b b y , I n c . , 477 U.S. 242, 254 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . making the determination whether produced evidence of a s u f f i c i e n t allow rational finder a of fact the public "caliber to find m a l i c e by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , " believe the evidence submitted figure [constitutional] i d . , t h e c o u r t must by t h e p u b l i c f i g u r e and a l l U.S. a t 2 5 5 . United States Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d : " I n [ S u l l i v a n ] , ... t h e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t s a t i s f y h i s b u r d e n b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e p u b l i s h e r was aware o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t he was c i r c u l a t i n g f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n . I n G a r r i s o n v. S t a t e o f L o u i s i a n a , 379 U.S. 64 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , ... t h e o p i n i o n emphasized t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a showing t h a t a f a l s e p u b l i c a t i o n was made w i t h a ' h i g h d e g r e e o f a w a r e n e s s o f ... p r o b a b l e f a l s i t y . ' 379 U.S., a t 74. 15 has or quantity to j u s t i f i a b l e i n f e r e n c e s must be drawn i n h i s o r h e r f a v o r . The In 477 2090705 Mr. J u s t i c e H a r l a n ' s o p i n i o n i n C u r t i s P u b l i s h i n g Co. v . B u t t s , 388 U.S. 130, 153 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , s t a t e d t h a t evidence of e i t h e r deliberate falsification or reckless publication 'despite the publisher's a w a r e n e s s o f p r o b a b l e f a l s i t y ' was e s s e n t i a l t o r e c o v e r y by p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s i n defamation a c t i o n s . These c a s e s a r e c l e a r t h a t r e c k l e s s c o n d u c t i s n o t m e a s u r e d b y w h e t h e r a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t man w o u l d have p u b l i s h e d , o r w o u l d have i n v e s t i g a t e d b e f o r e publishing. T h e r e must be s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o permit the conclusion that the defendant i n f a c t e n t e r t a i n e d s e r i o u s d o u b t s as t o t h e t r u t h o f h i s publication." St. Amant v . Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968) (emphasis added). In this case, Nichols c i t y - c o u n c i l meeting during resources Spain wrote an a r t i c l e which the usefulness a u d i t was c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . discussed reporting his intention on a o f a human- During the meeting, to investigate that audit, w h i c h , Spain a s s e r t e d , L i t t l e had "pushed" t h e c i t y c o u n c i l t o undertake. about his call article city A f t e r the meeting, N i c h o l s stated that spoke t o S p a i n f u r t h e r f o r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o that Little "Spain ... s a i d t h e r e had o r has a p e r s o n a l the audit. i s a buzz The i n the relationship with [ Y o l a n d a ] J a c k s o n a n d t h a t ' s why he p u s h e d f o r h e r h i r i n g last year also [ t o c o n d u c t an a u d i t q u o t e d S p a i n as s a y i n g , f o r the c i t y ] . " " I f this 16 The a r t i c l e i s not the case, i t ' s very 2090705 unfair it, t o Councilman L i t t l e , " i t n e e d s t o be d i s c l o s e d . " Spain's a s s e r t i o n s regarding she and " I f t h e r e wrote Nichols that also Little N i c h o l s spoke t o L i t t l e t h e a u d i t , and, i n t h e had denied testified that i s substance t o the t r u t h she h a d about article, o f t h e rumor. attempted to contact J a c k s o n a b o u t S p a i n ' s a s s e r t i o n b u t t h a t she h a d b e e n u n a b l e to reach Jackson. In r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d , we f o u n d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , at the time the a r t i c l e else e m p l o y e d b y CPC have a p e r s o n a l not was p u b l i s h e d , N i c h o l s o r anyone s u b j e c t i v e l y knew t h a t Little d i d not r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h J a c k s o n and t h a t L i t t l e had recommended J a c k s o n to perform the audit based on that p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on appeal, we c o n c l u d e t h a t L i t t l e d i d not present sufficiently c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t CPC a n d N i c h o l s published t h e rumor w i t h k n o w l e d g e o f i t s f a l s i t y . L i k e w i s e , N i c h o l s ' s and D a v i s ' s t e s t i m o n y they had construed no reason to doubt Little's a s c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g i n d i c a t i n g that denial evidence cannot be i n d i c a t i n g that they acted "with r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d of whether [the a l l e g e d l y d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t ] was f a l s e o r n o t , " S u l l i v a n , 376 U.S. a t 17 2090705 280, i . e . , t h a t they a c t e d w i t h a " h i g h degree of awareness of ... p r o b a b l e falsity." (1964). d i s c u s s i n g the proof In needed to the United malice, Circuit wrote: G a r r i s o n v. L o u i s i a n a , 379 U.S. show clear-and-convincing constitutional States "Surely Court of liability malice, Appeals under 64, 74 quantum of i.e., for the actual the Second 'clear and c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f ' s t a n d a r d o f S u l l i v a n c a n n o t be p r e d i c a t e d on mere so denials, however vehement; such denials are commonplace i n t h e w o r l d o f p o l e m i c a l c h a r g e and countercharge that, conscientious in reporter themselves, to the Audubon S o c ' y , they likelihood Inc., 556 hardly of n.1 In Edwards v. 113, F.2d ( q u o t i n g Edwards w i t h claiming disregard as that (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . 121 Connaughton, National 491 U.S. See at approval). Nichols to whether the the error." a l s o H a r t e - H a n k s Commc'ns, I n c . v. 660 alert and CPC acted with a l l e g e d l y defamatory reckless statements were f a l s e , L i t t l e p o i n t s t o what he b e l i e v e s s h o u l d have b e e n done b e f o r e For the article example, L i t t l e c o n t a i n i n g the rumor was seems t o a r g u e t h a t N i c h o l s i n v e s t i g a t e d whether, i n f a c t , a rumor was Little argues and Jackson. He also 18 that published. should circulating Nichols and have about CPC 2090705 s h o u l d have done more i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s t h e a l l e g e d rumor. behind Spain's investigation should However, f a i l i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e assertions i n t o the have b e e n insufficient to as to audit the that U.S. at CPC requesting manner L i t t l e Nichols See was or published CPC headline above t h e by Jackson. Apparently, an unknown drafted that headline. R o u g h l y a week a f t e r t h e published, Star published The mistake Anniston in the headline, noting c o u n c i l , n o t L i t t l e a c t i n g by h i m s e l f , The t e x t of the c o u n c i l had had original article ordered immaterial. an article that had the is with Thompson, article The copy audit article entire city audit. i t s e l f s t a t e d t h a t the that Whether gist o f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f S p a i n ' s comments, 19 l i b e l claim, for Spain audit of L i t t l e ' s "pushed" city the which i s the heart merely was correcting "pushed f o r her h i r i n g . " or in editor o r d e r e d the h i r e d J a c k s o n t o c o n d u c t t h e a u d i t and a s s e r t e d t h a t L i t t l e had Little acted S t . Amant v. an believed i n a c c u r a t e l y s t a t e d t h a t L i t t l e "ordered" the performed the truth 731. acknowledged t h a t the question was article r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r the t r u t h . 390 he i n the done b e f o r e demonstrate why of i s that i t is Little's 2090705 a l l e g e d p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Jackson city to Little pay for a supposedly worthless abused h i s p u b l i c o f f i c e . a u d i t or merely a l l e g e d l y l e d the audit, Whether L i t t l e recommended i t does n o t alter i . e . , that ordered the nature t h e a l l e g e d abuse o f p u b l i c o f f i c e . C f . Masson v. New Magazine, (1991) Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 the ("[A] of Yorker deliberate a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e w o r d s u t t e r e d by a p l a i n t i f f does n o t e q u a t e with knowledge constitutional of falsity malice] for unless purposes the of alteration results m a t e r i a l change i n t h e m e a n i n g c o n v e y e d b y t h e B a s e d upon o u r reasonable jury review could o f t h e r e c o r d , we not e v i d e n c e t h a t N i c h o l s and CPC find by clear [determining in statement."). conclude and that a convincing acted with c o n s t i t u t i o n a l malice i n p u b l i s h i n g the a l l e g e d defamatory statements. Therefore, L i t t l e c a n n o t s u s t a i n h i s l i b e l c l a i m a g a i n s t N i c h o l s and Accordingly, judgment the i n favor trial of a court properly Nichols and CPC entered as to the CPC. summary Little's libel claim. J u d g e Moore, i n h i s d i s s e n t , r e l i e s Wiley, 495 So. 2d 617 ( A l a . 1986), well as v. other cases a p p l y i n g common-law p r i n c i p l e s t h a t were d e c i d e d b e f o r e 1986, 20 as on WKRG-TV, I n c . 2090705 for the proposition defamatory meeting, that, statement when made third . an key allegedly in a a party i n q u i r y must be statement i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y true, the statement i t s e l f i s b e i n g a c c u r a t e l y at on by a news r e p o r t e r ' s c o n t e n t of t h a t reporting In W i l e y , our supreme c o u r t public whether not whether reported. affirmed the So. the d e n i a l of m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a p p e a l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. R. have App. a P., and held constitutional that a television station did right to statements about a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l made at a W i l e y , 495 was public So. decided States Inc. 2d a t 619. in Supreme v. Hepps, regarding of p u b l i c Court's 475 a 1986, 767 i s of the matter of public not false concern." does n o t in Philadelphia (1986), public plaintiff mention decided concern. the in April In i s a public official recovering the speech i s or plaintiff damages f r o m a m e d i a d e f e n d a n t t h a n i s r a i s e d by t h e common l a w . " 21 1986, Hepps, "[w]hen the s u r m o u n t a much h i g h e r b a r r i e r b e f o r e United Newspapers, p u b l i c f i g u r e , the C o n s t i t u t i o n c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s the to 5, " s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y were Supreme C o u r t n o t e d t h a t , c o n c e r n and allegedly a n o t e , however, t h a t W i l e y , w h i c h holding U.S. that on We September speech United States meeting repeat 3d 475 2090705 U.S. a t 775. Court's We cannot r e c o n c i l e the U n i t e d h o l d i n g i n Hepps w i t h o u r States Supreme supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Wiley. "The second p a r a g r a p h of A r t i c l e VI of the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n s e t s o u t what i s known as t h e Supremacy C l a u s e : " ' T h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , and t h e l a w s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w h i c h s h a l l be made i n p u r s u a n c e t h e r e o f ... s h a l l be t h e supreme l a w o f t h e l a n d ; and t h e j u d g e s i n e v e r y s t a t e s h a l l be b o u n d t h e r e b y , any t h i n g i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f any s t a t e t o the c o n t r a r y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . ' "The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t ' [ i ] t i s b a s i c t o t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l command that a l l conflicting state [laws] be without effect.' M a r y l a n d v. L o u i s i a n a , 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S. C t . 