J% ^.,^,Su;^ 1 SUPREME Cflhri. 0Y
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
%^y,'•'ry ;s;: ^^.• ^Y^'^•, IN TIi*E SUPREME COURT OF OHIO LAVELLE SULLINS, Case No. 2013-1543 Plai nti ff.-Appellee, On Appeal from the V. Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District RAYCOM MEDIA, INC. ET AL., Court of Appeals Case No. 99235 De fendants-Appel t ants. ME}VIORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JU`RISDICTION OF APPELLANTS WUAB AND WOIO, LLC Joshua R. Cohen (0032368) Michael K. Farrell (0040941) Peter Pattakos (0082884) Counsel of Record Cohen, Rosenthal, & Kramer, LLP Melissa A. DeGaetano (0080567) 700 West St. Clair. Avenue Baker & Hostetler LLP The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400 PNC Center Cleveland, Ohio 441l 3 1900 E. 90' Street, Suite 3200 (216) 781-7956 (Telephone) Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3482 (216) 781-8061 (Facsimile) (216) 621-0200 (Telephone) Email: jcohe.n^crklaw.com (216) 696-0740 (Facsimile) ppattakos @crklaw.coin Email: m.farrellC bakerlaw.com Email: mdegaetano(abakerlaw.com Attorizeysfor Plaintiffllppellee Lavelle Sullins Attoa-neysfor .DeferidantsAppellants George S. Crisci (0006325) ll'UlB and WOIO, LLC 1 11 odd M. Ellsworth (0078208) Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A. Daniel Th_iel (0082869) 55 Public Square, 4`i' Floor 75 Public Square, Suite 650 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 696-4441 (Telephone) (216) 452-9144(Telephone) (216) 696-1618 (Facsimile) (216) 452-9144 (Fascimile) Enaail: gscoazrlaw.com Email: danielgdanieltliiel.com [email protected] Attorney for Defendaiit-Appellant Pinpoint .4ttorneys for IJefendant-Appellant Cuyahoga Media County C.rin2e Stoppers ^,^.^.^,^'^ r';^ y ^.J% r y;" ^.,^,Su;^S? "4 S''^ 1 SUPREME CflHRI. 0Y OL1;€f TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................. ...................... ..>........................................................ ..: iuiii THIS APPEAL IS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST AND INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ......... .. ................... .. ........................ .....1 STATEMENT OF TI-IE FACTS AND CASE ............. ..:...... ......... ................:......................2 1.. WOIO played no part in creating, editing or producing the program at issue ..... ...................... ..:.... ................................:.........................................2 2. WOIO believed that the program was based on inforrnation provided by the government and had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information about plaintiff ..............................................,................... ..................2 3. For five seconds of a half-hour program, plaintiff was listed as "wanted" for passing bad checks, when the literal truth is that he had alreadv been convicted of that charge and was "wanted" on multiple other charges ..................3 ARGUiYIENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW............ ....................................3 WOIO's Proposition of Law No. I.: In a nlulti-defendant defatnation action, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence showing fault by each defendant - the U.S. and Ohio Constittitions prohibit courts from presuming fault on the part of one defendant based on evidence relating otlly to other defendants .....................................................3 1. The U.S. and Ohio Constitutions required plaintiff to produce clear and convincing evidence of negligence to avoid summary judgment ...........................3 2. Implicit in the foregoing constitutional requirements is the requirement that plaintiff produce such evidence as to each defendant's conduct .....................4 3. The requirement of specific proof has special force in defamation claiins because of the First Amendment rights at stake .....................................................5 4: The appellate court mistakenly believed that fault could be presumed and did not consider the evidence of each defendant's conduct separately, tliereby violating WOIO's right to due process............. .. ......... .. .... ........................6 WOIO's Proposition of Law No. 3: A statement that conveys no greater opprobrium than the literal truth is not materially false for purposes of a defamation claim ..........................11 1. Material falsity is a constitutional requirement that plaintiff cannot meet........... 1 l 2. Where the defaniatozy "sting" of a publication is true, the plaintiff cannot establish material falsity ..... ......... .....................................................................11 i 3. Broadcasting that plaintiff was "wanted" for a crime is not materially false when the literal truth is that he had already been convicted of that crime and was wanted for several other crimes ............................................. .......:........13 CO:VCLUSION ............................................. .... ... ...............:.........................................15 PROOF OF SEIZVICE ....................................................................>..........................................16 APPENDIX Appendix Page Judgment Entry and Opinion, Eighth District (August 15, 2013) ................................................................... .... ....................................1 Judgment Entry and Order, Eighth District en banc (September 20, 2013) .................. ...................,31 Judgment Entry and Opinion, Eighth District October 24, 2013) ...... ......... ..................................................................................... ................33 Opinion and Order of the Trial Court granting Summary Judgment (November 26, 2012) ............................................ ,......., .....;............;....................................:...45 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES A.li v. Arrzerica's Most Wanled, 984 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn.App.1998) ..........................................................................................14 Arnann v. C'lear Channel Communications, Inc., 165 Ohio App.3d 291, 2006-Ohio-714, 846 N.E.2d 95 (1 st Dist.) . .......................................... 8 Andersoaa v. Baker, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-438, 2008-Ohio-6919 ................................................................7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 T_,.Ed.2d 202 (1986)................... ...................._....................4 Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 478 N.E.2d 721 (Mass.1985) .. .......................................................................10 Armen Boladiata, Bridgep'ort Music, Inc. v. UMG Recorclings, Inc., 123 Fed.Appx. 165 (6th Cir.2005) ...... ............................................................... .................10 Azcvil v. CT35, F.Supp. 928 (E.D.Wash.1992) ..............,..............................................................................9, 10 Baby Tenda of Greater Ciyicinnati. Inc. v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 63 Ohio App.3d 550, 579 N.E.2d 522 (1989) ....................................................... ......... .........8 Bays v. hror•thwestern Local.Sehool District, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 98C:A0027, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3343 (July 21, 1999) ..................... 8 Behr v. Meredith CorB., 414 N.W.2d '139 (Iowa 1987) ..................................................................................................11 Brown v. Courier Herald Publ 'g Co., Inc., 700 p.Supp. 534 (S..D.Ga.1988) ...................................................:......................................9, 10 Bruss v. Vindicator Printing Co., 109 Ohio App.3d 396, 672 N.E.2d 238 (7th Dist.1996) ..........................................................12 13ryks v. Canadian Braad. Corp., 928 F. Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ......................................................................... .......,....9; 10 Cantrell v. F'orest City Pubi g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct. 465, 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974) ............ ...................................................5 iii Cole v. StaN Tribune, 581 N.W.2d 364 (Minn.Ct.App.1998) ....................................................................................10 Danger°fielcl v. Star Editorial, Inc., 9th Cir. No. 95-55387, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23401 (Sept. 5, 1996) ........................... ....:....6 Dental Care Clinie v. lIcDonough, 8th Dist. Cuuahoga No.50242, 1986 WL 2672 (Feb. 27, 1986) ............... ......... .................11 Desnick v, Anaerican BYocrca'. Co., Inc., 44 h.3d 1345 (7th Cir.1995) ....................................................................................................11 Dinkel v. Lincoln Pub. Co., 93 Ohio App.3d 344, 638 N.E.2d 611 (12th Dist.1994).......................... ......................... .. ........... v. Budget Car Sales, Inc., l Oth Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-530, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 1790 (Apri120, 1999) ................7 Early v. Toledo Blade, 130 Ohio App.3d 302, 720 N.E.2d 107 (6th Dist.1998) ..........................................................13 Fish v. Heatherdowns Country Club Assoc., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-90-072, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2637 (June 7, 1991.) ...........................7 Fuchs v. ScYipps Howard Broadcasting Co., 170 Ohio App.3d 679, 2006-Ohio-5349, 868 N.E.2d 1024 ......................................................8 Gedra v. DallmeN Co., 153 Ohio St. 258, 91 N.E.2d 256 (1950) .................................................... ......... ..................5 Crertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997 L.E.2d 789 (1974) .......................................................................4 Gist v. Ilcacon