2114, 2128-29, 68 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1981) ( c i t i n g M ^ C u l l o c h v. M a r y l a n d , 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 427, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). T h e r e f o r e , when f e d e r a l and s t a t e l a w s c o n f l i c t , t h e f e d e r a l l a w t r i u m p h s and p r e e m p t s t h e c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t e l a w . "Not o n l y a r e c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t e s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t i o n s p r e e m p t e d , b u t s t a t e common l a w r u l e s are a l s o preempted to the e x t e n t t h a t they c o n f l i c t w i t h f e d e r a l law." C a n t l e y v. L o r i l l a r d T o b a c c o Co., 1996). with So. 2d 1057, B e c a u s e o u r supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n W i l e y the constitutional affords i n circumstances those 681 protections the First 1059 (Ala. conflicts Amendment s u c h as t h o s e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , p r o t e c t i o n s have b e e n a r t i c u l a t e d 22 by the U n i t e d as States 2090705 Supreme Court's holding f o l l o w the opinion Moreover, court we has f o l l o w e d opinion relies i n Hepps, of the United note that, Wiley on this States although court Supreme case, both this to Court. no A l a b a m a f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n i n this i s bound appellate the d i s s e n t i n g court and our supreme c o u r t have f o l l o w e d Hepps s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e r e l e a s e o f Wiley. See Ex p a r t e (citing Hepps for R u d d e r , 507 So. 2d 411, 416 the proposition that, "where determined that a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l i s a l l e g i n g t h e r e must be a d e t e r m i n a t i o n WVTM TV, I n c . , 709 So. 2d 23 entering also contends i t is defamation, of whether the defamatory speech involves a matter of p u b l i c concern"); Little ( A l a . 1987) ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) that t h e summary-judgment s e e a l s o F o r r e s t e r v. the trial court (same). erred on h i s t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e in claim. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s t h a t he p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e creating a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact as t o w h e t h e r c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t b y p u b l i s h i n g what said were attacks racially motivated attacks c a u s e d h i m t o be s u b j e c t e d on h i m and t h a t to death t h r e a t s . also asserts that the t r i a l court erred i n concluding CPC Little those Little that h i s t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e c l a i m was subsumed i n h i s l i b e l c l a i m . A l a b a m a 23 2090705 law r e c o g n i z e d the t o r t refers to i t , Stewart American v. intentional Matthews, Road o f o u t r a g e o r , as Service infliction 644 So. Co. 2d v. 1 9 8 0 ) , when t h e supreme c o u r t our caselaw of emotional 915, Inmon, 918 394 also distress, ( A l a . 1994), So. 2d 361 in (Ala. held: "[O]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct i n t e n t i o n a l l y or r e c k l e s s l y causes severe e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t o another i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r such e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and f o r b o d i l y harm r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e d i s t r e s s . The e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t h e r e u n d e r must be so s e v e r e t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d be expected t o endure i t . Any r e c o v e r y must be r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t i f i e d u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , l i a b i l i t y e n s u i n g o n l y when t h e c o n d u c t i s e x t r e m e . ... By e x t r e m e we r e f e r t o c o n d u c t so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e as t o go b e y o n d a l l p o s s i b l e b o u n d s o f d e c e n c y , and t o be r e g a r d e d as a t r o c i o u s and u t t e r l y i n t o l e r a b l e i n a c i v i l i z e d society." 394 So. caselaw 2d at 365. to only a That few tort factual has since been limited by situations. See Michael L. R o b e r t s & G r e g o r y S. C u s i m a n o , A l a b a m a T o r t Law 1996). Little argues t h a t t h i s court 23.0 s h o u l d now (2d e d . expand the c a u s e o f a c t i o n t o encompass s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h a n e w s p a p e r publisher, by racial denunciations of a p u b l i c official persons to motivated issue death threats 24 bias, that to issues libelous c a u s e unknown that public third official. 2090705 Little be a l s o argues that the c l a i m should n o t be c o n s i d e r e d to subsumed i n t h e t o r t o f l i b e l . Some c a s e l a w cited indicates that courts that a defendant allowing forced may by L i t t l e , of other be who is African-American, j u r i s d i c t i o n s have liable f o r outrageous recognized conduct i n a h o s t i l e work e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h a p l a i n t i f f i s t o endure racial taunts or s l u r s . See C o n t r e r a s v . Crown Z e l l e r b a c h C o r p . , 88 Wash. 2d 735, 736, 565 P.2d 1173, 1174 86 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; A l c o r n v . A n b r o Eng'g, I n c . , Cal. Rptr. Gomez v. Hug, (1982); 1044, 2 C a l . 3d 493, 496, 88, 89-90, 468 P.2d 216, 218 (1970); see a l s o 7 K a n . App. 2d 603, 604, 645 P.2d 916, 918 a n d J o n e s v. F l u o r 1045 ( M i s s . 2007). Daniel Servs. The h o l d i n g s Corp., 959 So. 2d o f t h o s e c a s e s do n o t r e a d i l y t r a n s l a t e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s case because Little has n o t p r e s e n t e d any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e d i t o r s o f The Anniston while Star used exercising Nevertheless, Little a any r a c i a l position argues that, epithets of against authority based on t h o s e over Little him. cases, we s h o u l d h o l d t h a t a n e w s p a p e r commits t h e t o r t o f o u t r a g e when 25 2090705 i t w r o n g f u l l y o r f a l s e l y c r i t i c i z e s a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l b a s e d on improper r a c i a l We has motivations. 2 need not d e c i d e t h a t q u e s t i o n , however, because L i t t l e not p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support h i s When v i e w e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e shows that, printed since in The leadership, Little has he became Anniston policy a councilman, Star choices, have and t a k e n p o s i t i o n s on to L i t t l e , many evidence editorials criticized effort. several the It subjects theory. Little's appears that of p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t t h a t c o n f l i c t w i t h the stance of the e d i t o r i a l board of the newspaper, p a r t i c u l a r l y regarding a dispute as t o the b e s t and h i g h e s t use o f F o r t M c C l e l l a n , a t o p i c o f much p u b l i c debate i n Anniston. those e d i t o r i a l s but to from the To t e s t i f i e d t h a t he stemmed n o t f a c t t h a t he "kowtow" t o Star. Little the support his from l e g i t i m a t e p u b l i c i s an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n wishes of the opinion, i n d i c a t i n g o n l y t h a t h i s name had disproportionate number of ownership Little L i t t l e d i d not c i t e to the c a s e d i r e c t l y on p o i n t . 26 of that debate, and refuses The Anniston presented evidence appeared i n the newspaper a times 2 any believed trial when court compared to or to t h i s his court 2090705 Caucasian counterparts. CPC more s t o r i e s a b o u t L i t t l e on topics of public countered that i t had s o l e l y because of h i s interest. The evidence printed outspokenness submitted by L i t t l e hardly c o n s t i t u t e s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g that CPC has racial instituted a campaign a g a i n s t motivations. See § him based 12-21-12(a), on Ala. improper Code 1975 ( r e q u i r i n g p r o o f of " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" i n order "to submit an issue of Founders (Ala. L i f e Assurance 1989) such f a c t to the weight trier Co. and quality existence of the f a c t sought racial facts"); of F l o r i d a , impartial that of also the 547 So. and West 2d 870, ( d e f i n i n g " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " as " e v i d e n c e exercise We of need motivation, not a fair-minded judgment t o be decide can proved"). can of in the the 3 absent be 871 infer reasonably whether, newspaper persons v. held an improper liable for I n a n o t h e r c o n t e x t , the Alabama C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s has s t a t e d t h a t " ' s t a t i s t i c s and o p i n i o n a l o n e do n o t p r o v e a prima f a c i e case of [ r a c i a l ] d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' " B a n k s v. S t a t e , 919 So. 2d 1223, 1230 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g Woods v. S t a t e , 845 So. 2d 843, 845 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . We n e e d n o t d i s c u s s a t any l e n g t h t h e t y p e o f e v i d e n c e t h a t would s u f f i c e to prove t h a t a defendant acted w i t h r a c i a l a n i m u s i n an o u t r a g e o u s manner. We s i m p l y h o l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t amount t o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f an i m p r o p e r r a c i a l m o t i v a t i o n . 3 27 2090705 o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t when i t s r e a d e r s against a public information entire official contained argument specifically to instigate based on in editorials. regarding include the false or Little his death threats misleading has couched h i s tort-of-outrage component. racial claim court This c a n n o t make and a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r an a p p e l l a n t . D u n l a p v. R e g i o n s F i n . C o r p . , 983 B e c a u s e L i t t l e has Little's libel For court is claim, the 378 trial a summary j u d g m e n t on t h a t c l a i m . consider his 2d 374, (Ala. 2007). not p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e support h i s t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e entered So. See court Hence, we argument t h a t h i s c l a i m was not to properly need not subsumed i n claim. the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial 3, 2010, affirmed. APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF DECEMBER WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Thomas, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , Moore, J., and concurs w r i t i n g , which Pittman, Bryan, J . , concur i n part J., and joins. 28 specially. dissents in part, with 2090705 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I that agree that Consolidated Benjamin L. L i t t l e Publishing specially. failed Company and t o demonstrate Megan Nichols ( c o l l e c t i v e l y "CPC") a c t e d w i t h " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m a l i c e , " referred t o as a c t u a l defamatory statements. the published malice, i n publishing I write statements also the a l l e g e d l y s p e c i a l l y to point involved also matters out that of public concern that are e n t i t l e d t o heightened s c r u t i n y . " I n a c t i o n s f o r d e f a m a t i o n , t h e r e must be an i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e t r i a l judge i n r e g a r d t o t h e s t a t u s o f t h e a l l e g e d l y defamed p e r s o n as a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l , a p u b l i c f i g u r e , or a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l . F u l t o n v . A d v e r t i s e r Co., 388 So. 2d 533 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 449 U.S. 1 1 3 1 , 101 S. C t . 954, 67 L. E d . 2d 119 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , where i t i s determined that a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l i s a l l e g i n g d e f a m a t i o n , t h e r e must be a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r the defamatory speech i n v o l v e s a matter o f p u b l i c concern. P h i l a d e l p h i a N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . v. Hepps, [475 U.S. 767 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ] . These d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a r e questions of law f o r the t r i a l judge. Fulton. These i s s u e s must be r e s o l v e d f i r s t , b e c a u s e t h e manner o f t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n d e t e r m i n e s what e l e m e n t s of proof are necessary f o r recovery. Mobile Press R e g i s t e r , I n c . v . F a u l k n e r , 372 So. 2d 1282 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , c i t i n g New Y o r k Times Co. v. S u l l i v a n , [376 U.S. 254 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ] . " Ex p a r t e In instant R u d d e r , 507 So. 2d 4 1 1 , 416 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . cases case, involving First courts are Amendment often 29 called disputes, upon to like the balance 2090705 competing important i n t e r e s t s : a l l o w i n g the continuance of a " p r o f o u n d n a t i o n a l commitment t o t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t d e b a t e on public and issues be u n i n h i b i t e d , robust, and wide-open, t h a t i t may w e l l i n c l u d e vehement, c a u s t i c , a n d s o m e t i m e s unpleasantly 376 should U.S. s h a r p a t t a c k s , " New Y o r k Times Co. v . S u l l i v a n , 254, 270 individual's right reputation." F.2d (1964), t o be "without unduly free unjust of Edwards v . N a t i o n a l Audubon s a c r i f i c i n g the damage Soc'y, to h i s I n c . , 556 113, 115 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . In this asserted case, that CPC Little, acted publishing a statement that made: t h a t there has a p e r s o n a l an with Anniston constitutional another councilman, who c o n d u c t e d t h e human r e s o u r c e s councilman, malice in John Spain, that L i t t l e was a " b u z z i n t h e c i t y relationship with city had o r [Yolanda] J a c k s o n [the p e r s o n audit at issue] why he p u s h e d f o r h e r h i r i n g l a s t y e a r . " and t h a t ' s L i t t l e asserted that t h e rumor was f a l s e a n d t h a t , i n p u b l i s h i n g S p a i n ' s s t a t e m e n t , CPC d e f a m e d h i m . on several 5 CPC d e f e n d e d p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e m e n t grounds, including that i t had a c c u r a t e l y I do n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r issue are, i n f a c t , defamatory. 5 30 and the statements a t 2090705 t r u t h f u l l y r e p o r t e d the events t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g and a f t e r the c i t y - c o u n c i l meeting a u d i t was d i s c u s s e d . a t w h i c h an i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the The m a i n o p i n i o n , r e l y i n g on WKRG-TV v . W i l e y , 495 So. 2 d 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , among o t h e r s d e c i d e d b e f o r e 1986, rejects that r e a s o n as a v a l i d defense i n this case. I n P h i l a d e l p h i a N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . v . Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 775 (1986), "[w]hen the United States Supreme Court noted that, t h e speech i s o f p u b l i c concern and t h e p l a i n t i f f i s a public o f f i c i a l requires or public the p l a i n t i f f figure, t o surmount before recovering damages raised b y t h e common l a w . " from the Constitution a much a media higher defendant The Hepps C o u r t clearly barrier than i s then wrote as follows: "To e n s u r e t h a t t r u e s p e e c h on m a t t e r s o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n i s n o t d e t e r r e d , we h o l d t h a t t h e common-law presumption t h a t defamatory speech i s f a l s e cannot s t a n d when a p l a i n t i f f s e e k s damages a g a i n s t a m e d i a defendant f o r speech o f p u b l i c concern. "In t h e context of governmental r e s t r i c t i o n o f speech, i t has l o n g been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e government cannot l i m i t speech p r o t e c t e d by t h e First Amendment w i t h o u t b e a r i n g t h e b u r d e n o f showing t h a t i t s r e s t r i c t i o n i s j u s t i f i e d . See C o n s o l i d a t e d E d i s o n Co. v . P u b l i c S e r v i c e Comm'n o f N.Y., 447 U.S. 530, 540 (1980) (content-based restriction); F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f B o s t o n v . B e l l o t t i , 435 U.S. 765, 786 (1978) ( s p e a k e r - b a s e d r e s t r i c t i o n ) ; R e n t o n v . P l a y t i m e T h e a t e r s , I n c . , 475 31 2090705 U.S. 41, 47-54 (1986) (secondary-effects r e s t r i c t i o n ) . See a l s o S p e i s e r v. R a n d a l l , 357 U.S. 513 (1958) ( s t r i k i n g down t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n t h a t a taxpayer sign a loyalty oath before receiving certain tax b e n e f i t s ) . I t i s not immediately a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e t e x t o f t h e F i r s t Amendment, w h i c h by i t s t e r m s a p p l i e s o n l y t o g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n , t h a t a s i m i l a r r e s u l t s h o u l d o b t a i n h e r e : a s u i t by a p r i v a t e p a r t y i s o b v i o u s l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s d i r e c t e n f o r c e m e n t o f i t s own l a w s . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e n e e d t o e n c o u r a g e d e b a t e on p u b l i c issues that concerned the Court in the g o v e r n m e n t a l - r e s t r i c t i o n cases i s of concern i n a s i m i l a r manner i n t h i s c a s e i n v o l v i n g a p r i v a t e s u i t f o r damages: p l a c e m e n t by s t a t e l a w o f t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t r u t h upon m e d i a d e f e n d a n t s who p u b l i s h speech of p u b l i c concern d e t e r s such speech because of the fear that liability will unjustifiably result. See New Y o r k T i m e s , 376 U.S., at 279; G a r r i s o n [v. L o u i s i a n a ] , 379 U.S. [64,] 74 [ ( 1 9 6 4 ) ] , ( ' T r u t h may n o t be t h e s u b j e c t o f e i t h e r c i v i l o r criminal sanctions where discussion of public a f f a i r s i s concerned'). Because such a ' c h i l l i n g ' effect would be antithetical to the First Amendment's p r o t e c t i o n o f t r u e s p e e c h on m a t t e r s o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n , we b e l i e v e t h a t a p r i v a t e - f i g u r e p l a i n t i f f must b e a r t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h a t t h e s p e e c h a t i s s u e i s f a l s e b e f o r e r e c o v e r i n g damages f o r defamation from a media defendant. To do otherwise could 'only r e s u l t i n a deterrence of s p e e c h w h i c h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n makes f r e e . ' S p e i s e r , s u p r a , 357 U.S., a t 526. "We r e c o g n i z e t h a t r e q u i r i n g the p l a i n t i f f to show f a l s i t y w i l l i n s u l a t e from l i a b i l i t y some speech that is false, but unprovably so. N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e C o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s on t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment p l a c e s upon t h e common l a w o f d e f a m a t i o n f i r m l y s u p p o r t our c o n c l u s i o n here w i t h r e s p e c t t o the a l l o c a t i o n of the burden of proof. In a t t e m p t i n g to resolve r e l a t e d i s s u e s i n the defamation c o n t e x t , the Court 32 2090705 has a f f i r m e d t h a t ' [ t ] h e F i r s t Amendment r e q u i r e s t h a t we p r o t e c t some f a l s e h o o d i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t speech t h a t matters.' Gertz [v. R o b e r t W e l c h , I n c . ] , 418 U.S. [323,] 341 [(1974)]. Here the speech concerns the l e g i t i m a c y of the political p r o c e s s , and t h e r e f o r e c l e a r l y ' m a t t e r s . ' See Dun & B r a d s t r e e t [ , I n c . v. Greenmoss B u i l d e r s , I n c . ] , 472 U.S. [749,] 758-759 [ ( 1 9 8 5 ) ] ( s p e e c h o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n i s a t t h e c o r e o f t h e F i r s t Amendment's p r o t e c t i o n s ) . To p r o v i d e ' " b r e a t h i n g s p a c e , " ' New Y o r k T i m e s , s u p r a , 376 U.S., a t 272 ( q u o t i n g NAACP v. B u t t o n , 371 U.S. [415,] 433 [ ( 1 9 6 3 ) ] , f o r t r u e s p e e c h on m a t t e r s o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n , t h e C o u r t has been w i l l i n g t o i n s u l a t e even d e m o n s t r a b l y f a l s e s p e e c h f r o m l i a b i l i t y , and has i m p o s e d a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f a u l t upon t h e p l a i n t i f f i n a s u i t for defamation. See, e.g., G a r r i s o n , 379 U.S., at 75; G e r t z , s u p r a , 418 U.S., a t 347." Hepps, 475 Before Court U.S. a t 776-78 Hepps was ( f i r s t emphasis added). decided, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme had w r i t t e n : " [ E ] v e n where t h e u t t e r a n c e i s f a l s e , t h e great p r i n c i p l e s of the C o n s t i t u t i o n which secure freedom of expression in this area preclude attaching a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s t o any e x c e p t t h e k n o w i n g o r reckless falsehood. D e b a t e on p u b l i c i s s u e s w i l l n o t be u n i n h i b i t e d i f t h e s p e a k e r must r u n t h e r i s k t h a t i t w i l l be p r o v e d i n c o u r t t h a t he s p o k e o u t o f hatred; e v e n i f he d i d speak out of hatred, u t t e r a n c e s h o n e s t l y b e l i e v e d c o n t r i b u t e to the f r e e interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth." G a r r i s o n v. L o u i s i a n a , 379 This i s not CPC U.S. 64, 73 (1964) a case of a s o - c a l l e d "chase a f t e r d i d n o t m e r e l y p u b l i s h an a r t i c l e 33 rumors." t h a t t h e r e were r u m o r s 2090705 circulating allegedly article throughout been at involved issue investigation the was into area in about a that a public one city had Instead, indiscretions. official the councilman human-resources audit. seeking The r e l a t e d c i t y o f f i c i a l s ' statements regarding of the article t h e way had b e e n c o n d u c t e d , and and validity Spain was of the whether Spain's questioning audit. there One was of any the to the L i t t l e had p u s h e d f o r t h e a u d i t b e c a u s e he had had relationship" with the woman who performed a r t i c l e went on t o q u o t e S p a i n as s a y i n g , the an article about the disclosed." Anniston city audit usefulness raised "buzz" a by that "personal audit. The " I f t h i s i s not c a s e , i t ' s v e r y u n f a i r t o C o u n c i l m a n L i t t l e , " and s u b s t a n c e t o i t , i t n e e d s t o be the questions truth an the " I f there i s In o t h e r council's words, discussion r e g a r d i n g an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a h u m a n - r e s o u r c e s a u d i t included a s t a t e m e n t f r o m S p a i n t h a t one believed the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was had a personal o f t h e r e a s o n s why n e c e s s a r y was he because L i t t l e reason f o r h i r i n g the a u d i t o r . The i s about a m a t t e r of p u b l i c concern. Hepps, this case involves a statement 34 have language at i s s u e i s about the l e g i t i m a c y of the p u b l i c p r o c e s s ; it may that i s , Furthermore, unlike regarding public a 2090705 official. matters'" As s u c h , the language and, t h e r e f o r e , at issue i s deserving i s "'speech of the that protections a f f o r d e d b y Hepps. I believe, therefore, that, as a m a t t e r of law, under Hepps, L i t t l e f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h e f a l s i t y of the statements he claims a r t i c l e and i n t h e e d i t o r i a l were defamatory, at issue. j u d g m e n t on h i s c l a i m o f l i b e l a g a i n s t 35 Therefore, i n both the t h e summary CPC was p r o p e r . 2090705 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I agree with specially. t h e s t a t e m e n t i n Judge Moore's special w r i t i n g t h a t " [ n ] o t h i n g i n [WKRG-TV, I n c . v.] W i l e y [ , 495 So. 2d 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , ] c o n t r a d i c t s a n y s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w made in [ P h i l a d e l p h i a Newspapers, (1986)]." So. 3d a t concur i n t h e main I n c . v.] H e p p s [ , 475 U.S. 767 n.10. opinion. 36 In a l l other respects, I 2090705 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur rehearing on the i n the i n p a r t and decision to dissenting in part. grant the application as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t libel Consolidated claim filed by Benjamin L. for entered Little against P u b l i s h i n g Company ("CPC") and Megan N i c h o l s . I a l s o c o n c u r t o a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t as to Little's tort-of-outrage decision to affirm order for claim; the however, summary I dissent judgment on from Little's the libel claim. In a public figure, like P r e s s R e g i s t e r , I n c . v. F a u l k n e r , to recover public 372 So. figure must prove malice," concerning the public without having to prove that published printed material containing the to a f a l s e and figure, which s p e c i a l harm upon p r o o f o f s p e c i a l harm (per q u o d ) . B r o a d . Co., that and the 2d 1282 see Mobile ( A l a . 1979), c o m p e n s a t o r y o r p u n i t i v e damages f o r l i b e l , "constitutional CPC Little, 904 Nichols So. 2d 221, 225 defendant, another is (per See upon w h i c h 37 or statement either actionable se) actionable or Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2004). Little with written defamatory Crawford In t h i s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on statements that the predicated case, grounds his libel 2090705 c l a i m were n o t f a l s e o r d e f a m a t o r y , immunity that from l i a b i l i t y the statements malice. being that they enjoy f o r p u b l i s h i n g those statements, were n o t published with either factually constitutional or l e g a l l y , t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l 1. The h i s complaint, l i b e l e d him S t a r by and On a p p e a l , L i t t l e c h a l l e n g e s e a c h o f t h o s e g r o u n d s as insufficient, In qualified Little "[John] support and Nichols court. " T r u t h " Argument i n the February stating: to alleged 19, that 2009, s t o r y CPC i n The Anniston Spain a l s o s a i d t h e r e i s a buzz in the c i t y t h a t L i t t l e h a d o r has a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [Yolanda] the council Jackson[, to conduct practices,] and l a s t year." an that Little person audit i s why of hired the by the city's [Little] Anniston city human-resources pushed her for hiring f u r t h e r e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g e d t h a t CPC and N i c h o l s r e i t e r a t e d those a s s e r t i o n s i n the e d i t o r i a l p u b l i s h e d on F e b r u a r y 20, "Little's 2009, i n w h i c h Bob sweetheart HR audit urging, Anniston p a i d Yolanda Davis, a f t e r r e f e r r i n g deal," wrote: "At to Little's J a c k s o n o f U n i o n t o w n $2,500 t o 38 2090705 examine the c i t y ' s human resources practices." CPC 6 and N i c h o l s a s s e r t e d i n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n t h a t a l l t h e a l l e g e d l y o f f e n s i v e s t a t e m e n t s were " s u b s t a n t i a l l y t r u e . " See 1 A l a b a m a P a t t e r n J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n s : C i v i l 23.04 (2d e d . Supp. 2009) false, ("In d e t e r m i n i n g you absolutely the must not whether consider and i n a l l r e s p e c t s the statement whether accurate, s t a t e m e n t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y a c c u r a t e material respects with regard was true the statement but rather or was whether and a c c u r a t e in a l l to the p l a i n t i f f . " ) . Because t h e p u b l i s h e d statements i n v o l v e d a p u b l i c f i g u r e and involved a matter of p u b l i c concern, Little i s not e n t i t l e d t o any p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s p u b l i s h e d b y CPC a n d N i c h o l s were f a l s e . See P h i l a d e l p h i a N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776-77 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . guaranteed Constitution by the F i r s t places Amendment the burden The f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h of the United of proving falsity States at trial L i t t l e a r g u a b l y c l a i m e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t he h a d a l s o been defamed by o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n e d i t o r i a l s p u b l i s h e d i n The A n n i s t o n S t a r ; h o w e v e r , on a p p e a l , Little does n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t as t o any l i b e l c l a i m b a s e d on t h o s e o t h e r statements. Hence, I do n o t a d d r e s s t h o s e c l a i m s . See R o g e r s & W i l l a r d , I n c . v. Harwood, 999 So. 2d 912, 923 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ("This c o u r t w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r on a p p e a l i s s u e s t h a t a r e n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d and argued i n b r i e f . " ) . 6 39 2090705 s q u a r e l y on a p u b l i c - f i g u r e p l a i n t i f f claiming injury to h i s o r h e r r e p u t a t i o n as t h e r e s u l t of statements that involved matters were a media Little would of defendant. bear public I d . a t 775-76. the burden published concern false and published Thus, i n t h i s at t r i a l of proving statements regarding case, that by CPC and Nichols h i s relationship with J a c k s o n and t h e i m p a c t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p h a d on h i s d e c i s i o n to recommend h e r h i r i n g t o t h e A n n i s t o n context o f a summary-judgment city council. In the motion, " ' [ i ] f t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f a t t r i a l i s on t h e nonmovant, t h e movant may s a t i s f y t h e R u l e 5 6 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] burden of production e i t h e r by s u b m i t t i n g a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t n e g a t e s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t i n t h e nonmovant's c l a i m o r , assuming discovery has been completed, by demonstrating to the trial court that the nonmovant's e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e nonmovant's c l a i m '" Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 So. 2d 903, 909 ( A l a . 1999) ( q u o t i n g B e r n e r v. C a l d w e l l , 543 So. 2d 686, 691 (Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) . the proceeding, CPC and N i c h o l s bore ( A l a . 1989) Hence, a t t h i s s t a g e o f the burden of proving e i t h e r t h a t t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s were n o t f a l s e or t h a t L i t t l e c o u l d not prove t h e i r f a l s i t y w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. See R u l e 56, A l a . R. C i v . P. 40 2090705 In their summary-judgment motion, CPC and Nichols i n i t i a l l y a r g u e d t h a t t h e y had n e g a t e d an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f Little's c l a i m by p r o v i n g Basically, February CPC 26 and that they a c c u r a t e l y quoted Nichols maintain, "correction" printed in as the asserted "For the Spain. in the Records" a r t i c l e , t h a t they d i d not p u b l i s h a s t o r y s t a t i n g t h a t Little and J a c k s o n a c t u a l l y had e n g a g e d i n a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p or t h a t , b a s e d on t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , L i t t l e had, in fact, for J a c k s o n t o be they published that there Anniston. Spain, was r e t a i n e d f o r the audit. a story that reported that o n l y t h a t S p a i n had said They c o n t e n d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y a c c u r a t e l y quoted t r u t h f u l l y reported to that around with rumor They c o n t e n d circulating along a pushed Little's effect denial of the rumor, t h e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g and February c i t y - c o u n c i l meeting. 7 The trial court they a f t e r the noted that, L i t t l e t a k e s i s s u e w i t h t h a t argument. L i t t l e contends t h a t , i n h e r a f f i d a v i t , N i c h o l s s t a t e d o n l y t h a t S p a i n had t o l d h e r t h a t he had h e a r d a rumor t h a t L i t t l e was o r had b e e n i n v o l v e d p e r s o n a l l y w i t h Jackson but t h a t , l a t e r , i n her d e p o s i t i o n , N i c h o l s a d d e d t h a t S p a i n had a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e rumor a c c u s e d L i t t l e o f p u s h i n g f o r t h e a u d i t due t o t h a t personal r e l a t i o n s h i p . I disagree. In her a f f i d a v i t , N i c h o l s s t a t e d g e n e r a l l y t h a t S p a i n had made a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t she had a t t r i b u t e d t o him i n t h e s t o r y , w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t was r u m o r e d t h a t L i t t l e had p u s h e d f o r t h e a u d i t due to h i s a l l e g e d personal relationship with 7 41 2090705 regardless of the f a l s i t y prove that there described o f t h e rumor, L i t t l e was n o t a rumor f l o a t i n g a r o u n d A n n i s t o n by Spain t o N i c h o l s . without such circulating evidence, Spain's CPC a n d N i c h o l s they cannot defendant Nichols make statement So. 2d a t 619. holding made that, liable that argument "the publisher actionable of the meeting, Our supreme Alabama reporter statement publication. determining that CPC a n d a regardless 'true' of the o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s made i n t h e m e e t i n g . " under defamatory f o r merely i s making court rejected l a w , when 495 that t h e media d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t made b y a t h i r d p a r t y , that that, 495 So. 2d 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , a the i d e n t i c a l of the events truth or f a l s i t y be argue as statements. I n WKRG-TV, I n c . v . W i l e y , media had f a i l e d t o 495 argument, reports a the r e p e t i t i o n of i s considered a separate So. 2d a t 619. and Hence, when t r u t h f u l n e s s , t h e key i n q u i r y i s n o t whether t h e fairly and a c c u r a t e l y quoted or summarized t h e Jackson. In her a f f i d a v i t , N i c h o l s d i d not f u r t h e r address t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a l l e g a t i o n made b y S p a i n , b u t t h e f a c t t h a t she d i d n o t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s t h e a l l e g a t i o n d o e s n o t r e n d e r h e r l a t e r , more s p e c i f i c , d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h her a f f i d a v i t . Hence, I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e c o r d contains e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed evidence i n d i c a t i n g that, i nthe story, N i c h o l s s i m p l y r e p r o d u c e d t h e s t a t e m e n t s made b y S p a i n . 42 2090705 statement of the t h i r d p a r t y , but whether t h a t substantially I find statement is true. the h o l d i n g i n Wiley t o be consistent f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e common l a w o f with the defamation. "The f a c t t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e s c a n d a l o u s m a t t e r p u r p o r t s t o be b a s e d on rumor i s no d e f e n s e . P u b l i c a t i o n of l i b e l o u s matter, although p u r p o r t i n g t o be s p o k e n by a t h i r d p e r s o n , d o e s n o t p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i s h e r , who i s l i a b l e f o r what he p u b l i s h e s . S t e p h e n s v. C o m m e r c i a l News Co., 164 I l l . App. 6 [ ( 1 9 1 1 ) ] ; C o o p e r v. L a w r e n c e , 204 I l l . App. 261-270 [ ( 1 9 1 7 ) ] ; O ' M a l l e y v. I l l i n o i s P u b l i s h i n g & P r i n t i n g Co., 194 I l l . App. 544 [ ( 1 9 1 5 ) ] . V e r y p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s p o i n t i s t h e comment i n N e w e l l on S l a n d e r and L i b e l , 4 t h Ed., § 300. 'A man c a n n o t s a y t h e r e i s a s t o r y i n c i r c u l a t i o n t h a t A. p o i s o n e d h i s w i f e o r B. p i c k s C.'s p o c k e t i n t h e o m n i b u s , o r t h a t D. has c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y , and r e l a t e t h e s t o r y , and when c a l l e d upon t o a n s w e r s a y : " T h e r e was s u c h a s t o r y i n c i r c u l a t i o n ; I b u t r e p e a t e d what I h e a r d , and h a d no d e s i g n t o c i r c u l a t e i t o r c o n f i r m i t " ; and f o r two v e r y p l a i n r e a s o n s : (1) The r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e s t o r y must i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h i n g s g i v e i t c u r r e n c y ; and (2) t h e r e p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f d i s b e l i e f w i l l c o n f i r m i t . The d a n g e r - - a n obvious o n e - - i s t h a t b a d men may g i v e c u r r e n c y t o s l a n d e r o u s r e p o r t s , and t h e n f i n d i n t h a t c u r r e n c y t h e i r own protection from the just consequences of a repetition.'" Cobbs v. C h i c a g o Defender, 325 a l s o D a v i s v. Macon T e l . P u b l ' g Co., App. (1941). 633, See 639-40, 92 308 I l l . App. S.E.2d 619, 625 55, (1956) 31 N.E.2d ("The 93 fact 323, Ga. that t h e c h a r g e s made were b a s e d upon h e a r s a y i n no manner r e l i e v e s 43 2090705 the defendant of l i a b i l i t y . equivalent i n law In M a r t i n C h a r g e s b a s e d upon h e a r s a y a r e to d i r e c t v. Wilson charges."). P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1985), a newspaper p u b l i s h e d estate developer in which residents for spreading an article the 497 A.2d 322 (R.I. about a l o c a l real- newspaper scolded a rumor t h a t t h e d e v e l o p e r had o r p r o f i t e d f r o m a r a s h o f a r s o n s i n a r e a s he was The developer the local caused developing. sued the newspaper p u b l i s h e r a r g u i n g that "the newspaper e s s e n t i a l l y r e p o r t e d the e x i s t e n c e ... o f f a l s e , d e f a m a t o r y r u m o r s c i r c u l a t i n g a b o u t town c o n n e c t i n g [the developer] with a rash of incendiary fires, despite the fact that the n e w s p a p e r had no b e l i e f i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g t r u t h o f such rumors." 497 A.2d burden a t 325. was existed. on The the lower c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t developer to prove that no such the rumors " I n e s s e n c e , t h e t r i a l j u s t i c e r u l e d as a m a t t e r l a w t h a t i f s u c h r u m o r s were c u r r e n t a t o r b e f o r e publication, the newspaper c o u l d impunity." 497 A.2d at 327. Supreme Court I s l a n d d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n of law, " I t has l o n g b e e n law of d e f a m a t i o n t h a t or slanderous m a t e r i a l as i f he h a d p u b l i s h e d Times P u b l i s h i n g Co., the time of r e p u b l i s h such rumors The of with Rhode stating: r e c o g n i z e d i n r e s p e c t to the one who r e p u b l i s h e s l i b e l o u s i s subject to l i a b i l i t y j u s t i t o r i g i n a l l y . C i a n c i v. New 639 F.2d 54, 60-61 (2d C i r . 44 of 2090705 1 9 8 0 ) ; M e t c a l f v. The Times P u b l i s h i n g Co., 2 0 R . I . 674, 678, 40 A. 864, 865 (1898); F o l w e l l v. P r o v i d e n c e J o u r n a l Co., 19 R . I . 551, 553-54, 37 A. 6, 6 ( 1 8 9 6 ) ; R i c e v. C o t t r e l , 5 R . I . 340, 342 ( 1 8 5 8 ) ; 3 R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) T o r t s § 578 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; P r o s s e r and K e e t o n , T o r t s § 113 a t 799 ( 5 t h ed. 1984). "A g o o d s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s r u l e i s s e t f o r t h i n O l i n g e r v. A m e r i c a n S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n , 409 F.2d 142, 144 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) : "'The l a w a f f o r d s no p r o t e c t i o n t o t h o s e who couch t h e i r libel i n the form of r e p o r t s o r r e p e t i t i o n . ... [T]he r e p e a t e r c a n n o t d e f e n d on t h e g r o u n d o f t r u t h s i m p l y by p r o v i n g t h a t t h e s o u r c e named d i d , i n f a c t , u t t e r the statement.' "The r e p u b l i c a t i o n r u l e a p p l i e s t o t h e p r e s s as does t o o t h e r s . C i a n c i , 639 F.2d a t 61. it " " C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n q u i r y t o be s u b m i t t e d t o the t r i e r s of f a c t i n the i n s t a n t case was n o t w h e t h e r s u c h rumors e x i s t e d b u t w h e t h e r t h e rumors were b a s e d upon f a c t o r w h e t h e r t h e y were f a l s e . ... " 497 A.2d a t 327. Thus, e v e n i n a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e n e w s p a p e r d e c r i e d t h e rumor, i t c o u l d n o t a v o i d l i a b i l i t y t h a t i t was merely r e p o r t i n g i t s existence. v. J o u r n a l Newspaper Co., (1897) (imposing l i a b i l i t y on t h e b a s i s See a l s o B i s h o p 168 Mass. 327, 332, 47 N.E. for libel 45 119, on p u b l i s h e r even 121 though 2090705 i t i n c l u d e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t r a d i c t i n g rumor i n s t o r y ) ; a c c o r d Restatement (Second) of Torts B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g § 548 comment e (1976). 8 a u t h o r i t i e s , a newspaper r e p o r t e r or p u b l i s h e r cannot a v o i d l i a b i l i t y f o r p u b l i s h i n g a f a l s e and d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e n e w s p a p e r r e p o r t e r or p u b l i s h e r newspaper a c c u r a t e l y q u o t e d t h e rumormonger, even story clearly identified the statement i f the as u n v e r i f i e d r e p o r t and even i f t h e newspaper s t o r y c o n t a i n s d e n i a l o f t h e rumor b y i t s s u b j e c t . Hanks Commc'ns, aff'd, 491 publication absolve 657 (1989) of a denial by ("[I]t reckless falsehoods.'" ( 6 t h C i r . 1988), i s clear t h e defamed a defendant from l i a b i l i t y a See C o n n a u g h t o n v. H a r t e I n c . , 842 F.2d 825, 837 n.6 U.S. an that subject 'mere does n o t f o r p u b l i s h i n g knowing o r ( q u o t i n g T a v o u l a r e a s v. P i r o , 759 F.2d Several other a u t h o r i t i e s have r e a c h e d t h e same o r similar conclusions. See Dun & B r a d s t r e e t , I n c . v. R o b i n s o n , 233 A r k . 168, 172, 345 S.W.2d 34, 37 (1961) ( d e f e n d a n t must p r o v e t r u t h o f s u b s t a n c e o f rumor e v e n t h o u g h r e p o r t i n c l u d e d d i s c l a i m e r " i t i s c u r r e n t l y r e p o r t e d " ) ; Hope v . H e a r s t C o n s o l . P u b l ' n s , I n c . , 294 F.2d 681, 682 (2d C i r . 1961) ( u p h o l d i n g j u r y award i n l i b e l s u i t b a s e d on g o s s i p - c o l u m n i t e m t h a t b e g a n "Palm B e a c h i s b u z z i n g w i t h t h e s t o r y . . . . " ) ; a n d T h a c k r e y v. P a t t e r s o n , 157 F.2d 614, 614 n.1 (D.C. C i r . 1946) (reversing d i s m i s s a l of complaint in libel s u i t b a s e d on a r t i c l e r e p o r t i n g " c o n j e c t u r e s " and "saucy l i t t l e rumors" about p l a i n t i f f s ) . 8 46 2090705 90, 133 (D.C. accurately Cir. 1985))). reported not and Spain's negate L i t t l e ' s him by statements, c l a i m t h a t the proving CPC they Nichols and that did rumors c i r c u l a t i n g about J a c k s o n were f a l s e . CPC had Hence, and N i c h o l s n e x t a r g u e t h a t L i t t l e "admitted some t y p e o f a ' r e l a t i o n s h i p ' as s u g g e s t e d i n t h e publications." that L i t t l e Jackson. The evidence i n the r e c o r d i s c l e a r , d i d not Little relationship both a d m i t t o any actually in his deposition testimony. heard of Jackson Uniontown, personal denied the interview with before Phillip recommended h e r with occasions. indicating than the engaged. CPC Nichols over as White, then and o f f i c i a l business telephone did not on a in his mayor or other ultimately that r e l a t i o n s h i p " as o p p o s e d t o a 47 five evidence anything indicate with attendance, any f o r w h i c h J a c k s o n was of consultant. four present Jackson discussed r e c o r d c e r t a i n l y does n o t engaged i n a " p e r s o n a l such and the a human-resources the Nichols that L i t t l e The with with Jackson s e v e r a l times, dined her and however, of J a c k s o n on two o c c a s i o n s , once w i t h Mayor W h i t e i n talked subject relationship existence he L i t t l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n e v e r e v e n T h e r e a f t e r , L i t t l e met and that Little business 2090705 relationship argument with that Jackson. Little either expressly Nichols d i d not Hence, admitted or to impliedly, p r o d u c e any I a and reject the personal relationship, I conclude evidence factual that indicating CPC that and Little and J a c k s o n d i d , i n f a c t , engage i n a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p any of k i n d t h a t w o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a summary j u d g m e n t . CPC and N i c h o l s a d d i t i o n a l l y a r g u e t h a t " [ L i t t l e ] meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f a matter of law." argument that i n t h i s c a s e , and h i s c l a i m s Assuming t h a t Little cannot cannot that produce language fail as advances an substantial evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s were f a l s e , I reject that evidence contention. indicating relationship with Little that he Jackson. presented did not Little uncontradicted have personal presented also a evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he d i d n o t recommend t h e h i r i n g o f J a c k s o n t h e b a s i s o f any s u c h p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . that he had recommended J a c k s o n conversations with Mayor White Jackson's c o n s u l t i n g s e r v i c e s . Little did not, as the solely and CPC headline 48 on the Little the testified basis perceived of his need for and N i c h o l s a d m i t t e d to the February on 19 that story 2090705 a l l e g e d , order the human-resources a u d i t . the burden of substantial production evidence had shifted i n d i c a t i n g that s t a t e m e n t s were f a l s e , Little Thus, a s s u m i n g t h a t to the carried that A summary j u d g m e n t w o u l d be Little to present alleged defamatory burden. appropriate in this case i f t h e e v i d e n c e showed i n d i s p u t a b l y t h a t t h e rumor a b o u t t h a t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y true or repeated i f Little falsity. i n The could However, not the Anniston present record S t a r was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence shows, without Little of i t s dispute, that L i t t l e d i d n o t have a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h J a c k s o n , t h a t he did not order J a c k s o n b a s e d on CPC the any audit, and that alleged personal he d i d not recommend relationship. Hence, and N i c h o l s were n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e i r "truth" 2. CPC judgment and relationship" or " D e f a m a t o r y M e a n i n g " Argument next argue the statement with Jackson meaning. publication, signs The Nichols that defamatory argument. when pictures, that is "Generally, expressed is a in support Little not any 49 had the a reasonably false in printing libel of or summary "personal capable and malicious w r i t i n g , or [ i f i t ] charges of an by offense 2090705 p u n i s h a b l e by i n d i c t m e n t [ ] o r ... t e n d s t o b r i n g an i n t o p u b l i c h a t r e d , contempt, or r i d i c u l e , odious Ala. applied 639, So. 2d i n determining defamatory reader 93 imputation of average 741, 744 whether an act McGraw v. Thomason, and d i s g r a c e f u l i n s o c i e t y . " 635, or charges 265 (1957). "The test a newspaper a r t i c l e i s whether intelligence, an ordinary reading as a P a r t s & S e r v . Co. v. J o y Mfg. Co., (Ala. 1993) 142 (1975)). "The communication is not m e a n i n g , t h e r e i s no proper.'" Drill capable i s s u e of f a c t , and ( q u o t i n g H a r r i s v. S c h o o l A n n u a l 964-65 Co., of a the meaning i s ' i f the defamatory summary j u d g m e n t i s 619 So. P u b l ' g Co., 2d 466 at So. 1289-90 2d 963, (Ala. 1985)). Taken i n i s o l a t i o n , not 148, q u e s t i o n of '[w]hether i n s t a n c e , f o r t h e c o u r t , ' and & Serv. 1289 295 A l a . 142, reasonably Parts language." 619 So. 2d 1280, communication i s r e a s o n a b l y capable of a defamatory a q u e s t i o n , i n the f i r s t a a Drill 2d 137, makes article the ( c i t i n g L o v e l e s s v. G r a d d i c k , be or meaning t o the So. to reader whole, would a s c r i b e a defamatory 325 individual necessarily However, Nichols the term " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " does carry with stated i t any that 50 she pejorative used that connotation. term after 2090705 receiving information Little and from Spain t h a t l e d her J a c k s o n had a dating that phrase " i n greater to being arguably, implying relationship. context" referring The Little F e b r u a r y 20 as the i n the Davis F e b r u a r y 19 unmarried, r e l a t i o n s h i p was editorial to b e l i e v e placed story thereby, romantic that at in f u r t h e r e d t h a t n o t i o n by least nature. referring t o t h e a u d i t as " L i t t l e ' s s w e e t h e a r t " d e a l , b e c a u s e t h a t had no other o b v i o u s meaning c o n s i d e r i n g L i t t l e had g a i n e d any p e c u n i a r y H a l e v. App. Kroger Ltd. 2009) motion, record favorable that to Little the evidence in had "ordered" of v a l u e statements implies So. ruling must nonmovant). produced nothing of that, one had term alleged advantage from the a u d i t . P ' s h i p I , 28 (holding no be 3d 772, on a viewed 776 audit f o r the that and See (Ala. Civ. summary-judgment in When c o u p l e d w i t h the by that a light the most statements the audit had $2,500 s p e n t , t h e e n t i r e t y Little b e n e f i t h i s romantic i n t e r e s t s at the used his office expense of the City to of Anniston. In Wiley, statements that his supra, the supreme implied that o f f i c e f o r h i s own court held that a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l was personal 51 g a i n were d e f a m a t o r y . false misusing 495 So. 2090705 2d a t 619. I n G r a y v. WALA-TV, 384 So. 2d 1062 ( A l a . 1980), o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , N e l s o n v. L a p e y r o u s e G r a i n 534 So. 2d statements and 1085 (Ala. implying illegally 1988), that the supreme court a public contractor obtained, through political the and not contract with contract although city having had been paid held had do that "corruptly connections, performed to Corp., so, a under and the thereby d i s h o n e s t l y o b t a i n e d p u b l i c f u n d s , " were l i b e l o u s p e r s e . So. 2d a t 1065. 30 So. 625, impugning public See 628 business labor improperly to advance defamatory). statements of 204-05, 53 So. defamatory in false in transacting Advertiser se); 759, his a the nature. personal Co. 762 business jurisdictions public (1910) privileges See of Annotation, of v. (newspaper used interests likewise official 357, statements a s s e r t i n g t h a t c i t y o f f i c i a l had accusing abusing that commissioners l i b e l o u s per Other otherwise (holding county were J o n e s , 169 A l a . 196, article a l s o W o f f o r d v. Meeks, 129 A l a . 349, (1901) honesty 384 hold city held that self-dealing public Libel office and or are Slander: A c t i o n a b i l i t y of Statement Imputing I n c a p a c i t y , I n e f f i c i e n c y , M i s c o n d u c t , Fraud, D i s h o n e s t y , or the 52 Like to P u b l i c O f f i c e r 2090705 or Employee, 53 A.L.R.2d 8 (1957). jurisdictions suggests that the Little had used his public office The c a s e l a w statements from o t h e r implying t o advance that h i s personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with Jackson at the cost of the C i t y of Anniston, and w i t h o u t t h e C i t y o f A n n i s t o n r e c e i v i n g a n y t h i n g o f v a l u e i n r e t u r n , w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d d e f a m a t o r y . I n m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , CPC a n d N i c h o l s argued s o l e l y t h a t t h e t e r m " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , " when c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n , d i d n o t c a r r y an a c t i o n a b l e d e f a m a t o r y m e a n i n g . CPC and Nichols d i d not argue that the term "personal r e l a t i o n s h i p , " when u s e d i n t h e c o n t e x t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e , c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d d e f a m a t o r y i n nature. c o u r s e , w o u l d have b e e n r e j e c t e d . the term entitled was used i n this t o a summary argument, o f Given the context i n which case, judgment That CPC and N i c h o l s on t h e b a s i s that are not the term " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " i s i n c a p a b l e o f a defamatory meaning. 3. " Q u a l i f i e d P r i v i l e g e " a n d " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l M a l i c e " Arguments In t h e i r motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t e d t h a t they had a q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e 53 CPC a n d N i c h o l s to publish the 2090705 rumor a b o u t L i t t l e , p u r s u a n t t o R e s t a t e m e n t § 611 (1977), 9 which provides, (Second) o f Torts in pertinent part: "The p u b l i c a t i o n o f d e f a m a t o r y m a t t e r c o n c e r n i n g a n o t h e r i n a r e p o r t o f an official action or p r o c e e d i n g o r o f a m e e t i n g open t o t h e p u b l i c t h a t d e a l s w i t h a matter of p u b l i c concern i s p r i v i l e g e d i f t h e r e p o r t i s a c c u r a t e and c o m p l e t e o r a f a i r abridgment of the occurrence reported." I n W i l s o n v. B i r m i n g h a m P o s t Co., 482 the have supreme court appeared to So. 2d 1209 adopted ( A l a . 1986), § 611 of the A f t e r a p p l y i n g f o r r e h e a r i n g , CPC and N i c h o l s o r a l l y a r g u e d b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e y a l s o had a q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e u n d e r R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 602 and t h e " n e u t r a l - r e p o r t i n g p r i v i l e g e " e s p o u s e d i n Edwards v. N a t i o n a l Audubon S o c i e t y , I n c . , 556 F.2d 113, 120 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . I a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e l i e s , i n p a r t , on E d w a r d s . However, t h o s e p r i v i l e g e s were n o t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h i s c o u r t c a n n o t a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t on the b a s i s of those p r i v i l e g e s without denying L i t t l e due process. See L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003). M o r e o v e r , t h i s c o u r t has n o t b e e n d i r e c t e d t o any b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t i n w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e have adopted e i t h e r p r i v i l e g e . Compare W i l s o n v. B i r m i n g h a m P o s t Co., 482 So. 2d 1209, 1212-13 ( A l a . 1986) ( r e l y i n g on Edwards) w i t h W i l e y , 495 So. 2d a t 619 ( r e j e c t i n g " n e w s w o r t h i n e s s " as b a s i s f o r q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e r e c o g n i z e d i n Edwards). A l t h o u g h CPC and N i c h o l s u r g e t h i s c o u r t t o change A l a b a m a l a w t o i n c l u d e t h o s e p r i v i l e g e s , i n l i g h t o f t h e i r f a i l u r e to p r o p e r l y r a i s e the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of those p r i v i l e g e s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t o o b t a i n a r u l i n g on t h e m a t t e r , I f i n d t h i s t o be an i n a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e i n w h i c h to c o n s i d e r t a k i n g t h a t a c t i o n . 9 54 2090705 Restatement the court (Second) o f T o r t s i n w h o l e , b u t , held that f o r m o f § 611 t h a t i n Wiley, Alabama l a w had embraced o n l y supra, a limited " w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d a t most t o t h e ' o f f i c i a l action or proceeding' 618. That portion portion of the r u l e . " of the rule t o which 495 So. 2d a t Wiley refers i s e m b o d i e d i n § 13A-11-161, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "The p u b l i c a t i o n o f a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t ... o f any i n v e s t i g a t i o n made b y a n y ... p u b l i c b o d y o r o f f i c e r , s h a l l be p r i v i l e g e d , u n l e s s i t be p r o v e d t h a t t h e same was p u b l i s h e d w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e " It appears f r o m t h e supreme c o u r t ' s Alabama r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a party comments i n W i l e y has a q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e t o repeat defamatory statements u t t e r e d a t a p u b l i c meeting so l o n g as t h e p u b l i c a t i o n repeated without "actual i s fair, investigatory i m p a r t i a l , and malice." I n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n , CPC a n d N i c h o l s that, b e c a u s e S p a i n made t h e s t a t e m e n t s a t a p u b l i c about a matter reported is that of public concern and because they argued meeting fairly those statements, thep u b l i c a t i o n of those statements qualifiedly privileged (Second) o f T o r t s . attributed t o Spain under § 611 o f t h e R e s t a t e m e n t The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s and o f which L i t t l e 55 c o m p l a i n s were n o t 2090705 made i n t h e c o u r s e o f a p u b l i c m e e t i n g , b u t i n an i n t e r v i e w f o l l o w i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f a p u b l i c m e e t i n g ; however, Little does n o t a r g u e t h a t p o i n t as a b a s i s f o r a v o i d i n g t h e summary judgment. Little failed to f a i r l y by S p a i n . judgment should presented the Little also "actual that CPC a n d N i c h o l s r e p o r t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s made a r g u e s s o l e l y t h a t t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary n o t have b e e n g r a n t e d because, he s a y s , s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t CPC a n d N i c h o l s a c t e d r e q u i s i t e malice In does n o t a r g u e that when r e p e a t i n g regard, malice" I note that must be shown. preempted by federal plaintiff in a libel action with t h e rumor. § 13A-11-161 However, t h a t law, which he provides i s a public states state that, that lawi s when official a and t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t r e l a t e s t o h i s o r h e r c o n d u c t as a public official, the plaintiff by c l e a r must establish "constitutional malice" Gary v. Crouch, 923 So. 2d 1130, 1138 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( c i t i n g W i g g i n s v. M a l l a r d , and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. 905 So. 2d 776 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d S m i t h v . H u n t s v i l l e Times Co., 888 So. 2d 492 ( A l a . "Constitutional malice" r e f e r s t o the standard New Y o r k Times Co. v . S u l l i v a n , 56 2004)). set forth i n 376 U.S. 254 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . "This 2090705 s t a n d a r d i s s a t i s f i e d b y p r o o f t h a t a f a l s e s t a t e m e n t was made ' " w i t h knowledge t h a t i t was f a l s e o r w i t h r e c k l e s s o f w h e t h e r i t was f a l s e o r n o t . " ' " Co. , 888 So. 2d 492, 499 Commc'ns, (Ala. quoting i n turn S m i t h v. H u n t s v i l l e 2004) I n c . v. C o n n a u g h t o n , disregard (quoting 491 U.S. Times Harte-Hanks 657, 659 (1989), New Y o r k Times v. S u l l i v a n , 376 U.S. a t 279¬ 80). "When d e t e r m i n i n g i f a g e n u i n e f a c t u a l i s s u e as t o [constitutional] malice exists i n a libel suit b r o u g h t b y a p u b l i c f i g u r e , a t r i a l j u d g e must b e a r i n m i n d t h e a c t u a l quantum a n d q u a l i t y o f p r o o f n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t l i a b i l i t y u n d e r New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n , 376 U.S. 254 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e i f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d in the opposing a f f i d a v i t s i s of i n s u f f i c i e n t caliber or quantity to allow a r a t i o n a l finder of f a c t t o f i n d [ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ] m a l i c e by c l e a r and convincing evidence." A n d e r s o n v. L i b e r t y L o b b y , I n c . , making the determination 477 U.S. 242, 254 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . whether produced evidence of a s u f f i c i e n t allow rational finder a of fact the public "caliber to find figure or quantity In has to [constitutional] m a l i c e b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , " i d . , t h e c o u r t must believe the evidence s u b m i t t e d by t h e p u b l i c figure and a l l j u s t i f i a b l e i n f e r e n c e s must be drawn i n h i s o r h e r f a v o r . U.S. a t 2 5 5 . 57 477 2090705 Making a l l j u s t i f i a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r of L i t t l e , evidence shows that Little r e l a t i o n s h i p with Jackson. to the in Little d i d not Little council, did after a A t some p o i n t , L i t t l e personal recommended human-resources advocate f o r the h i r i n g of Jackson i n t o advance h i s n o n e x i s t e n t her. engaged c i t y c o u n c i l t h a t Jackson perform the audit. order never the not "order" hearing from personal the relationship with audit; Jackson and rather, Mayor the city White at a p u b l i c meeting, voted unanimously to r e t a i n Jackson to perform the audit. Nichols h i r i n g b a s e d on h e r In a February was aware the manner of Jackson's attendance at that c i t y - c o u n c i l 2009 city-council political opponent worthless and Following that meeting, Spain, that of of he Little, meeting, Spain, indicated that intended meeting. the a audit to i n v e s t i g a t e the i n an i n f o r m e d N i c h o l s t h a t t h e r e was known interview with was matter. Nichols, a "buzz" around Anniston that L i t t l e had u r g e d t h e c i t y c o u n c i l t o r e t a i n J a c k s o n b e c a u s e o f his personal At no rumor was truth of relationship with time d i d N i c h o l s false. the Nichols rumor. Jackson. o r CPC know f o r a f a c t t h a t i n t e r v i e w e d L i t t l e , who Nichols and 58 Davis both denied testified the the that 2090705 t h e y h a d no r e a s o n t o d o u b t t h a t d e n i a l . N i c h o l s attempted to c o n t a c t J a c k s o n f o r a b o u t a week f o l l o w i n g h e r i n t e r v i e w w i t h Spain, b u t t o no a v a i l . Neither Nichols n o r any o t h e r CPC e m p l o y e e f o l l o w e d up w i t h S p a i n o r anyone e l s e t o i d e n t i f y t h e source o f t h e rumor o r t o t a k e whether, i n f a c t , any basis quoting both Spain editor Nichols drafted and L i t t l e . that L i t t l e audit. the f a l s e CPC to ascertain then the s t o r y , Davis was d r a f t e d the headline contained steps t h e rumor e x i s t e d o r w h e t h e r t h e rumor h a d i n fact. s t o r y by n o t i n g any o t h e r added " c o n t e x t " unmarried. to the An unknown f o r the February statement that L i t t l e published accurately 19 s t o r y copy that had " o r d e r e d " the s t o r y , with the the inaccurate h e a d l i n e , on t h e f r o n t page o f t h e F e b r u a r y 19 e d i t i o n o f The Anniston Star. headline and CPC l a t e r a t t e m p t e d t o c o r r e c t t h e e r r o n e o u s to c l a r i f y that i t was not a l l e g i n g that the rumor was a c c u r a t e , b u t i t d i d n o t p l a c e t h a t " r e t r a c t i o n " the front page of t h e newspaper as Little's attorney on had demanded. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e , not present indicating sufficiently that CPC and clear Nichols 59 I agree t h a t L i t t l e d i d and convincing published the evidence rumor with 2090705 knowledge of i t s falsity. The record contains i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e s t o r y was o r anyone e l s e e m p l o y e d by did not have a p e r s o n a l L i t t l e had CPC no evidence published, Nichols s u b j e c t i v e l y knew t h a t relationship with Jackson Little and that n o t recommended J a c k s o n t o p e r f o r m t h e a u d i t b a s e d on t h a t p e r s o n a l relationship. Nichols knew t h a t L i t t l e had not "ordered" t h e a u d i t , a f a c t t h a t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n more detail in later this w r i t i n g , but that equate t o s u b j e c t i v e knowledge of the I now turn to the recklessly disregarded acts with question the knowledge falsity whether t r u t h of the does of the CPC rumor. and "A not rumor. Nichols defendant ' r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d ' i f , at the time of p u b l i c a t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' " e n t e r t a i n e d s e r i o u s d o u b t s as t o t h e t r u t h o f [its] of p u b l i c a t i o n " or a c t e d ... Co., turn [ i t s ] probable f a l s i t y . " ' " 888 Press, So. Inc., 2d a t 499 91 F.3d S t . Amant v. a l s o F i n e b a u m v. standard 1508 (D.C. Thompson, 390 Coulter, U.S. 854 So. Sheridan Square C i r . 1996), q u o t i n g 727, 2d 1120, 1124 "'The [constitutional] i s s u b j e c t i v e ; the p l a i n t i f f 731 (1968)); in U.S. a t 731). 60 awareness S m i t h v. H u n t s v i l l e Times ( q u o t i n g M c F a r l a n e v. 1501, ( c i t i n g S t . Amant, 390 malice " w i t h a h i g h degree of see ( A l a . 2003) must p r o v e that 2090705 the defendant a c t u a l l y e n t e r t a i n e d a s e r i o u s doubt.'" 888 So. 2d a t 499-500 In her (quoting McFarlane, affidavit, Nichols s e r i o u s doubts about the is clear from her attesting only that Little. Nichols doubts about the Nichols and Davis, had reason no reasonably she did was not to testimony accurately testify validity the attested a c c u r a c y of her deposition of CPC doubt the d e n i a l was clearly entertained before convinced serious Spain and no the true and that contrary, that jury they could c o u l d n o t be b o t h c e r t a i n also b e l i e v e , without true. Nichols about A serious the Hence, a j u r y and CPC any could subjectively v e r a c i t y of the rumor publishing i t . Moreover, that was had denial. no Nichols quoting To had However, i t that she 1508). she story. rumor. Little's doubts that at e d i t o r , both t e s t i f i e d s e r i o u s d o u b t s , t h a t t h e rumor was be that f i n d t h a t N i c h o l s and CPC that L i t t l e ' s 91 F.3d Smith, CPC the actively admissions, b o t h CPC stating that L i t t l e portray the record contains embellished some e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g the rumor. By their and N i c h o l s a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e "ordered" the f a c t s surrounding a u d i t does not Jackson's 61 hiring. own headline accurately The story 2090705 itself states that "the C i t y " h i r e d Jackson a u d i t , not that L i t t l e "ordered" In quoting Spain, N i c h o l s d i d n o t o b t a i n any i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Little had d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e c i t y audit. c o u n c i l h i r e Jackson t o conduct the I t a p p e a r s t h a t an unknown c o p y e d i t o r e m p l o y e d b y CPC who d r a f t e d t h e h e a d l i n e the the audit. to perform the audit. f a b r i c a t e d t h a t L i t t l e had The e v i d e n c e story without editorial shows t h a t CPC d i d n o t p u b l i s h any review, so a j u r y c o u l d i n f e r t h a t an e d i t o r e m p l o y e d b y CPC a p p r o v e d t h e h e a d l i n e not "ordered" a c c u r a t e l y summarize t h e s t o r y t h a t although i t did followed. The h e a d l i n e d o e s n o t so much r e p o r t t h e rumor as i t d o e s supplement i t w i t h a d d i t i o n a l f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n conveying t h a t Little had considered personal the i n conjunction to with relationship with deemed w o r t h l e s s gave authority "order" the the claims Jackson by s e v e r a l A n n i s t o n audit. that L i t t l e and t h a t officials, councilman. rumor that Little was Little 62 was A jury could at to lend greater misusing was the headline l e a s t i n f e r t h a t t h e h e a d l i n e , by o v e r s t a t i n g L i t t l e ' s J a c k s o n ' s h i r i n g , was i n t e n d e d had a the audit a d d i t i o n a l g r a v i t y to the i m p l i c a t i o n that a b u s i n g h i s p o s i t i o n as a c i t y When role i n credence t o a his authority as a city 2090705 councilman, Cf. which Masson v. New (1991) CPC a n d N i c h o l s d i d n o t know t o be Yorker Magazine, ("[A] d e l i b e r a t e a l t e r a t i o n plaintiff does purposes of alteration not equate [determining results with in a Wiley, constitutional supra, knowledge material supreme m a l i c e may be i n f e r r e d of falsity malice] change (emphasis the for unless the i n the meaning added)). court suggested that i f a reporter actively encourages the spreading of a defamatory statement. case, a r e p o r t e r c o v e r i n g a neighborhood meeting proposed 496, 517 o f t h e words u t t e r e d by a constitutional conveyed by t h e s t a t e m e n t . " In I n c . , 501 U.S. true. In that regarding a l a n d f i l l a s k e d a c i t i z e n t o r e p e a t a rumor on camera t h a t two c o u n t y commissioners had a p e r s o n a l f i n a n c i a l stake i n a c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t would b e n e f i t from t h e i r a p p r o v a l o f t h e landfill site. 495 So. 2d a t 619-21. that that evidence constitutional court another found The supreme c o u r t n o t e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e p o r t e r had a c t e d w i t h malice "[e]ven i n r e p o r t i n g t h e rumor, more significant" r e p o r t e r had determined other the f a l s i t y although the evidence that o f t h e rumor b e f o r e t h e r e p o r t was made. 495 So. 2d a t 621. the h e a d l i n e d i d not merely r e p e a t t h e rumor, i t e x p a n d e d on 63 In t h i s case, 2090705 i t , a c t u a l l y c o n t r i b u t i n g a d d i t i o n a l , inaccurate, f a c t s to the rumor. Under W i l e y , In h o l d i n g that affirming the from t h a t c o n t r i b u t i o n c a n n o t be discounted. c e r t a i n fact issues prevent summary judgment entered 1 0 this the by court trial c o u r t , I do n o t mean t o be u n d e r s t o o d as s t a t i n g t h a t t h e mere publication Howard v. o f a rumor Antilla, implies 294 F.3d (publication o f rumor t h a t felon a using false alias constitutional malice). c o n s t i t u t i o n a l malice. 244, company held 252-53 See ( 1 s t C i r . 2002) c h a i r m a n was insufficient a convicted to establish I a l s o do n o t mean t o be u n d e r s t o o d as s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f a rumor d e s p i t e a d e n i a l b y i t s subject constitutes c o n s t i t u t i o n a lmalice. So. in 2d a t 501 the world See S m i t h 888 ( n o t i n g t h a t " ' " s u c h d e n i a l s a r e so of polemical commonplace c h a r g e and c o u n t e r c h a r g e t h a t , i n The main o p i n i o n a s s e r t s t h a t W i l e y c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e h o l d i n g i n P h i l a d e l p h i a N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I d i s a g r e e . As e x p l a i n e d b y o u r supreme c o u r t i n Ex p a r t e R u d d e r , 507 So. 2d 411, 415-16 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , i n Hepps t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d o n l y t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment r e q u i r e s a p r i v a t e - f i g u r e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o v e t h e f a l s i t y o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t when t h e s p e e c h i n v o l v e s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n , t h e r e b y p r e e m p t i n g t h e common-law r u l e p l a c i n g the burden of p r o v i n g the t r u t h of the statement on t h e d e f e n d a n t . N o t h i n g i n W i l e y c o n t r a d i c t s any s t a t e m e n t Thus, W i l e y has n e v e r b e e n o f t h e l a w made i n Hepps. ^rrrru l e d and r e m a i n s b i n d i n g on t h i s c o u r t . uled See A l a . Code ove 1975, § 12-3-16. 10 64 2090705 themselves, the they hardly alert the conscientious reporter to l i k e l i h o o d o f e r r o r " ' " ( q u o t i n g C o n n a u g h t o n , 491 U.S. a t 691 n.37, quoting i n turn Edwards, 556 F.2d at 121)). A d d i t i o n a l l y , my w r i t i n g s h o u l d n o t be u n d e r s t o o d a s s t a t i n g that the failure investigate acted with ("Indeed, of Nichols and CPC t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e rumor c o n s t i t u t i o n a l malice. the f a i l u r e t o more indicates that Smith, Prisoners' Legal 104, 622 Servs., N.Y.S.2d Connaughton, Welch, I n c . , 418 U.S. under the circumstances inappropriate malice 899 ( q u o t i n g Sweeney v . (1995), a t 693)); 3 2 3 , 332 a by quoting see a l s o (1974). of t h i s because constitutional avoidance,"' 84 N.Y.2d 786, 793, 647 N.E.2d 101, 896, 491 U.S. not c o n s t i t u t e '"purposeful t h a t i s , 'an i n t e n t t o a v o i d t h e t r u t h . ' " they 888 So. 2d a t 500 t o i n v e s t i g a t e does malice, unless the f a i l u r e evidences thoroughly case, jury inferring Gertz in v. turn Robert I state only summary could that, judgment i s reasonably that Nichols and find CPC s u b j e c t i v e l y e n t e r t a i n e d s e r i o u s d o u b t s as t o t h e v e r a c i t y o f the rumor and that, by publishing the headline, CPC p u r p o s e f u l l y or r e c k l e s s l y c o n t r i b u t e d inaccurate f a c t s that improperly e n h a n c e d t h e rumor. 65 2090705 "The United States Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d : " ' [ W ] h e r e t h e New Y o r k Times [Co. v . S u l l i v a n ] " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g " e v i d e n c e requirement a p p l i e s , the t r i a l judge's summary j u d g m e n t i n q u i r y as t o w h e t h e r a g e n u i n e i s s u e e x i s t s w i l l be w h e t h e r t h e evidence presented i s such t h a t a j u r y applying that e v i d e n t i a r y standard could reasonably f i n d for e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f or t h e d e f e n d a n t . Thus, where t h e f a c t u a l dispute concerns [ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ] malice, c l e a r l y a m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n a New Y o r k Times [Co. v. Sullivan] case, the a p p r o p r i a t e summary j u d g m e n t q u e s t i o n w i l l be w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d c o u l d support a reasonable j u r y f i n d i n g e i t h e r that the plaintiff has shown [constitutional] malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the p l a i n t i f f has n o t . ' " A n d e r s o n v . L i b e r t y L o b b y , I n c . , 477 U.S. 242, 255¬ 56, 106 S . C t . 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ( f o o t n o t e omitted). The Supreme Court of Alabama has r e i t e r a t e d t h a t '[a] t r i a l judge i s n o t r e q u i r e d " t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e and d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u t h o f t h e matter but t o determine whether there i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . " ' Camp v . Y e a g e r , 601 So. 2d [924,] 927 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ] ( q u o t i n g A n d e r s o n , 477 U.S. a t 249, 106 S . C t . 2 5 0 5 ) . " Gary v. Crouch, 923 So. 2d a t 1138-39. summary judgment, applying t h e same B a s e d on my r e v i e w this court standards reviews On the as t h e t r i a l of the evidence, appeal case court. from de a novo, See i d . I conclude that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f CPC a n d 66 2090705 Nichols on Little's in the r e c o r d , a j u r y c o u l d be c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t N i c h o l s and CPC published in a false libel and claim. defamatory From t h e rumor evidence about Little r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f t h e t r u t h o r t h e f a l s i t y o f t h a t rumor. Pittman, J., concurs. 67
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
